If you whistle for that handball, the shot was (more or less) on goal, so therefore, it's a caution classed under Stopping a Promising Attack.
VAR - Everton vs Spurs Son “penalty”
- Thread starter TSHudson
- Start date
- Status
one
RefChat Addict
Not quite. What they are saying (or at least what they should be saying) is that in this case, we can separate the tackle itself from the consequence. I don't see why you would assume it should never be a factor. But I do see why you would like a clarification.
On another note, if they have flipped on their clarification in the case of Son red card, Can they flip on their clarification in the case of Son "armpit-gate"?
Maybe we can get the EPL disciplinary department to renegotiate Brexit, the have experience now in not knowing their arse from their elbow.
I perfectly understand changing in but why post advice condoning it on Sunday night?? Absolute clueless
Two completely separate entities. The clarification on Sunday night came from PGMOL The sending off was overturned by a FA disciplinary panel formed of ex-referees and players. PGMOL don't even report directly into the FA.
It's another example of laws being vague and contradictory. Although as others have said Ali's had appeared to come up after he was challenged so there is no intentional act there at all.
Handball law needs a total rewrite. The changes in the Summer were supposed to make it less confusing, but it has had the totally opposite effect.
Fair enough but what a dogs dinner it’s become!
Honestly, for the rest of the world, what the Laws now say is (other than the handball leading to goal scoring opportunity) what we've been doing for 2-3 years.
England has, like VAR, chosen to go their own way on handball for some unknown reason.
Seems like a case of trying to protect their own! A clear mistake was made, perhaps understandable given the emotion of the moment and rather than just admitting it was a mistake, they came out with a ridiculous statement trying to justify it.
Iain
iaindw1
I agree. if you had given yellow and player had a broken ankle and u did not send the player off. yellow in prem. its a red on a sunday morning. dont give a red. your not leaving that pitch unscathed and with out abuse.
I know this is ill-advised, but I've found myself publicly apologising for the HB Law on those occasions in which I've blatantly given a different decision at different ends of the FOP for exactly the same hand and ball contact
The players and coaches have responded OK on seeing my own exasperation mirror there's
The players and coaches have responded OK on seeing my own exasperation mirror there's
I am pretty opposed to this opinion.
I've always had a schooling of punish the action not the outcome.
A broken bone does not always result in a red card.
I do agree that sometimes this can help us judge the extent of force used but we should be looking at the players action as the first and foremost factor when judging the severity of a sanction.
I do agree there will be few fouls that break lega that rent reds but they do exist and we can't just send players off based on result of an action.
Toward the end of last season I had a player go in for a tackle, clatter his opponent, bounce off that opponent, land on his wrist and break it. Loud snap, scream of pain, the works. When he eventually managed to be helped off the field, we restarted with a FK to his opponents and no one really argued. As you rightly say, just because he broke a bone, doesn't change the fact it was his foul that caused play to be stopped.
Justylove
RefChat Addict
I had a tackle last season that ended up with an abandonment due to a leg break.
It was a foul, my reaction was yellow and the fouled player twisted and landed funny. Called the physio on to treat the player, cautioned the offender and it was only AFTER it became apparent on the severity, that players started questioning whether it should have been a red, purely based on outcome.
Interesting take but not really relevant.
Correct in that it wasn't an accident, however the injury was not. How often do we see shirt pulls/trips etc when breaking up a counter attack. DO we red card all of these if there's an injury?
It’s ENTIRELY relevant.
The suggestion is the challenge is a deliberate act and is not an attempt to play the ball. That is another perspective and consideration for the SFP argument
I argued similar with a colleague basically word for word as that was wrote. Great post @teasmaid
Kes
I'll Decide ...
It's not relevant. What some bloke on Facebook thinks, is exactly that. The LOTG are what is relevant here. Every challenge is a deliberate act.
- Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
The fact remains (emotion aside) that the above is exactly what Son did and under Law 12 the correct sanction is a caution.
- Status