[Albion] Handball

[Perfidious Albion]

The law is an ass !
Thankfully yesterday the VAR man gave us the benefit of any doubt there was ( up yours !David Moyes) The sooner they reintroduce the word “ deliberate” to the rule book the better ......and stop applying this magnifying glass and slide rule approach to refereeing too.

 

[BN41Albion]

The law is an ass !
Thankfully yesterday the VAR man gave us the benefit of any doubt there was ( up yours !David Moyes) The sooner they reintroduce the word “ deliberate” to the rule book the better ......and stop applying this magnifying glass and slide rule approach to refereeing too.

Yes it was given in the end, but for me and I'm sure many others the moment of scoring was once again completely lost the second the commentator said 'var will take a look at this' moments after the ball hit the net. (and we all now know 'take a look at' means spend 5 minutes looking for the slightest of handballs/offsides etc)

VAR along with our complete predictability at the moment has rendered me really apathetic about football at the moment tbh

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Seen it some 20 times even close up and still don’t believe it hit his arm/hand.

Indeed, there is no angle that showed clear handball therefore VAR did not intervene. The pundits would not have been so sure of themselves had it been the other way around.
As others have said, the inevitable VAR check spoiled the moment and contributed to my feeling flat after watching a football match yet again. Just as long as we get decisions ‘correct’ though, that’s all that matters eh FIFA.

 

[portslade seagull]

Watching the game when Dunk scored not one wet sham player appealed for handball and they were a damn sight closer. I think that says it all VAR interfering when there is no need

 

[dolphins]

Haven't watched it back properly since the match but maybe apart from a bit of common sense, they also took into account the WH player heading the ball at Dunky from pretty much point blank range, to try and force a handball.

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

Haven't watched it back properly since the match but maybe apart from a bit of common sense, they also took into account the WH player heading the ball at Dunky from pretty much point blank range, to try and force a handball.

The header by the West Ham player at point blank range is irrelevant as far as the current Premier League handball rules stand. The goal should be disallowed if immediately after touching the ball with the arm, even accidentally, the player scores a goal or creates a goal-scoring opportunity.

With Dunk's goal yesterday there was no angle that showed the ball clearly hitting his arm, that's why the goal was allowed to stand.

 

[Birdie Boy]

I think it touched his elbow but the important word here is think. Going by all of the answers above, the ref has not mad a clear and obvious error and the handball was not clear and obvious, so it's a goal.

With Var, why don't they introduce a 1 minute time limit? If you can't tell in the first minute of replays then it is not clear or obvious.

 

[dolphins]

With Var, why don't they introduce a 1 minute time limit? If you can't tell in the first minute of replays then it is not clear or obvious.

I've thought this all along. We all get that incidents seen from different angles reveal different things, so that's where VAR can help referees who are in one position, to know what happened from viewing via a different angle.

Clear and obvious should be just that...minutes spent with the nonsense offside lines for example shows how the clear and obvious concept is ignored.

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

Based on the limited evidence, I was 60/40 thinking it had hit his arm and I would imagine the VAR official was similar. On that basis you can’t overrule the goal.

 

[Mellotron]

Wasn’t clear or obvious that it hit his hand - therefore VAR used correctly, with common sense.

A Football writer on Twitter had noted the other day that VAR decisions seem to have been a little better in the last week or two, and appear to be based more on “clear and obvious” errors as the only basis to overturn a decision made.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Pundits said live Dunks was hand ball and when goal given said VAR used common sense. Just looked up rule and said arm and hand had to be away from body which Dunks wasnt. If that was case cant understand why at the time they thought it was

At last! Someone has asked an easy question this morning

The answer is that the commentator and his pundit side kick are often (not always, but often) a pair of Complete Arses who don't know the rules of the game. When they combine this ignorance with a readiness to offer an opinion without actually studying the replay, then you can guess the rest.

Next question!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Wasn’t clear or obvious that it hit his hand - therefore VAR used correctly, with common sense.

A Football writer on Twitter had noted the other day that VAR decisions seem to have been a little better in the last week or two, and appear to be based more on “clear and obvious” errors as the only basis to overturn a decision made.

The problem with this rubric, though, is that had the penalty been awarded it wouldn't have been a clear and obvious error so VAR would have said to the ref 'you're OK, mate'. Penalty decision stands.

I'd like to think and hope that when a ref has made what VAR consider to be an error the ref goes and checks the replay, clear and obvious or not. I'm happy with the ref making the final decision (which is what they want, and has been the source of several of the rubric failures of VAR mark1, mark 2 etc.). My impression is they are making an effort to make better decisions, by tweaking the rules and the VAR rubric, and it seems to be heading in a better direction. But I don't know the facts.

I'm not sure if your football writer on twitter has had his suspicions confirmed by the referee association (or whoever it is who is in charge of the rules of the game and their deployment). It would be useful to know, from the horse's mouth, but I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Bozza]

The VAR replays seemed to be very poor, and there was more than enough uncertainty to give Dunk the benefit of the doubt.

The subsequent replay Sky had made it look far less doubtful and had VAR used the same one, I think the goal would have been disallowed.

 

[Mellotron]

The problem with this rubric, though, is that had the penalty been awarded it wouldn't have been a clear and obvious error so VAR would have said to the ref 'you're OK, mate'. Penalty decision stands.

Not a problem for me. It would be umpires call, and I would completely accept the decision as it was a tricky one either way.