moon
Well-Known Member
Walton would have said accidental handball today if BT covered the game today
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Var debate 2019/20
- Thread starter Chi-town blues
- Start date
B
B
blueinsa
Guest
Walton would have said accidental handball today if BT covered the game today
He would have ruled the goal out for a dangerous kick of the ball from Kun into the defenders chest as well!
Mancini Manus Domini
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 Dec 2010
- Messages
- 1,674
But goal decision system is beautiful.
Can we have an offside decision system?
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
Does the current FIFA rule allow for goals to be scored or assisted with the aid of an attacker's arm?
I don't think that says anything about it, other than the rule of deliberate handball.
If a player had his arms crossed across his chest, is hit by a clearance on the arm, the ball then ricochets into the goal, that's off his arm, but I think most people wouldn't mind it being given.
The questions on Llorente to my mind are:
- was it deliberate? Did he play the ball with his arm (as opposed to being hit by it)?
I don't think so.
- was his arm away from his body?
I don't think it was, but this seems to me to be an area when a ref could see it either way within the laws at the moment.
To my mind, it's very much ref's call as to whether it's a freekick or not, and the laws don't help the ref out.
If a player has his arms on his chest and the ball accidentaly hits the arms and he scores from a follow up shot, should it be given? The issue here is not whether it was deliberate or not (even though I firmly believe it was deliberate; if you watch the video closely you'd see that he hits the ball slightly with his forearm and doesn't attempt to withdraw his arm even when he knew the ball was approaching his arm region) but that he gained an advantage to score a goal from an illegal part of his body.I don't think that says anything about it, other than the rule of deliberate handball.
If a player had his arms crossed across his chest, is hit by a clearance on the arm, the ball then ricochets into the goal, that's off his arm, but I think most people wouldn't mind it being given.
The questions on Llorente to my mind are:
- was it deliberate? Did he play the ball with his arm (as opposed to being hit by it)?
I don't think so.
- was his arm away from his body?
I don't think it was, but this seems to me to be an area when a ref could see it either way within the laws at the moment.
To my mind, it's very much ref's call as to whether it's a freekick or not, and the laws don't help the ref out.
There is no way a goal assisted with an attackers arm (no matter how slight) is permitted under the current rules.
I don't think that says anything about it, other than the rule of deliberate handball.
If a player had his arms crossed across his chest, is hit by a clearance on the arm, the ball then ricochets into the goal, that's off his arm, but I think most people wouldn't mind it being given.
The questions on Llorente to my mind are:
- was it deliberate? Did he play the ball with his arm (as opposed to being hit by it)?
I don't think so.
- was his arm away from his body?
I don't think it was, but this seems to me to be an area when a ref could see it either way within the laws at the moment.
To my mind, it's very much ref's call as to whether it's a freekick or not, and the laws don't help the ref out.
You keep implying, that its debatable. I would totally agree, IF Eufa hadn't specifically issued a directive, stating that with the addition of VAR, the impending (June 1st) changes to the rules with regards to handball were to be implemented from the round of 16. Quite a few people have stately that, plainly, and unequivocally, on TV (including that cheating c**t Walton, whose initial response was "it hit his knee). They specifically referred many times to this directive, when discussing penalties at Schalke, PSG and Tottenham. The directive should have ruled Llorente's effort out, and they all eventually conceded as such, however the debate moved onto the angles shown to the referee. Had he been shown the correct angle, whereby the ball clearly hit his arm (Llorente admitted as much in Spanish Tv interview), the "goal" would and should have been disallowed. I'm sorry its not even debatable, and i repeat what has been posted many times (intent or body outline do not even come into it for an attacker!
Nobody needs to like the rule changes, but please stop saying they haven't changed them.
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
If a player has his arms on his chest and the ball accidentaly hits the arms and he scores from a follow up shot, should it be given? The issue here is not whether it was deliberate or not (even though I firmly believe it was deliberate; if you watch the video closely you'd see that he hits the ball slightly with his forearm and doesn't attempt to withdraw his arm even when he knew the ball was approaching his arm region) but that he gained an advantage to score a goal from an illegal part of his body.
There is no way a goal assisted with an attackers arm (no matter how slight) is permitted under the current rules.
All of that I consider a valid opinion. I just don't think it's the only valid opinion possible.
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
You keep implying, that its debatable. I would totally agree, IF Eufa hadn't specifically issued a directive, stating that with the addition of VAR, the impending (June 1st) changes to the rules with regards to handball were to be implemented from the round of 16. Quite a few people have stately that, plainly, and unequivocally, on TV (including that cheating c**t Walton, whose initial response was "it hit his knee). They specifically referred many times to this directive, when discussing penalties at Schalke, PSG and Tottenham. The directive should have ruled Llorente's effort out, and they all eventually conceded as such, however the debate moved onto the angles shown to the referee. Had he been shown the correct angle, whereby the ball clearly hit his arm (Llorente admitted as much in Spanish Tv interview), the "goal" would and should have been disallowed. I'm sorry its not even debatable, and i repeat what has been posted many times (intent or body outline do not even come into it for an attacker!
Nobody needs to like the rule changes, but please stop saying they haven't changed them.
I don't see how Llorente can take any relevance to the Schalke, PSG, and Tottenham ones, which were all defensive handballs. The only quotes I have found from Rossetti refer to defensive handball and were before the IFAB new laws were accepted. I have not seen anyone quote Rossetti with reference to an attacking handball or after the changes were announced.
Walton's 'knee' comment at the time was utterly absurd, of course.
We all saw Walton’s performances as a ref so his opinion is invalid , a more blatant cheat you will never findI don't see how Llorente can take any relevance to the Schalke, PSG, and Tottenham ones, which were all defensive handballs. The only quotes I have found from Rossetti refer to defensive handball and were before the IFAB new laws were accepted. I have not seen anyone quote Rossetti with reference to an attacking handball or after the changes were announced.
Walton's 'knee' comment at the time was utterly absurd, of course.
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
We all saw Walton’s performances as a ref so his opinion is invalid , a more blatant cheat you will never find
That doesn't help him, I agree! Two or three times I've seen as BT ref and he's talked utter rubbish.
Regardless of Walton, as I see it, this one came down to:
- did Cakir see something that could make him disallow the goal?
No, obviously as the goal was given.
That being the case, for VAR:
- was he offered all angles, specifically the one from the rear post that has been stated as being in a box insert on his screen and not reviewed?
- if he was offered it, why did he not look?
- if he wasn't offered it, why not?
As we don't know the answer to those questions, it's impossible to have a definitive opinion on what happened with VAR, in my opinion.
From all that, would there have been a case under the laws to disallow the goal based on what Cakir saw? That is the point where I do not believe there to be a clear answer one way or the other.