A&H

Southampton v Aston Villa

The Referee Store
The get out is that it bounced off his thigh onto his arm, although you can only see that from one camera angle. Its the angle from the opposite side of the assistant, it clearly bounces off his thigh onto his outstretched arm.
 
Like RR said, he still gained an advantage by making his body unnecessarily bigger and therefore it’s got to be a pen and RC IMO, whether the poor wording of the law will end up with a change in interpretation again like the Rodri one I wouldn’t be surprised.
 
Can I be pedantic here, as it's been mentioned in another thread, about time keeping and the blowing dead on the minimum minute added.

Not accounting for any other lost time in that first half, I don't recall any injuries, or anything of the like, but using the video in the tweet, the ball went out of play at 07:52 minutes gone. Play resumed 09:40. That's 1 minute and 48 seconds lost to VAR.
He played about 1 minute and 2 seconds extra.
Again, I assume no other time would be added because nothing else occurred.

This is good evidence that they genuinely seem to blow up on the minimum added than what the game should be (45 minutes).
 
Hmmm. I assume they are using the unless deliberately played and then touches hand arm that is above/extended beyond the shoulder....
Smells like a handball to me though!
 
I’ve never understood the wording off the handball law.

Even if it did hit his thigh he still moves his arm towards the ball so pen and rc, no?
It is an offence if a player:
• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball


Except for the above offences, it is not an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:
• directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)
Click to expand...
 
RustyRef said:
The get out is that it bounced off his thigh onto his arm, although you can only see that from one camera angle. Its the angle from the opposite side of the assistant, it clearly bounces off his thigh onto his outstretched arm.
Click to expand...
Doesn't that only apply if it's a deliberate play by the defender? As the commentator mentions, we saw in Liverpool V Leeds a penalty given after the ball deflected off the knee area onto an outstretched hand and I think it was stated even after the changes after round 3 that that would still have bene a penalty.
 
onthebrink said:
Doesn't that only apply if it's a deliberate play by the defender? As the commentator mentions, we saw in Liverpool V Leeds a penalty given after the ball deflected off the knee area onto an outstretched hand and I think it was stated even after the changes after round 3 that that would still have bene a penalty.
Click to expand...

No ...

it is not an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:

• directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)

Nothing about a deliberate play. If the arm was above the shoulder then it would still be a penalty, but the only remaining question here is was the arm in an unexpected position, if yes it would override the condition I have posted above.
 
RustyRef said:
No ...

it is not an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:

• directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)

Nothing about a deliberate play. If the arm was above the shoulder then it would still be a penalty, but the only remaining question here is was the arm in an unexpected position, if yes it would override the condition I have posted above.
Click to expand...
You missed out the except for the above offences that appears just before and above that, or rather the ref and VAR might have done.
 
JamesL said:
You missed out the except for the above offences that appears just before and above that, or rather the ref and VAR might have done.
Click to expand...

I didn't, as I was specifically answering the question around whether it needs to be a deliberate play.

For the offences listed above, the arm certainly wasn't above the shoulder, so it just has to be decided whether his arm made him unnaturally bigger. I wouldn't say a penalty was wrong, but it is very subjective as to whether his arm should have been there or not.
 
As said earlier.....some strange decision make in this game, the handball is as clear a handball as I've seen all season. The deflection off the knee is irrelevant, the hand is away from the body and moves towards the ball. I just cant see how its not given and the deflection being the reasoning is wrong.

The offside call is a another I just cant agree with either. I've been called out before after claiming the offside calls made by VAR can be manipulated by the the official's sat in a room deciding where the lines are being drawn, someone claimed offsides are black and white, after seeing that tonight I totally disagree. And funnily enough it was the same VAR Ref tonight who called 'offside' for Bamfords goal at Palace for Leeds for his arm being out in front.

The top Refs are actually making things harder for us at grassroots level. They appear to have their own interpretation and are changing things without making explanations and rulings public.
 
Because the arm is below his shoulder, the deflection from his knee is irrelevant. The only consideration is if the position of the arm makes the player "unnaturally bigger"; I believe this criterion is met.
 
Side note, can anyone explain what the indirect free kick restart is for. I'm guessing offside? But I couldn't really see an offside offence
 
Do you get the feeling if this was an attacker and a goal was scored 10 seconds later, VAR would have disallowed the goal? From a reasoning view point this is not different from the Firmino handball a few days ago. Off the body, hand moving to ball...

I also think if this was in the first few games of the season it would have been given. My theory is they are consciously trying to reduce penalties due to handball as the stats from earlier in the season were getting ridiculous.

The offside given is not surprising. At least they are consistent on the armpit being near the elbow and adjusting the lines untill they get the result they want.
 
As for justifying a decision using LOTG, I don't know why do we even bother. That law is written so badly that can be interpreted whichever way you like. But hey, here is another one.

Screenshot_20210131-142329.jpg

Bullet points like this mean if only one of them is true then you don't need to look at the rest. So I've cut the list short. The very first point in my opinion is true. It is deliberate. So no need to look at the rest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top