Sheffield United - Tottenham

[GraemeS]

Indeed, and I've never argued against that last sentence.

Dale Johnson has clarified that the PL have told him it was the incorrect restart and Dermot Gallagher said on Sky this morning that play should have restarted with a free-kick to Tottenham.

What I don't really understand is how they missed this part. Michael Oliver has all the angles/replays he needs so surely he should be helping out there. Gallagher suggested on Sky 'the VAR can only tell the referee to disallow the goal and the rest is up to the referee' but that's a ridiculous protocol. If this was a Champions League game the referee would have looked at the pitchside monitor (like with Anthony Taylor in the PSG V Real Madrid game), seen the sequence of events, and presumably restarted with a free-kick to the attacking team as the advantage didn't accrue. The point of not using the pitchside monitors was meant to be to make the decision making process more efficient, not to force a referee into making incorrect decisions because he's only allowed to receive 50% of the informaiotn.

I'm not totally convinced this is "wrong" as such. If the advantage had been played and Kane's shot had gone wide, would any of us have brought it back for the FK? I think conventional wisdom says no - the advantage occurred, it just happened to not end in a goal.

Well....isn't that last sentence kind of what happened? Advantage was played, it didn't result in a goal, so the advantage is done.

I admit it's a little tenuous and it's obvious that giving the attacking FK would have been a better approach. I just think I'd describe the defensive free kick as a "worse" or even "less good" implementation of the advantage law, rather than a "wrong" implementation.

 

[onthebrink]

I'm not totally convinced this is "wrong" as such. If the advantage had been played and Kane's shot had gone wide, would any of us have brought it back for the FK? I think conventional wisdom says no - the advantage occurred, it just happened to not end in a goal.

Well....isn't that last sentence kind of what happened? Advantage was played, it didn't result in a goal, so the advantage is done.

I admit it's a little tenuous and it's obvious that giving the attacking FK would have been a better approach. I just think I'd describe the defensive free kick as a "worse" or even "less good" implementation of the advantage law, rather than a "wrong" implementation.

I think the situation you describe is different.

In that case (and if we imagine there was no handball), Spurs would have had the advantage of the move continuing. If Kane scores it counts, if it misses then it's no goal. But they have the possibility of scoring.

In this situation, there was no possibility of advantage because of the handball. VAR's judgement means that the advantage never really happened because it's taking play back to a phase before the advantage was actually played.

 

[GraemeS]

I think the situation you describe is different.

In that case (and if we imagine there was no handball), Spurs would have had the advantage of the move continuing. If Kane scores it counts, if it misses then it's no goal. But they have the possibility of scoring.

In this situation, there was no possibility of advantage because of the handball. VAR's judgement means that the advantage never really happened because it's taking play back to a phase before the advantage was actually played.

The problem is, we now start to bog down in what-if's based on this poorly-thought-out HB law. For example, what if Kan had squared it for someone else to tap-in instead of shooting. That would have been a goal, right? So again, I can argue (as advocate!) that by shooting rather than passing, it's was Kane's actions that caused the advantage to not accrue.....

 

[Ciley Myrus]

It has to be a fk to Spurs

there is really not much else needing to be discussed

its textbook what will have happened to us all, midfielder plays pass forward, gets fouled, ball goes forward, you think 'advantage' but turns out the strikers offside, so, we go back to the fk

too many folk getting ball deep in VAR protocol and over looking basic simple refereeing methinks

 

[one]

I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong, but I thought the restart following a VAR goal check could only be a goal or a free kick for the offence confirmed by VAR, e.g. IDFK for offside or in this case DFK for handling. I didn't think they could go back to award a free kick, I might be wrong though. Either way, there can't be any argument that disallowing the goal wasn't the correct decision, it has hit his arm and no matter how accidental that was it is a foul in the current laws.

And I am happy to oblige
The restart for a VAR goal check can be any of the existing restarts. There is no 'only'. Unless you are talking about this specific scenario.

 

[PinnerPaul]

Law is a farce but as above VAR applied the (awful) law correctly.

Despite that Gabby Logan called it the worse VAR decision of the season and Jermaine Jenas said surely he could have showed 'common sense' and allowed the goal. At least Alan Shearer acknowledged that MO had no choice given the law, I doubt messers Logan and Jenas have ever read the laws!

 

[bloovee]

It has to be a fk to Spurs

there is really not much else needing to be discussed

its textbook what will have happened to us all, midfielder plays pass forward, gets fouled, ball goes forward, you think 'advantage' but turns out the strikers offside, so, we go back to the fk

too many folk getting ball deep in VAR protocol and over looking basic simple refereeing methinks

Sorry but that's not what happened. Kane wasn't offside. Mahrez wasn't offside. If you'd seen an attacker accidentally handle the ball only because he was fouled and the ball goes to a teammate through on goal, and he puts it in the net, you're going to ignore a basic 'spirit of the game' principle of playing advantage and award a FK. Is this really what football expects?

I'd be inclined to say "stuff the textbook", I saw no handball.

VAR can't do that.

 

[bloovee]

Query from City fan site.

The ball is heading into goal. Defender (one of two on the line) grabs an opponent's arm and raises it to stop the ball. The ball touches the attacker's hand and goes in goal.

Obviously under this stupid law it's not a goal.

What is it?

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Sorry but that's not what happened. Kane wasn't offside. Mahez wasn't offside. If you'd seen an attacker accidentally handle the ball only because he was fouled and the ball goes to a teammate through on goal, and he puts it in the net, you're going to ignore a basic 'spirit of the game' principle of playing advantage and award a FK. Is this really what football expects?

I'd be inclined to say "stuff the textbook", I saw no handball.

VAR can't do that.

Nowhere did I say it happened. I was using it as an example of a situation all, if not most of us, can understand, as it will have happened to us

Maybe when you digest and appreciate that, you can retort and if inclined, I may furnish you with a dignified response.

oh wee thing to bear in mind before you embarrass yourself, VAR, as we get drummed down our throats, over and over again, is ready??

NOT THERE TO RE REFEREE GAMES

so, now you might grasp what VAR can and cannot do, you might be able to contribute more wisely......

 

[bloovee]

Law is a farce but as above VAR applied the (awful) law correctly.

Despite that Gabby Logan called it the worse VAR decision of the season and Jermaine Jenas said surely he could have showed 'common sense' and allowed the goal. At least Alan Shearer acknowledged that MO had no choice given the law, I doubt messers Logan and Jenas have ever read the laws!

It might be the right decision and still be the worst.

 

[JamesL]

Query from City fan site.

The ball is heading into goal. Defender (one of two on the line) grabs an opponent's arm and raises it to stop the ball. The ball touches the attacker's hand and goes in goal.

Obviously under this stupid law it's not a goal.

What is it?

Penalty for holding offence at best.

 

[Nij]

Just checking the changes for 20/21, and they are still badly drafted.



"• after the ball has touched their or a team-mate’s
hand/arm, even if accidental, immediately:
• scores in the opponents’ goal
• creates a goal-scoring opportunity"

"Clarification that:

• if an attacking player accidentally touches the ball with their hand/arm and the ball then
goes to another attacking player and the attacking team immediately scores, this is a
handball offence;
• it is not an offence if, after an accidental handball, the ball travels some distance (pass
or dribble) and/or there are several passes before the goal or goal-scoring opportunity."

Dribble? What exactly is a dribble? Can you dribble without an opponent? How close to the ball does the player need to be?
Immediately? How long is that?
How far is some distance?
How many is several?
and/or? Seriously? It can't be both.

Frankly, IFAB are getting worse.

It's almost as if they think referees aren't stupid and can make decisions based on understanding the game combined with looking at the play in context.

Judging from many of the posts in recent threads, I'm more and more convinced that this is not true at all, and footballers (whether they kick the ball or blow the whistle) need simple instructions with monosyllabic words to manage a game so simple that children can re-invent it on a playground.

 

[PinnerPaul]

It might be the right decision and still be the worst.

Not in the context she and JJ used it. Its not the worst decision because of VAR, its the actually the best example of why the law change doesn't work. Its also example number 452 of why VAR isn't 'quite' the solution everyone wanted! You can't bring in a technology based system to make sure that the referees don't miss law infringements and then moan when erm......it highlights a law infringement the referee (in this case through no fault of his own) missed. I'm not buying the 'spirit of the law' argument either - this law was changed specifically (and wrongly we all agree) for this type of incident - you can't, as a referee. ignore law changes you don't like!

 

[RustyRef]

Not in the context she and JJ used it. Its not the worst decision because of VAR, its the actually the best example of why the law change doesn't work. Its also example number 452 of why VAR isn't 'quite' the solution everyone wanted! You can't bring in a technology based system to make sure that the referees don't miss law infringements and then moan when erm......it highlights a law infringement the referee (in this case through no fault of his own) missed. I'm not buying the 'spirit of the law' argument either - this law was changed specifically (and wrongly we all agree) for this type of incident - you can't, as a referee. ignore law changes you don't like!

Not sure I totally agree, the law was changed because of incidents where players accidentally scored with their hands or arms, that was the controversy. Something like this wouldn't have even been discussed and no one would have had a problem with the goal.

But under the law as it is they had no option but to disallow the goal.

 

[one]

I am not sure why some ppl are arguing under current law this goal should be disallowed. This goal should have stood because it did not create a goal scoring opportunity. It created a build up which lead to a goal scoring opportunity and then a goal.

Yes the law could have been clearer but even under the current law this goal should have stood.
Next year's law has been changed so the intent is clearer by adding the word immediately. That is "touched their or a team-mate’s hand/arm... Immediately creates a goal-scoring opportunity"

 

[santa sangria]

Overall, I wonder if making any contact with the hand by an attacker in connection with a goal an offence... is it really what football expects?

We’ve seen some important goals chalked off for trifling, accidental, unconscious, inavoidable handballs... it’s hard for IFAB to go back now... but I think we might be in a better place if the LotG said ”accidental handball is part of football...” and then define the laws from there...?

 

[bloovee]

Not in the context she and JJ used it. Its not the worst decision because of VAR, its the actually the best example of why the law change doesn't work. Its also example number 452 of why VAR isn't 'quite' the solution everyone wanted! You can't bring in a technology based system to make sure that the referees don't miss law infringements and then moan when erm......it highlights a law infringement the referee (in this case through no fault of his own) missed. I'm not buying the 'spirit of the law' argument either - this law was changed specifically (and wrongly we all agree) for this type of incident - you can't, as a referee. ignore law changes you don't like!

Oh, I don't know. " An indirect free kick is awarded to the opposing team if a goalkeeper, inside his own penalty area, controls the ball with his hands for more than six seconds before releasing it from his possession"

Essentially, reading this, you realise that keepers won that contest: https://www.fifa.com/news/goalkeepers-are-not-above-the-law-72050

 

[bloovee]

I am not sure why some ppl are arguing under current law this goal should be disallowed. This goal should have stood because it did not create a goal scoring opportunity. It created a build up which lead to a goal scoring opportunity and then a goal.

Yes the law could have been clearer but even under the current law this goal should have stood.
Next year's law has been changed so the intent is clearer by adding the word immediately. That is "touched their or a team-mate’s hand/arm... Immediately creates a goal-scoring opportunity"

See the "Seen on TV" forum... Define "immediately".

I think I preferred the old way with "IFAB decisions" tacked on to the basic laws, then later the annual "Q&A", which had definitive rulings that could still change more easily than changing the laws - e.g. whether a player could head the ball out of the GK's outstretched hand; one year you couldn't, then you could, then you couldn't. Frankly I blame the Americans for making stuff up about interpretation in their "Ask the Referee" website.

 

[GraemeS]

It's almost as if they think referees aren't stupid and can make decisions based on understanding the game combined with looking at the play in context.

Judging from many of the posts in recent threads, I'm more and more convinced that this is not true at all, and footballers (whether they kick the ball or blow the whistle) need simple instructions with monosyllabic words to manage a game so simple that children can re-invent it on a playground.

It depends on what you think IFAB are trying to achieve really. We've long been aware of different interpretations of deliberate handball between English referee and European referees - are we fine and happy to accept this, or do we think the sport should be the same worldwide?

Rightly or wrongly, IFAB have clearly and openly taken the latter approach. They want a standardised sport, where every match is refereed the same and decisions will be as consistent as possible from game to game, country to country (allowing for some limitations such as what the referee's fitness allows him to perceive on the day). That means the rules get more and more specific, and it means that any inconsistencies or gaps that do exist in the law become important, because they detract from the overall goal of standardising the way the sport is refereed. So we debate them.

You could quite happily take the opposite approach and tell players that turn up "Here's a pitch, here's a ball, here's the referee - let's see what happens and hope he doesn't do anything too crazy". The inevitable consequence of this is that matches I referee will go very differently to the 80's style matches @Sheffields Finest looks after and so on with every other one of the thousands of referees around the world. I'm perfectly able to judge context and alter my decisions appropriately - but that's not what I'm employed to do, I'm employed to understand the laws and apply them as written.

 

[one]

Immediately defined