Green Cross Code Man
Wunt be druv
[emoji3][emoji106]
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Handball Rule Farce
- Thread starter Shooting Star
- Start date
Gazwag
5 millionth post poster
So you are happy to rely on the proven inaccuracies of VAR due to the frame rate discrepancies which can prove a player is 1mm offside but cannot show the precise moment a ball is played forward and the quality of the VAR ref dished up for us this season for decisions which are a matter of interpretation and opinion.
- Nov 11, 2009
- 12,273
Good synopsis! Same could be said for the offside rule ruling out goals like Dan Burns Vs the Muff for a toes width of a body part. It's the stupid rule of "if any part of the body is offside, the player should be deemed offside......" it's not VAR's fault that such stupid fine margins chalk off so many goals, it's the rule.
Graeme Souness suggestion on Sky for changing the offside rule seemed sensible and would result in most current ruled out goals standing "if any part of the body is onside, the player should be deemed onside"
Gazwag
5 millionth post poster
As I posted above your post, its not the rule that's the issue its the fact that VAR is not accurate enough due to the frame rate margin of error which is ignored.
Super Steve Earle
Well-known member
Nice try, but you aren't making much of a point by pulling part of a sentence out of context from my full paragraph then giving it a different context altogether.
Gazwag
5 millionth post poster
You were saying you would but rather have accurate decision made by VAR when I'm saying that VAR is proven to be inaccurate.
Super Steve Earle
Well-known member
Until the technology is improved, yes I am happy to rely on the proven inaccuracies of VAR. I find them a more reliable guide to the correct outcome than the current crop of referees and their assistants.
Nope. It's not about time, it's about phases of play, and is subjectively decided by the ref:
What about those dreaded 'phases of play'?
Many decisions will depend on which phase of play the incident occurred in. For instance, a foul or offside can only be reviewed if it occurred in the phase that directly led to a goal.
However, football is an extremely fluid game, so identifying a phase is a subjective exercise.
Factors to consider when the referee or VAR defines a phase of play, and whether a phase has been reset, include:
Each example is likely to differ from one another, so this will be an unavoidable area of contention, but one that the Premier League VARs are well-trained on.
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/11777969/var-in-the-premier-league-the-ultimate-qaMany decisions will depend on which phase of play the incident occurred in. For instance, a foul or offside can only be reviewed if it occurred in the phase that directly led to a goal.
However, football is an extremely fluid game, so identifying a phase is a subjective exercise.
Factors to consider when the referee or VAR defines a phase of play, and whether a phase has been reset, include:
- When the team gain possession
- Whether there are multiple phases and which is the most immediate
- The ability of the defence to reset
- Whether the defence gain possession at all
Each example is likely to differ from one another, so this will be an unavoidable area of contention, but one that the Premier League VARs are well-trained on.
Where was it proven to be inaccurate? Surely to prove it to be inaccurate, we would need some accurate reading of the play to compare the VAR decisions against. What we have is people making (admittedly compelling to layfolk - including myself in that) arguments about frame rates, and average distance travelled by a gazelle at full speed or something. But no one making that claim has actually told us about the equipment being used at stockley park, whether they have 8K technology, 4k UHD, standard HD what the frame rate is, what speed the players actually are moving, etc
I'm not arguing that it is accurate, just questioning if the inaccuracy has actually been proven.
Nothing to do with var. It is badly drafted rules and contrary refs (and var refs).
Just because path labs can **** up blood tests, misdiagnose things by not paying attention, and lose samples, doesn't mean we should rely on the insight of the GP (or the wisdom of your old nan) to make every clinical diagnosis.
Green Cross Code Man
Wunt be druv
I accept that the rule is not var's doing. It is wrong to suggest that the outcome would be the same without var. Last season the goal would have stood so therefore var has played a part.
As someone else pointed out in the thread on the day, last season that goal would have been held up as an example of why we need VAR.
The law was that it had to be intentional, but that was not the way many people wanted it implemented, with accidental handballs being pointed to as reasons for disallowing goals (I particularly remember a newcastle goal being shown on goals on sunday where no one had noticed until looking at replays after the game that an apparent headed goal was actually scored with a shoulder - Chris Kamara making a big deal about how it shouldn't stand even though it wasn't deliberate). People would be pointing out how if it doesn't hit his arm the ball goes flying away from him and he isn't able to play in the goalscorer, ergo he massively benefited from the handball.
I think most people would be happy with a 'deliberate handball = booking and free kick, accidental handball where there is a clear and significant benefit = free kick, no booking; accidental handball with no clear benefit = no action' type rule, with the caveat that if an opponent deliberately (or in the opinion of the referee deliberately) kicks the ball at your arm there's no offence.
They're complaining about this one because it is another stick with which they can beat VAR. If the ref didn't give it, they'd be criticising the lack of consistency, and why it wasn't disallowed when 5 or 6 other 'goals' have been chalked off for less impactful handballs. The way some of our fans complained about the man utd goal not being disallowed for hitting Maguire's hand.
I think most people would be happy with that if same criteria applied to the defending team. The problem is the inequality of the rule.
But there is still an inequality of deliberate handball that goes the other way - Steve Cook was adjudged to have deliberately handled the ball to stop a goal on saturday and was sent off and is now suspended for the next game. Calvert Lewin was adjudged to have deliberately handled the ball to score a goal v us, and he only got a yellow card. That inequality is also written into the rule, and was long before VAR.
One aspect favours the defence over the attack, another aspect favours the attack over the defence. I suppose it could be argued these provide some degree of 'evening out over the course of the law book'.
That's what I'm saying, the inequality needs to be removed in both scenarios.
Then they would be wrong it is infinitely easier to wallop a ball at a defenders arm than it is to score a goal. See the womens world cup when this was actually applied. Attacking handballs have always been dragged down into the did he mean it did he not carp and it is much easier to just disallow all of them Henry still claims he didnt mean it.
Green Cross Code Man
Wunt be druv
That is untrue. It was certainly not obvious from watching the match live on TV, no-one picked up on it at all and what's more the opposition players did not complain at all. It was not clear and obvious and in my opinion was not a handball. There are plenty of others who don't believe it was deliberate as the ball hit his upper arm at the moment his stride to him into its path. Sorry, but var is a terrible imposition into the value for money and spontaneous joy that football can give. Football is now devalued and diminished.
Gazwag
5 millionth post poster
Ignoring the calculations on frame rates etc which I have seen, a clear and obvious inaccuracy can be seen on Dan Burn's goal v Bournemouth, the ball is clearly a foot or so from Mooy's foot when Burn is deemed a centimetre offside, when the free kick was taken he "may" have been onside, nobody knows because the point of time the ball was kicked is not available as it is between frames. Just like they do with cricket, there is a margin of error for LBW decisions and for those very close which might or might not have been out the on field decision is taken.
Are you suggesting that you can't differentiate between the ball hitting Declan Rice's arm and Henry deliberately (irrespective of what he claims) stopping the ball going out of play?
Do you think with VAR Henry's goal would have been disallowed?
Last edited:
Dont twist my words. The Henry goal would likely be disallowed whatever rule is applied with VAR as he clearly meant it. But there will be times when it is a lot less obvious and strickers are notoriously clever at accidently on purpose fielding the ball with their arms because there is no punishment for it unlike a defender.
Read my suggestion again, I account for this - if an opponent deliberately (or is viewed to have deliberately) kicked the ball at a player's arm there's not offence. It accounts for players walloping against a defender's arm.
It is true. Most of what you've written there is largely irrelevant. It's not about it being clear and obvious. It's not about me or anyone believing it was deliberate, in fact I don't know anyone who does think it's deliberate, but plenty of fans don't like accidental handballs that have a significant impact on the game, and allowing a player to keep possession and play a teammate in on goal is a significant impact. As such, that is the sort of accidental handball that some people would say should be considered a foul.
One of the things preventing VAR being a success is that there is no one idea for what it should be. For some people it is only for mistakes that everyone except the ref saw. But that isn't what everyone wanted. Some people wanted VAR only as challenges rather than the system we have. Some wanted the ref to view the screens at the side of the pitch, some wanted the VAR to make the decision. Some wanted any significant error to be captured. With technology as it is we can spot things the ref misses, why should he be penalised when the technology is there? Why should mistakes he make that can be easily spotted by video replays not be caught, that's what VAR promised some people.
There wasn't a unified voice crying 'we only want clear and obvious errors checked by VAR'. Any time the ref made a mistake, missed an offence, came to a decision that commentators/pundits/fans disagreed with and we could see it on the video, people were saying 'that's why we need VAR'. This sort of incident would get held up as one of those examples.