Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dylanisabaddog

VAR and the handball rule

Recommended Posts

Anyone watching Fulham v Spurs? If this is football I give up. Whoever decided that someone being hit by a ball hit hard from a yard away is handball should be taken out and shot. Total nonsense 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, the referees decision is correct so it isn't his fault but the law absolutely stinks. The guys hand is by his side FFS! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

What I don’t understand is why people seem to be confused by the rule: if it hits an attacker in the arm and leads to a goal, it’s disallowed....it’s the same for all and pretty clear.  There doesn’t need to be any interpretation which is the thing that causes issues.  Whether you agree with the rule is a different thing, but I think the clarity of it makes it fair enough even if it does cause the odd ‘hard to take’ one like for Fulham tonight. 

Edited by Branston Pickle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet VAR and the ref go and look at the screen in the Man Utd v Chelsea game and don’t give a pen for the handball there. It’s a farce. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

There’s a different rule for giving a penalty.  It does make perfect sense, but people just don’t seem to want to ‘get’ it - for me, that is the biggest issue rather than the rule itself.  You need buy-in which hasn’t happened, so of course it will be changed and probably make less sense.

Edited by Branston Pickle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

What I don’t understand is why people seem to be confused by the rule: if it hits an attacker in the arm and leads to a goal, it’s disallowed....it’s the same for all and pretty clear.  There doesn’t need to be any interpretation which is the thing that causes issues.  Whether you agree with the rule is a different thing, but I think the clarity of it makes it fair enough even if it does cause the odd ‘hard to take’ one like for Fulham tonight. 

Generally I've seen most people do understand the rule they just think its a total nonsense. 

The rule basically punishes Lemina for the crime of having arms. If it doesn't hit his hand it just hits his thigh. Add in the fact that if he had been a defender it wouldn't have been a handball and it just boggles the mind.

The rule needs to change because for me it is an absolute farce that that can be considered a handball.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I disagree - it hit his arm, and directly led to a goal, so it’s handball.  I don’t think that is particularly unreasonable if the same decision would have been given anywhere, which it would.  You are otherwise bringing interpretation into the rule which is where all the issues come from for penalties.  So long as the rule is clear, which it is, I can’t see the problem.

Edited by Branston Pickle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Football was such an appealing game because it was so simple. Hardly any rules and the only one that caused confusion was offside.

Now, its hard to keep up with so many rules which are then changed.

Its all total nonsense. Because, apparently, its too important.

So it wasn't important before? Is it now more important watching and supporting NCFC than it was in any other era.🖕

Tell you what, lets get rid of refs, VAR and leave it to pundits, or maybe a poll by those watching.

Edited by keelansgrandad
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

I disagree - it hit his arm, and directly led to a goal, so it’s handball.  I don’t think that is particularly unreasonable if the same decision would have been given anywhere, which it would.  You are otherwise bringing interpretation into the rule which is where all the issues come from for penalties.  So long as the rule is clear, which it is, I can’t see the problem.

Each to their own but I think you'll find your in a very small minority there. 

However I think it is a bit disingenuous to claim that people are refusing to get it when most clearly do they just hugely disagree with it.

Edited by king canary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are certainly in for fun and games next season if/when.  I actually agree with the handball rule as it is, for its simple clarity, but would still clearly be gutted had we been Fulham tonight. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, king canary said:

Each to their own but I think you'll find your in a very small minority there. 

However I think it is a bit disingenuous to claim that people are refusing to get it when most clearly do they just hugely disagree with it.

No, that isn’t correct - the commentator was warbling on endlessly about ‘everyone being confused’ by the rule.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Branston Pickle said:

No, that isn’t correct - the commentator was warbling on endlessly about ‘everyone being confused’ by the rule.  

You can understand it and still be confused by it. I'm confused as to how anyone looks at that and says 'the rules should say this is a handball' but I still understand it.

Looking at the reaction on social media I'd suggest most seem to get it as there hasn't been any real criticisms of the referee for giving it, just the rule for being stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I am only going with what I see and hear!  IMO if you change the rule there is a degree of interpretation which will inevitably lead to criticism,  I think it’s one the authorities simply can’t win.

Edited by Branston Pickle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

I am only going with what I see and hear!  IMO if you change the rule there is a degree of interpretation which will inevitably lead to criticism,  it’s one the authorities simply can’t win.

Lots of rules have a level of interpretation to be honest and I also think there is a really questionable element to making something a free kick if an attacker does it but not if a defender does it- I don't think there are any other rules like that in the game.

In the case of this goal it would have taken one look to decide there is no intent from Lemina there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is a rule problem not a VAR problem but I'm really not looking forward to VAR again,  should we get promoted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most understand the rule, if it hits the arm and leads to a goal it's classed as handball.

However, if it hits a defenders arm which stops the ball reaching an attacker, it's only given if his arms are in an unnatural position.

If an attacker heads the ball at the goal, which hits a defenders arm,by his side, on the line and rebounds onto the attackers arm by his side, then into the net, am I right in thinking the defending team get the fk and the attacking team do not get the goal or a pen?.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, glory.win or die. said:

I think most understand the rule, if it hits the arm and leads to a goal it's classed as handball.

However, if it hits a defenders arm which stops the ball reaching an attacker, it's only given if his arms are in an unnatural position.

If an attacker heads the ball at the goal, which hits a defenders arm,by his side, on the line and rebounds onto the attackers arm by his side, then into the net, am I right in thinking the defending team get the fk and the attacking team do not get the goal or a pen?.

Depends..... 

Could be a penalty as the defensive hand ball occurred first. 

Could be a free kick as the "goal" then came from offensive handball.

Could be a drop ball as the referee is hopelessly confused by all of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the rule needs to be if your hand is in an unnatural position rather than just if it touches your hand it should be ruled out. There's nothing he could have done and his hands were by his side, I know the rules are what they are but it should have been allowed.

The VAR decision against Werner is another one that needs to be looked at. No clear and obvious error to suggest he was offside...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Anyone watching Fulham v Spurs? If this is football I give up. Whoever decided that someone being hit by a ball hit hard from a yard away is handball should be taken out and shot. Total nonsense 

The rules are crazy I saw a game were a guy ran into the box and his toupee fell off. He picked it up as a cross came over, the ball hit him on the hand and went in the goal but because he was holding his hair it was deemed a header and the goal stood

Edited by Mullet
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s the inconsistency that annoys me and that turns the game into a farce.
 

There now seems to be a ‘let’s let the referees use a bit of their own judgement’ element to the process, as seen last weekend. 

For anyone that thinks the law is simple and fine as it is then explain to me why Man Utd didn’t get a penalty vs Chelsea? Arm in an unnatural position, handles the ball taking it away from an attacker...pretty much the definition of the ‘current’ handball rule. But no, the referee decides to use his own judgement and not award a pen. 
 

Im not saying I disagree with his decision but how did come he to that conclusion when the law states he should’ve awarded a pen? That that can be overlooked but to meticulously follow the laws in other games to come to some farcical outcomes (Bednareks red, David Luiz red, Soucek red, DCL penalty) shows the real problem imo. To make it even more excruciating, all the time used on VAR decision making for 2 of the reds above, both were overturned on appeal. So VAR, applied for the correction of CLEAR AND OBVIOUS errors where a team of ‘qualified’ officials discuss the laws of the game and come to a ‘correct’ decision, still gets it wrong according to the powers that be. Again I think the eventual decision was correct but they applied some common sense which the officials seemed to think wasn’t necessary with the use of VAR, and which some referees are now starting to use again and some aren’t.

VAR isn’t the issue, it’s the incompetency (Lee Mason, Simon Hooper) and inconsistency of those using it that is the problem.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Branston Pickle said:

I am only going with what I see and hear!  IMO if you change the rule there is a degree of interpretation which will inevitably lead to criticism,  I think it’s one the authorities simply can’t win.

 

9 hours ago, king canary said:

Lots of rules have a level of interpretation to be honest and I also think there is a really questionable element to making something a free kick if an attacker does it but not if a defender does it- I don't think there are any other rules like that in the game.

In the case of this goal it would have taken one look to decide there is no intent from Lemina there.

I think there is much truth in what you both say, but fundamentally (as the 20th century's greatest philosopher Wittgenstein conclusively demonstrated) there is no such thing as a rule that doesn't require interpretation. Clearly, because of the enormous amount of criticism of VAR, the authorities have attempted to reduce the level of interpretation to an absolute minimum (as Branston points out). But in doing so they have arguably undermined the authority of the rule. The only point of the rules in football (indeed in any practice) is to ensure that all the goods and excellences of the game can be achieved in fair competition. The rules are not an end in themselves, they exist to be the facilitators of the beautiful game. King captured the problem very succinctly when he said, "Looking at the reaction on social media I'd suggest most seem to get it as there hasn't been any real criticisms of the referee for giving it, just the rule for being stupid". In reducing the interpretation of the rule to an absolute minimum the authorities have destroyed its effectiveness in facilitating the achievement of footballing excellence (which is precisely what is supposed to be its purpose). The same issues hold for the offside rule too. In both cases (handball and offside) it is relatively easy to come up with a set of criteria that are clear (as Branston points out), but that clarity is only achieved at the expense of the pursuit of footballing excellence which is what we watch the game for in the first place. When Pukki's magnificent goal against Tottenham was ruled out because a part of his hand was "offside" was that an example of a rule being applied to exclude an unfair advantage or a pedantic application of a rule that destroyed a legitimate moment of footballing excellence?

I have sympathy with the footballing authorities' desire to create as much clarity in the application of rules as is possible. However, it seems patently clear to anyone with a love for the game that the over zealous pursuit of clarification in the handball and offside rules is seriously detrimental to the good of the game. We need to learn to accept again that all rules require interpretation, and that well trained referees are the best persons to judge how particular events in play should be interpreted.  Whether a ball striking the arm conveyed an unfair advantage and requires a penalty in recompense must be a judgement call rather than an automatic assumption. Likewise in the case of an "offside" finger tip. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Branston Pickle said:

No, that isn’t correct - the commentator was warbling on endlessly about ‘everyone being confused’ by the rule.  

Yes. The rule is clear . The ball hits an arm , directly leading to goal , and it is disallowed . Why the commentary didn’t just say that I don’t know . But the football media loves its narrative , and “confusion” is part of it . 
Handball leading to a pen is a different law. This is where position of the arm comes in.

Last night it was very clear . 

Whether it is good for the game is a different argument . 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Fiery Zac said:

It’s the inconsistency that annoys me and that turns the game into a farce.
 

There now seems to be a ‘let’s let the referees use a bit of their own judgement’ element to the process, as seen last weekend. 

For anyone that thinks the law is simple and fine as it is then explain to me why Man Utd didn’t get a penalty vs Chelsea? Arm in an unnatural position, handles the ball taking it away from an attacker...pretty much the definition of the ‘current’ handball rule. But no, the referee decides to use his own judgement and not award a pen. 
 

Im not saying I disagree with his decision but how did come he to that conclusion when the law states he should’ve awarded a pen? That that can be overlooked but to meticulously follow the laws in other games to come to some farcical outcomes (Bednareks red, David Luiz red, Soucek red, DCL penalty) shows the real problem imo. To make it even more excruciating, all the time used on VAR decision making for 2 of the reds above, both were overturned on appeal. So VAR, applied for the correction of CLEAR AND OBVIOUS errors where a team of ‘qualified’ officials discuss the laws of the game and come to a ‘correct’ decision, still gets it wrong according to the powers that be. Again I think the eventual decision was correct but they applied some common sense which the officials seemed to think wasn’t necessary with the use of VAR, and which some referees are now starting to use again and some aren’t.

VAR isn’t the issue, it’s the incompetency (Lee Mason, Simon Hooper) and inconsistency of those using it that is the problem.

What’s crazy is they use VAR to have a look, the referee is now going over to the pitch side monitor to have another look himself, and on multiple occasions they still get it wrong. The VAR guys however love to apply tedious offside rules where they can draw lines from a players armpit of backside to rule out goals. 
 

Pre-VAR on all of these the game goes on and we chalk it up to ‘ref’s not seen it’ and move on, but genie is out of the bottle on VAR.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m at a loss too, they keep changing the rules and it’s utter tripe!

Three things for me, to stop diving in the penalty area, any unintentional hand ball or accidental hand ball results in an indirect free kick not a penalty.

Anyone running away from goal in the area and not a clear goal scoring opportunity again results in an indirect free kick not a penalty. Swansea cheating dive in the 96th minute shows that this is a must!

Anyone with their arms down by their side in open play and no move of the arm to ball isn’t a hand ball.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty simple to fix:

  1. Make the handball rule exactly the same for attackers and defenders. Everyone understands the 'natural position' thing. If it wouldn't be a penalty one way then it shouldn't prevent a goal the other.
  2. Add a 6 inch margin to offside decisions. Let them carry on drawing their lines but, unless it's clearly offside by at least 6 inches, it's onside.

The rules need changing, then common sense needs to be applied to their application.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Petriix said:

It's pretty simple to fix:

  1. Make the handball rule exactly the same for attackers and defenders. Everyone understands the 'natural position' thing. If it wouldn't be a penalty one way then it shouldn't prevent a goal the other.
  2. Add a 6 inch margin to offside decisions. Let them carry on drawing their lines but, unless it's clearly offside by at least 6 inches, it's onside.

The rules need changing, then common sense needs to be applied to their application.

The offside rule has such a discrepancy as it really depends when the VAR judges the ball to have left the players foot making the pass, a half second either way could make him onside or off! Definitely agree on the lines having to be clear once the ball is moving forwards!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...