[Football] Hand Ball Rule

drew said:

Read my post again. I didn't say every decision but where it is a close call. Onfield ref should have the final say if it's a close call, eg some red cards, possible penalty decisions where it's six of one and half a dozen of another.

Click to expand...

Arthritic Toe said:

Why though? Why is the onfield ref any more likely to get it right than the VAR ref? I'd say the reverse in fact - the onfield ref is more likely to be influenced by the baying crowd and the players in his face.

Click to expand...

Shropshire Seagull said:

The Laws of Cricket are well developed and cater for gamesmanship / advantage by using the word "wilful" - yes the official in charge has to decide if the action was wilful but it means the advantage was intentional. Consider the cricket world cup final, Stokes diving to make his ground, ball hits his bat and goes for 4 - deemed not wilful so 4 runs awarded. If Ump had deemed it wilful, Stokes would (on appeal) be given out for Obstructing the Field [Law 37]. I accept that deciding if an act is wilful needs judgement but it's usually very obvious ....

So the Moora incident in football - did it hit his arm? Yes. Was it wilful? No. Therefore any advantage gained must be deemed unintentional and play continues.

Cricket also uses a timeline of events to work out what action is required. The foul on Moora took place before the ball touched his arm, so play should be taken back for the foul as this happened before the handball - I would love to hear the ref's explanation of why this did not happen.

If VAR continues to create these nonsensical outcomes [esp the Villa no-goal], even with the "it evens itself out over time" thinking - it is tying a noose around it's own neck ....

Click to expand...