Very true, but I wouldn't call controversial / subjective VAR decisions "entertainment". The entertainment occurs by the playing of the sport, not by the delaying of the game and referees trying to make themselves more important than the game.
As I've said previously, what constitutes a Denial of a GSO appears to be somewhat subjective. While I agree with ya'll that it was, apparently the VARs didn't, and my argument wasn't that it wasn't, but that it would have been harsh to send him off since it was on the edge of the box. So it's not a moot point despite your perspective since it prevented them from correcting the decision. Without VAR, or with a logical system, the handball should have been caught and quickly corrected, regardless of if they considered that a Denial of a GSO. VAR's own red tape and apparent internal confusion about what is supposedly a Denial of a GSO prevented the error from being corrected.
That's the way it felt to me.
www.premierleague.com
And too full of bullshit and lack of understanding of the laws.
You are incorrect. I cited the current language used in the law. Non-deliberate handballs that deny goal scoring opportunities, both inside and outside the box, are at most a yellow card. The handball was not deliberate due to the goalkeeper handling it on the edge of the box.
You don't need to read the entire post to understand the law. I was just being thorough to make my position crystal clear so there can be no misinterpretation of it.
www.premierleague.com
I have been challenged by my use of "intent" with how I have interpreted the GK handball situation. So allow me to clarify. And for those who want to move on from this, please bear with me. I'm not trying to annoy anyone, however I believe I have an obligation to support my reasoning with a sound understanding of the laws and the way they are written.
The language surrounding a Denial of a Goal Scoring opportunity and what the punishment is supposed to be for every scenario is not as straight forward as many of you are making it sound. It does not appear that the specific situation of a goalkeeper being outside the box and committing a handball does not seem to be explicitly addressed in the laws. In this case it would default to the handball rule generally :
Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity
As referenced here, as it pertains to handball, the term deliberate and non-deliberate is used to determine whether it would rise to the level of a red card or not :
As seen in previous seasons, when a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by committing a deliberate handball offence, the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs.
In addition to this, when a player now denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by committing a non-deliberate handball offence and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned.
So right there, it is quite clear that the only way for a handball that denied a goal scoring opportunity to result in an automatic red card is if the handball was determined to be "deliberate".
So in addition to deciding whether or not it was in fact (by their own standards) a denial of a GSO, they would also have to determine whether or not they would have deemed it "deliberate". So essentially, there is a two-step decision process that they would have to go through in order to send off the keeper. First, a denial of a GSO, which according to the official reports, they decided it wasn't. Now, we all disagree, and rightly so, but that is very clearly part of their process and part of what prevented them from correcting the error.
But even if they had in fact concluded that it was a denial of a GSO, then they would have to also consider whether or not the touch by the goalkeeper was "deliberate". So when I brought up the GK's intent, I was met with resistance about how his perceived intent was irrelevant. That since it was a DOGSO, it would be an automatic red card.
Apparently those who challenged me on this don't know the law, because his intent is merely another word for deliberate, which is in the law.
So given the GK's close proximity to the edge of the box, given the fact that his body was inside the box and he only reached out over the line with his arm extended to swat it, that would be hard to conclude that it the handball itself was "deliberate' which would be required to rise to the level of a handball.
So it was not a deliberate handball since it was on the edge of the box and the keeper is allowed to do that inside the box. Common sense should prevail in situations like this, but unfortunately VAR and its failures have skewed the way in which we interpret and react to these kinds of situation.
So at most, by their own standards, even if it in fact denied a goal scoring opportunity, should that have been at most a yellow card. For it to be a red card, they would have to determined that it was deliberate. And I know many of you would argue it was deliberate, that he knew exactly where he was and did what he did anyway. But that's open to interpretation, and subjective.
My very relevant argument was that football is played in real-time, not in slow-motion, and what the keeper did there was primarily out of instinct. We can't assign "intent" based upon our own subjective and non descriptive standards. Whether or not that was a deliberate handball depends on how you interpret. I merely argued that it would have been harsh to determine that was a deliberate handball due to the fact that he indeed got his body back inside the box before reaching out. It was too close to the edge of the box for that to be considered a deliberate handball. So even if it was determined to be a denial of a GSO, which it wasn't, they would then hafe to conclude that it was deliberate. So that's two levels of "red tape" taht they had to get through, both of which are wildly subjective and open to interpretation, in order for them to correct the error.
That was my entire point. And I believe that I have been unfairly maligned for having this very justifiable position. For those who came at me and acted like I don't know the rules, I think I have acquitted myself fully here and that in fact it is you who didn't know the rules, didn't realize that both the denial of a GSO and whether or not a handball was deliberate are part of the decision-making process and that both are apparently wildly subjective.
Do you actually think that anyone reads these?I have been challenged by my use of "intent" with how I have interpreted the GK handball situation. So allow me to clarify. And for those who want to move on from this, please bear with me. I'm not trying to annoy anyone, however I believe I have an obligation to support my reasoning with a sound understanding of the laws and the way they are written.
The language surrounding a Denial of a Goal Scoring opportunity and what the punishment is supposed to be for every scenario is not as straight forward as many of you are making it sound. It does not appear that the specific situation of a goalkeeper being outside the box and committing a handball does not seem to be explicitly addressed in the laws. In this case it would default to the handball rule generally :
Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity
As referenced here, as it pertains to handball, the term deliberate and non-deliberate is used to determine whether it would rise to the level of a red card or not :
As seen in previous seasons, when a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by committing a deliberate handball offence, the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs.
In addition to this, when a player now denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by committing a non-deliberate handball offence and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned.
So right there, it is quite clear that the only way for a handball that denied a goal scoring opportunity to result in an automatic red card is if the handball was determined to be "deliberate".
So in addition to deciding whether or not it was in fact (by their own standards) a denial of a GSO, they would also have to determine whether or not they would have deemed it "deliberate". So essentially, there is a two-step decision process that they would have to go through in order to send off the keeper. First, a denial of a GSO, which according to the official reports, they decided it wasn't. Now, we all disagree, and rightly so, but that is very clearly part of their process and part of what prevented them from correcting the error.
But even if they had in fact concluded that it was a denial of a GSO, then they would have to also consider whether or not the touch by the goalkeeper was "deliberate". So when I brought up the GK's intent, I was met with resistance about how his perceived intent was irrelevant. That since it was a DOGSO, it would be an automatic red card.
Apparently those who challenged me on this don't know the law, because his intent is merely another word for deliberate, which is in the law.
So given the GK's close proximity to the edge of the box, given the fact that his body was inside the box and he only reached out over the line with his arm extended to swat it, that would be hard to conclude that the handball itself was "deliberate' which would be required to rise to the level of a red card.
So it was not a deliberate handball since it was on the edge of the box and the keeper is allowed to do that inside the box. Common sense should prevail in situations like this, but unfortunately VAR and its failures have skewed the way in which we interpret and react to these kinds of situation.
So by their own standards, even if it in fact denied a goal scoring opportunity, they would have to subjectively determine his "intent" to determine if it was deserving of a red card. For it to be a red card, they would have to determined that it was deliberate. And I know many of you would argue it was deliberate, that he knew exactly where he was and did what he did anyway. But that's open to interpretation, and subjective. And more importantly, that's not what you were arguing when you tried to lecture me on the rules. You were arguing that I was wrong in even considering his intent. When in reality, to deny that such a consideration exists, you have proven that you don't know the rules and what goes into such a decision.
My very relevant argument was that football is played in real-time, not in slow-motion, and what the keeper did there was primarily out of instinct. We can't assign "intent" based upon our own subjective and non descriptive standards. Whether or not that was a deliberate handball depends on how you interpret what happened. But it is not without consideration of the goalkeeper's intent, which many of you did not believe it did and tried to lecture me on how I didn't know the rules lol.
I argued that it would have been harsh to determine that was a deliberate handball since he indeed got his body back inside the box before reaching out. That action of retreating back into the box shows and getting back before reaching out only speaks to his intent of trying to get back into legal position before swatting it away. It was too close to the edge of the box for that to be considered a deliberate handball. So even if it was determined to be a denial of a GSO, which it wasn't, they would then have to conclude that it was deliberate. So that's two levels of "red tape" that they had to get through, both of which are wildly subjective and open to interpretation, in order for them to correct the error.
That was my entire point. And I believe that I have been unfairly maligned for having this very justifiable position. For those who came at me and acted like I don't know the rules, I think I have acquitted myself fully here and that in fact it is you who didn't know the rules, didn't realize that both the denial of a GSO and whether or not a handball was deliberate are part of the decision-making process and that both are apparently wildly subjective and open to interpretation. My unique position that it was, in my estimation, a denial of a GSO, but that it wasn't a deliberate handball due to being on the edge of the box is entirely justifiable and frankly far more nuanced and representative of having a sound understanding of not only the way that the current law is written but also the spirit of the law that provides for common sense and an evaluation of intent in such a situation.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - literally nobody is reading that, you’re wasting your time mateI have been challenged by my use of "intent" with how I have interpreted the GK handball situation. So allow me to clarify. And for those who want to move on from this, please bear with me. I'm not trying to annoy anyone, however I believe I have an obligation to support my reasoning with a sound understanding of the laws and the way they are written.
The language surrounding a Denial of a Goal Scoring opportunity and what the punishment is supposed to be for every scenario is not as straight forward as many of you are making it sound. It does not appear that the specific situation of a goalkeeper being outside the box and committing a handball does not seem to be explicitly addressed in the laws. In this case it would default to the handball rule generally :
Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity
As referenced here, as it pertains to handball, the term deliberate and non-deliberate is used to determine whether it would rise to the level of a red card or not :
As seen in previous seasons, when a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by committing a deliberate handball offence, the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs.
In addition to this, when a player now denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by committing a non-deliberate handball offence and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned.
So right there, it is quite clear that the only way for a handball that denied a goal scoring opportunity to result in an automatic red card is if the handball was determined to be "deliberate".
So in addition to deciding whether or not it was in fact (by their own standards) a denial of a GSO, they would also have to determine whether or not they would have deemed it "deliberate". So essentially, there is a two-step decision process that they would have to go through in order to send off the keeper. First, a denial of a GSO, which according to the official reports, they decided it wasn't. Now, we all disagree, and rightly so, but that is very clearly part of their process and part of what prevented them from correcting the error.
But even if they had in fact concluded that it was a denial of a GSO, then they would have to also consider whether or not the touch by the goalkeeper was "deliberate". So when I brought up the GK's intent, I was met with resistance about how his perceived intent was irrelevant. That since it was a DOGSO, it would be an automatic red card.
Apparently those who challenged me on this don't know the law, because his intent is merely another word for deliberate, which is in the law.
So given the GK's close proximity to the edge of the box, given the fact that his body was inside the box and he only reached out over the line with his arm extended to swat it, that would be hard to conclude that the handball itself was "deliberate' which would be required to rise to the level of a red card.
So it was not a deliberate handball since it was on the edge of the box and the keeper is allowed to do that inside the box. Common sense should prevail in situations like this, but unfortunately VAR and its failures have skewed the way in which we interpret and react to these kinds of situation.
So by their own standards, even if it in fact denied a goal scoring opportunity, they would have to subjectively determine his "intent" to determine if it was deserving of a red card. For it to be a red card, they would have to determined that it was deliberate. And I know many of you would argue it was deliberate, that he knew exactly where he was and did what he did anyway. But that's open to interpretation, and subjective. And more importantly, that's not what you were arguing when you tried to lecture me on the rules. You were arguing that I was wrong in even considering his intent. When in reality, to deny that such a consideration exists, you have proven that you don't know the rules and what goes into such a decision.
My very relevant argument was that football is played in real-time, not in slow-motion, and what the keeper did there was primarily out of instinct. We can't assign "intent" based upon our own subjective and non descriptive standards. Whether or not that was a deliberate handball depends on how you interpret what happened. But it is not without consideration of the goalkeeper's intent, which many of you did not believe it did and tried to lecture me on how I didn't know the rules lol.
I argued that it would have been harsh to determine that was a deliberate handball since he indeed got his body back inside the box before reaching out. That action of retreating back into the box shows and getting back before reaching out only speaks to his intent of trying to get back into legal position before swatting it away. It was too close to the edge of the box for that to be considered a deliberate handball. So even if it was determined to be a denial of a GSO, which it wasn't, they would then have to conclude that it was deliberate. So that's two levels of "red tape" that they had to get through, both of which are wildly subjective and open to interpretation, in order for them to correct the error.
That was my entire point. And I believe that I have been unfairly maligned for having this very justifiable position. For those who came at me and acted like I don't know the rules, I think I have acquitted myself fully here and that in fact it is you who didn't know the rules, didn't realize that both the denial of a GSO and whether or not a handball was deliberate are part of the decision-making process and that both are apparently wildly subjective and open to interpretation. My unique position that it was, in my estimation, a denial of a GSO, but that it wasn't a deliberate handball due to being on the edge of the box is entirely justifiable and frankly far more nuanced and representative of having a sound understanding of not only the way that the current law is written but also the spirit of the law that provides for common sense and an evaluation of intent in such a situation.
I'm not here to win a popularity contest. I'm here to cut through the BS and get to the core problems. I gave a fully reasonable and justifiable position on the incident only to be ridiculed and accused of not knowing the rules by some very arrogant posters. However as I've so duly demonstrated, my position was fully justified by the current rule set and how they are supposed to make decisions. Despite claims to the contrary, "intent" does come into play as it pertains to what card they are allowed to give in denial of GSO handball situations. And it was very misleading of the lot of you to falsely conclude otherwise and then to try to lecture me about it.
Irrelevant. You don't need to read that whole post to read the concise article where it lays out deliberate and non-deliberate handball and how a non-deliberate handball, even in a denial of a GSO situation, does not rise to the level of a red card. I would appreciate it if you and anyone who tried to falsely lecture me about not having an understanding of the rules can now fess up and admit that they were ignorant of the rules and rude to come at me so wrongly.
Goalkeeper is basically “fenced in” on the use of his hands. He’s the only player on the field who can use them, and his area is the limits. It is HIS RESPONSIBILITY to understand where those lines are.I have been challenged by my use of "intent" with how I have interpreted the GK handball situation. So allow me to clarify. And for those who want to move on from this, please bear with me. I'm not trying to annoy anyone, however I believe I have an obligation to support my reasoning with a sound understanding of the laws and the way they are written.
The language surrounding a Denial of a Goal Scoring opportunity and what the punishment is supposed to be for every scenario is not as straight forward as many of you are making it sound. It does not appear that the specific situation of a goalkeeper being outside the box and committing a handball does not seem to be explicitly addressed in the laws. In this case it would default to the handball rule generally :
Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity
As referenced here, as it pertains to handball, the term deliberate and non-deliberate is used to determine whether it would rise to the level of a red card or not :
As seen in previous seasons, when a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by committing a deliberate handball offence, the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs.
In addition to this, when a player now denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by committing a non-deliberate handball offence and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned.
So right there, it is quite clear that the only way for a handball that denied a goal scoring opportunity to result in an automatic red card is if the handball was determined to be "deliberate".
So in addition to deciding whether or not it was in fact (by their own standards) a denial of a GSO, they would also have to determine whether or not they would have deemed it "deliberate". So essentially, there is a two-step decision process that they would have to go through in order to send off the keeper. First, a denial of a GSO, which according to the official reports, they decided it wasn't. Now, we all disagree, and rightly so, but that is very clearly part of their process and part of what prevented them from correcting the error.
But even if they had in fact concluded that it was a denial of a GSO, then they would have to also consider whether or not the touch by the goalkeeper was "deliberate". So when I brought up the GK's intent, I was met with resistance about how his perceived intent was irrelevant. That since it was a DOGSO, it would be an automatic red card.
Apparently those who challenged me on this don't know the law, because his intent is merely another word for deliberate, which is in the law.
So given the GK's close proximity to the edge of the box, given the fact that his body was inside the box and he only reached out over the line with his arm extended to swat it, that would be hard to conclude that the handball itself was "deliberate' which would be required to rise to the level of a red card.
So it was not a deliberate handball since it was on the edge of the box and the keeper is allowed to do that inside the box. Common sense should prevail in situations like this, but unfortunately VAR and its failures have skewed the way in which we interpret and react to these kinds of situation.
So by their own standards, even if it in fact denied a goal scoring opportunity, they would have to subjectively determine his "intent" to determine if it was deserving of a red card. For it to be a red card, they would have to determined that it was deliberate. And I know many of you would argue it was deliberate, that he knew exactly where he was and did what he did anyway. But that's open to interpretation, and subjective. And more importantly, that's not what you were arguing when you tried to lecture me on the rules. You were arguing that I was wrong in even considering his intent. When in reality, to deny that such a consideration exists, you have proven that you don't know the rules and what goes into such a decision.
My very relevant argument was that football is played in real-time, not in slow-motion, and what the keeper did there was primarily out of instinct. We can't assign "intent" based upon our own subjective and non descriptive standards. Whether or not that was a deliberate handball depends on how you interpret what happened. But it is not without consideration of the goalkeeper's intent, which many of you did not believe it did and tried to lecture me on how I didn't know the rules lol.
I argued that it would have been harsh to determine that was a deliberate handball since he indeed got his body back inside the box before reaching out. That action of retreating back into the box shows and getting back before reaching out only speaks to his intent of trying to get back into legal position before swatting it away. It was too close to the edge of the box for that to be considered a deliberate handball. So even if it was determined to be a denial of a GSO, which it wasn't, they would then have to conclude that it was deliberate. So that's two levels of "red tape" that they had to get through, both of which are wildly subjective and open to interpretation, in order for them to correct the error.
That was my entire point. And I believe that I have been unfairly maligned for having this very justifiable position. For those who came at me and acted like I don't know the rules, I think I have acquitted myself fully here and that in fact it is you who didn't know the rules, didn't realize that both the denial of a GSO and whether or not a handball was deliberate are part of the decision-making process and that both are apparently wildly subjective and open to interpretation. My unique position that it was, in my estimation, a denial of a GSO, but that it wasn't a deliberate handball due to being on the edge of the box is entirely justifiable and frankly far more nuanced and representative of having a sound understanding of not only the way that the current law is written but also the spirit of the law that provides for common sense and an evaluation of intent in such a situation.
Who knew David Ellerey posts on here?I have been challenged by my use of "intent" with how I have interpreted the GK handball situation. So allow me to clarify. And for those who want to move on from this, please bear with me. I'm not trying to annoy anyone, however I believe I have an obligation to support my reasoning with a sound understanding of the laws and the way they are written.
The language surrounding a Denial of a Goal Scoring opportunity and what the punishment is supposed to be for every scenario is not as straight forward as many of you are making it sound. It does not appear that the specific situation of a goalkeeper being outside the box and committing a handball does not seem to be explicitly addressed in the laws. In this case it would default to the handball rule generally :
Denying a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity
As referenced here, as it pertains to handball, the term deliberate and non-deliberate is used to determine whether it would rise to the level of a red card or not :
As seen in previous seasons, when a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by committing a deliberate handball offence, the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs.
In addition to this, when a player now denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by committing a non-deliberate handball offence and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned.
So right there, it is quite clear that the only way for a handball that denied a goal scoring opportunity to result in an automatic red card is if the handball was determined to be "deliberate".
So in addition to deciding whether or not it was in fact (by their own standards) a denial of a GSO, they would also have to determine whether or not they would have deemed it "deliberate". So essentially, there is a two-step decision process that they would have to go through in order to send off the keeper. First, a denial of a GSO, which according to the official reports, they decided it wasn't. Now, we all disagree, and rightly so, but that is very clearly part of their process and part of what prevented them from correcting the error.
But even if they had in fact concluded that it was a denial of a GSO, then they would have to also consider whether or not the touch by the goalkeeper was "deliberate". So when I brought up the GK's intent, I was met with resistance about how his perceived intent was irrelevant. That since it was a DOGSO, it would be an automatic red card.
Apparently those who challenged me on this don't know the law, because his intent is merely another word for deliberate, which is in the law.
So given the GK's close proximity to the edge of the box, given the fact that his body was inside the box and he only reached out over the line with his arm extended to swat it, that would be hard to conclude that the handball itself was "deliberate' which would be required to rise to the level of a red card.
So it was not a deliberate handball since it was on the edge of the box and the keeper is allowed to do that inside the box. Common sense should prevail in situations like this, but unfortunately VAR and its failures have skewed the way in which we interpret and react to these kinds of situation.
So by their own standards, even if it in fact denied a goal scoring opportunity, they would have to subjectively determine his "intent" to determine if it was deserving of a red card. For it to be a red card, they would have to determined that it was deliberate. And I know many of you would argue it was deliberate, that he knew exactly where he was and did what he did anyway. But that's open to interpretation, and subjective. And more importantly, that's not what you were arguing when you tried to lecture me on the rules. You were arguing that I was wrong in even considering his intent. When in reality, to deny that such a consideration exists, you have proven that you don't know the rules and what goes into such a decision.
My very relevant argument was that football is played in real-time, not in slow-motion, and what the keeper did there was primarily out of instinct. We can't assign "intent" based upon our own subjective and non descriptive standards. Whether or not that was a deliberate handball depends on how you interpret what happened. But it is not without consideration of the goalkeeper's intent, which many of you did not believe it did and tried to lecture me on how I didn't know the rules lol.
I argued that it would have been harsh to determine that was a deliberate handball since he indeed got his body back inside the box before reaching out. That action of retreating back into the box shows and getting back before reaching out only speaks to his intent of trying to get back into legal position before swatting it away. It was too close to the edge of the box for that to be considered a deliberate handball. So even if it was determined to be a denial of a GSO, which it wasn't, they would then have to conclude that it was deliberate. So that's two levels of "red tape" that they had to get through, both of which are wildly subjective and open to interpretation, in order for them to correct the error.
That was my entire point. And I believe that I have been unfairly maligned for having this very justifiable position. For those who came at me and acted like I don't know the rules, I think I have acquitted myself fully here and that in fact it is you who didn't know the rules, didn't realize that both the denial of a GSO and whether or not a handball was deliberate are part of the decision-making process and that both are apparently wildly subjective and open to interpretation. My unique position that it was, in my estimation, a denial of a GSO, but that it wasn't a deliberate handball due to being on the edge of the box is entirely justifiable and frankly far more nuanced and representative of having a sound understanding of not only the way that the current law is written but also the spirit of the law that provides for common sense and an evaluation of intent in such a situation.
No, you are failing to comprehend the rule set as it pertains to what constitutes a deliberate or a non-deliberate handball. For the GK to commit a deliberate handball would require him to be well beyond of the boundary and having no plausible deniability to him not knowing precisely where he is. The fact that not only is his body inside the box but the fact that he retreated back into it looking down pitch only furthers the point since from that perspective he wouldn't have even seen the line even in his peripheral vision.
Is it possible to section people on here
Anytime my friend. Glad to do my due diligence in matters of nuance. I would encourage the ignorant posters who came at me sideways to fess up now and make amends for their transgressions.
Say it as you see it bud
At the risk of committing a further ad hominem attack.