VAR Discussion Thread | 2024/25

Dave Ewing's Back 'eader said:
I've seen some dangerous stuff in footy but that picture isn't one of them. Interesting that no one else has raised this 'dangerous' issue. I think it might be because it's bollocks. Most people, even Palace fans would accept that the ball went towards the touchline based on nothing Haaland did but the mighty smack Henderson gave it!
Click to expand...
How high was the boot? More than a foot surely. Was it at a dangerous height generally? Was it about at the height of Henderson's head on a knee? Don't waffle please.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
How high was the boot? More than a foot surely. Was it at a dangerous height generally? Was it about at the height of Henderson's head on a knee? Don't waffle please.
Click to expand...
It was infinitely lower than Gundogan's foot on Sunday and the ref found nothing wrong with that. Are you suggesting that if a foot goes above twelve inches then the ref should be blowing up for dangerous play?
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
Another component to it was that Haaland was arguably creating a dangerous situation by lifting his boot as high as he did trying to get to the ball before the keeper, particularly given the position of the keeper's "head" in relation to Haaland high boot. Haaland was attempting to make a first touch onto the ball there, and had he not lifted his boot as high as he did to try to get to the ball before the keeper did, the keeper may not have felt the need to reach out across the line before he otherwise would have needed to, which created the handball.

Had Haaland not put the boot so high, Henderson wouldn't have had to reach out when he did (beyond the line) to swat it away before Haaland got the boot to it. And if Henderson had not reached out over the line, had he pulled back lets say, where do you think the ball would have gone from Haaland's high boot? Surely not towards the goal. Based on the direction Haaland was attempting to kick that ball, had he gotten to it, it would have surely been kicked on towards the sideline, not towards the goal.
Click to expand...
You're just trolling us now. You don't seriously want to offer in mitigation that Haaland should have been penalised for dangerous play, when he was nowhere near Henderson's "head" (unsure why you needed speech marks here), and Henderson was on his knees at the time.

This howling at the wind isn't earning you any friends or any respect.
23f381313ebd0a8cd1c5a614df5a9c1f.jpg
 
As I understand it, Haaland raised his boot and aimed it towards Hendersons head, it was at least 6 foot off the ground and a deliberate attempt to injure the keeper. Fearing he was going to be killed Henderson attempted to push the boot out the way but accidentally caught the ball nudging it a few inches. Fortunately Henderson survived the attack and was able to continue.
As it was an accidental handball the ref did nothing, he should however have sent Haaland off for attempted murder and Var were wrong not to tell the ref that.

Have I got that right ?

Just askin'
 
Blue Mist said:
As I understand it, Haaland raised his boot and aimed it towards Hendersons head, it was at least 6 foot off the ground and a deliberate attempt to injure the keeper. Fearing he was going to be killed Henderson attempted to push the boot out the way but accidentally caught the ball nudging it a few inches. Fortunately Henderson survived the attack and was able to continue.
As it was an accidental handball the ref did nothing, he should however have sent Haaland off for attempted murder and Var were wrong not to tell the ref that.

Have I got that right ?

Just askin'
Click to expand...
Spot on - Henderson was lucky to survive a clear attempt on his life
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
Not only that, Haaland never had control of the ball as he was chasing the long cross and attempting to make a first touch onto the ball. Those are the facts. According to the DOGSO guidelines, keeping or maintaining control of the ball and general direction of play are two of the four components of what constitutes a DOGSO.

And to be clear, I'm not trying to argue that these guidelines should necessarily be relevant to the situation, but I am trying to understand what caused them to not consider it a DOGSO.
Click to expand...

Trolling again.

You said, "According to the DOGSO guidelines, keeping or maintaining control of the ball", and "Haaland never had control of the ball".

The actual rules say, "likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball".

Without the deliberate handball, you do understand Haaland would have gained control of the ball? And you do realise that this is covered by DOGSO?

Please don't answer as it's obvious you are just trolling.
 
Paladin said:
Trolling again.

You said, "According to the DOGSO guidelines, keeping or maintaining control of the ball", and "Haaland never had control of the ball".

The actual rules say, "likelihood of keeping or gaining control of the ball".

Without the deliberate handball, you do understand Haaland would have gained control of the ball? And you do realise that this is covered by DOGSO?

Please don't answer as it's obvious you are just trolling.
Click to expand...
Well he would have had to "gain" control of the ball now wouldn't he considering he hadn't even touched it yet. "Keeping" is out the window since he never had it. To your point, I would say, the likelihood of him gaining possession is hard to know and would require guesswork. If he kicks it at the speed he was moving in, at the height that his boot and the ball was, it gets kicked on towards the sideline! If he hits it too hard maybe it bounces out for a Palace thrown-in. If he hits it just right, maybe he is able to sprint hard to reach it before it goes out, and he collects it near the sideline. In any event he's well outside the box and near the sidelines following a kick at that angle, and the ball ends up bouncing towards the sideline in a similar manner to the direction Henderson swatted it in.

Further, you're completely ignoring the direction he was moving in prior to the incident. Haaland was not moving towards the goal, but diagonally wide towards the sideline. At first he was running down pitch straight but then after judging the bounce, he realized he was out of position and needed to turn away from the goal to get to the ball.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
I said it was arguably a dangerous high boot, given that it was about at the height of Henderson's head on a knee, and Henderson was on the retreat back towards the box. A moment earlier, had Henderson not been moving backward, that boot could have taken Henderson's head clean off.

There's a reason why Henderson kept his body and head away from Haaland. There's a reason why he extended the arm. Had he not retreated back into the box and extended the arm it could well have been a dangerous collision.
Click to expand...
Comedy gold that post.
 
richardtheref said:
Well there is no chance Henderson is going to have his head kicked either. So that's 2 of us who are blind. What both me and stevie wonder can see is it's handball
Click to expand...
It was you who said Haaland's boot was at the height of a "foot" after having rewatched it. To that I quite rightly asked if you were blind lol. I didn't say anything of the width between his boot and Henderson's head only to point out that they were at about the same height and I pointed out that Henderson was in the process of moving backwards to get away from Haaland and back into the box, so had he not been moving as he was, had he stayed where he was a moment earlier they would have been headed towards a major collision.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top