VAR: Sponsored by Chelsea

[billyiddo]

Where has the twitter post gone from yesterday evening which showed the slow-mo replay? Can't seem find it here or in the match thread


Found it but the video has been taken down

https://twitter.com/x/status/1018524759410257922

It's pretty clear.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Where has the twitter post gone from yesterday evening which showed the slow-mo replay? Can't seem find it here or in the match thread

is it here https://www.clippituser.tv/c/ypyvqn

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Have to say that looks deliberate to me. The second angle, arm goes down and palm opens to go for the ball...

 

[r-u-s-x]

Not disputing it looks deliberate to you or billy, its interpretation isn't it -we have all seen the replays and majority think its not - which was always the point.

 

[billyiddo]

is it here https://www.clippituser.tv/c/ypyvqn

Thanks - second angle in that vid is what was shown in the twitter post i refered to and afaic that justifies my position, honestly don't know how it's even a debate having watched it again.

 

[Spur of the moment]

Have to say that looks deliberate to me. The second angle, arm goes down and palm opens to go for the ball...

Proof if ever it were needed that it is indeed possible to react within a split second. Hitherto it's always been argued that no pen should ever be given for contact at such seemingly ridiculous short range.

Yet if we are honest with ourselves we all know how instinct can take over and react instantly to protect ourselves or whatever. Most who play footy regularly will have either reacted with similar lightning speed on occasion or witnessed others doing the same.

So it's high time tv pundits like Shearer woke up and realised they are talking garbage when they say a player had no time to react. Short memories or what?

 

[r-u-s-x]

Every one has seen these replays, it's not new information. It is still debatable, in fact majority of outlets, pundits, players and the refs I have heard interviewed say no penalty.

 

[Baleforce]

Proof if ever it were needed that it is indeed possible to react within a split second. Hitherto it's always been argued that no pen should ever be given for contact at such seemingly ridiculous short range.

Yet if we are honest with ourselves we all know how instinct can take over and react instantly to protect ourselves or whatever. Most who play footy regularly will have either reacted with similar lightning speed on occasion or witnessed others doing the same.

So it's high time tv pundits like Shearer woke up and realised they are talking garbage when they say a player had no time to react. Short memories or what?

if its instinctive its not considered, hence not deliberate

 

[Lemonade Money]

is it here https://www.clippituser.tv/c/ypyvqn

That is so deliberate handball, I can't believe people are arguing the opposite. Another telling sign, was the lack of dispute from Perisic.

 

[Spur of the moment]

if its instinctive its not considered, hence not deliberate

Watching it it's hard to escape the conclusion that there was intent to play the ball. It was Instinctively batted into safety. In other words even in that split second the defender CHOSE to try and fend the ball away from danger. Thus a deliberate handball. I struggle to see how anyone who watches it with an open mind can come to any other conclusion, but there you go.

 

[scaramanga]

To anyone suggesting he didn't have time to react;

He moves both his hand and leg at the same time, towards the same point. He clearly sees and reacts to the ball and goes for it with both his arm and leg. Not many are clearer than that IMO.

 

[Baleforce]

Watching it it's hard to escape the conclusion that there was intent to play the ball. It was Instinctively batted into safety. In other words even in that split second the defender CHOSE to try and fend the ball away from danger. Thus a deliberate handball. I struggle to see how anyone who watches it with an open mind can come to any other conclusion, but there you go.

I was speaking generally

 

[Spur of the moment]

I was speaking generally

And I was using that example to suggest your point does not stand up.

 

[Baleforce]

And I was using that example to suggest your point does not stand up.

It’s not a point, it’s the definition of the wording used in the laws of the game.

 

[Bullet]

That is one of the best decisions ever made in the history of refereeing. The referee should get a golden whistle for spotting that.

 

[Spur of the moment]

It’s not a point, it’s the definition of the wording used in the laws of the game.

So it needs to be changed.

 

[Baleforce]

So it needs to be changed.

Yep, either the wording or the enforcement.

 

[jts1882]

an argument I do not necessarily agree with but...

As there are so many subjective calls for the ref, having the board and the ref both make decisions means two different filters / tolerance's for fouls. This means a lack of consistency and a drop in standards. Fifa also mentioned in their blurb when introducing VAR that they did not want to undermine the on field referee by allowing someone hirer up to over-rule them.

This is an important point. Different referees interpret the game differently, but we can hope that a referee is consistent throughout a game; the good ones usually are. I think the world cup final referee would have been far better for England as he wouldn't have let Lovren get away with so many yellow card offences. The semi-final ref was more lenient and also let England get away with some stuff.

For the handball incident I don't see how anyone can say it was clear cut. There is clearly disagreement among professional referees. If there are several such calls in a game you want they adjudicated the same way, which wouldn't be the case if the VAR ref makes the final call.

However, speed is also an issue so I'm undecided. If VAR overrides lenient referees we may see the rules enforced more strictly and consistently, which could be better. On the other hand, it takes away the ability of a good referee to "manage the game".

 

[jts1882]

It’s not a point, it’s the definition of the wording used in the laws of the game.

The problem is that the interpretation guidelines (e.g. natural position of arm, movement to ball) are not consistent with a strict (and common-sense) interpretation of the rule (requiring handball to be intentional).

I would change the rule to make all handballs an offence, but only give indirect free kicks if not considered intentional. Clearly intentional handball would still be a direct free kick or penalty.

Penalties are a very harsh sanction so the difference between getting one or not is vast, too much for close subjective calls. Indirect freekicks in the box would provide a compromise and probably add some excitement (and/or mayhem).

In general, I think indirect free kicks should be used more. Obstruction when the ball is rolling out of play should be called. It's absurd when a player can block another over 5m as the ball runs out of play. The penalty box grappling at corners and free kicks should also be called obstruction. At a stretch you could call an accidental handball obstruction as it interferes with a player getting to the ball. It provides some support for my suggestion about changing the rules of handball being in the spirit of the traditional rules.

 

[Spur of the moment]

For the handball incident I don't see how anyone can say it was clear cut.

Regardless, it seemed during this WC that very close-range handball incidents were much more likely to be penalised than they are in the PL. From memory there were a number of occasions when UK commentators scoffed at such decisions.