You are totally wrong. The Laws are written in order to remove ambiguity. That's why there are so many clauses and clarifications in them.
Show me in The Laws of the Game where it says there are two types of handball. Show me where PGMOL had said they didn't take action against Henderson because he was only just outside his area. These things only live in your imagination.
You've created a strawman. I didn't make such arguments. I gave my take on the situation and expressed an opinion that a red card would have been "harsh" there due to his proximity to the edge of the box. While I didn't claim that I knew that this consideration went into their decision, I do wonder if it may have and would like to hear the VAR audio for clarification. I also pointed out that, at least for situations inside the box, consideration for handballs generally and how they are carded does depend on whether they conclude that it was deliberate or not.
What is curious about the laws is that it would seem that while they have this consideration for handballs inside the box, they would seem to not for handballs outside the box. On the other hand, it is unclear if that is applied to GK handballs outside the box. But it begs the question, why would the carding of a handball (for outfield players) be more lenient inside the box than outside the box? And the double or triple jeopardy argument doesn't hold water because conventional wisdom would have you believe that the punishment (carding) of an infraction shouldn't change by crossing the line, at least not for the outfield players. The GK situation, on the other hand, is a unique one given that it's only a foul outside and not in, but that doesn't by definition apply it to the language which presumably is meant to be applied to handballs related to outfield players. Still the distinction is important and curious on a number of levels.
Controversy only happens when officials start to apply their own interpretations that differ from the Laws.
That's a misnomer I would say. And the evidence of this is when they tried to make handballs factual in the early days of VAR only for it to cause far more controversy then there ever was before. You see, as a reaction to VAR being introduced they tried to streamline the way in which fouls are interpreted and the results are nothing short of disastrous in that it has caused more controversy than ever before and it caused them to rethink all that and rectify many of those changes. And in the case of the Henderson handball, their own red tape for what they need to conclude about it has caused them to be unable to correct the error, which created the controversy.
As a former official though I can appreciate your point of the need to apply the laws "by the book" and on that point I can agree with. However I would also point out that VAR has had the effect of changing many of the LOTG which in turn have caused far more controversy than intended. Further, the inconsistency of the decision-making process in VAR decisions would suggest that they are in fact applying their own interpretations to many situations and what someone like me is looking for is clarity, consistency, and most importantly common sense.
For example, look at the proposal by Barcelona :
Inconsistencies in refereeing decisions have long been a sore point in La Liga, which, in turn, has gravely impacted the prestige of the league. From controversial handball calls to unclear VAR interv...
sports.yahoo.com
Their goal is to bring greater clarity, fairness, and accountability to decisions that can heavily influence match outcomes.
The first of Barcelona’s proposals calls for the unification of refereeing standards.
The club want VAR referees to follow clearly defined and consistent criteria when judging incidents like penalties, handballs, or red cards.
etc
So on the one hand you're stressing the point about the need to apply the laws rather than make up their own interpretations of the laws in the decision-making process, which of course I agree with. However that's precisely what they have been accused of not doing on a regular basis!
Thirdly, the club is asking for clear, objective criteria for VAR interventions. Rather than leaving everything to subjective interpretation, Barcelona believe VAR reviews should only be triggered when certain concrete conditions are met.
So what Barcelona is asking for for what you're also asking for. Clear and consistent application of the laws. The problem is, many of the laws and the changes to the laws on a year to year basis remain unclear and are open to interpretation. And further, football by its very nature has always relied on a largely subjective element to the decision-making process. VAR has tried to make a lot of that subjectivity factual and has demonstrably failed miserably at that.
