[Football] Handball?

[dazzer6666]

The telling sign there was not one Spurs defender called for hand ball, the replays are non conclusive and there is no way the Lino spots that from his position to make a definitive call.

…..hence not a ‘clear and obvious error’ - if the lino hadn’t flagged the goal would have probably stood. The whole thing is bollocks either way because of how it’s implemented.

 

[dazzer6666]

And the linesman agreed that the ball hit Mitoma's shoulder, he indicated exactly where the ball hit - which was inconsistent with the decision he gave.

He was clearly indicating sleeve - so he thought handball

 

[Blues Guitarist]

He was clearly indicating sleeve - so he thought handball

He indicated his sleeve above the armpit - not handball.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Leeds v Liv: So a crystal clear handball by Trent AA to win the ball is allowed by VAR in the build up to Liverpool's first goal - whereas Mitoma's shoulder control against Tottenham gets ruled out...

VAR is utterly bonkers!

Depends on the badge on the shirt.

 

[dejavuatbtn]

The object of VAR should be to get the important refereeing decisions right. If the ref doesn’t see something that has an impact on a goalscoring chance, or an injury to a player, then VAR should have a rule book that determines whether or not something has been missed and bring it to the refs attention. It should end up being fair. That’s all us fans want.
What we appear to have is a bunch of people, who may or may not have an interest in the result, sitting at a bank of screens who randomly have a look at them and make decisions, or not, on the hoof. They don’t seem to have any accountability and their mistakes can’t be corrected retrospectively.
The whole thing is a shambles. The clubs have the clout to get this resolved - I have no idea why they don’t hold the Premier League to account.

 

[dazzer6666]

He indicated his sleeve above the armpit - not handball.

He didn’t - he flagged for handball, then pointed to a position on his arm (twice) that indicated handball……whether he points to the right place on his arm is a different question (no way was the ball that near Mitoma’s elbow) but he didn’t make a clear and obvious error

 

[Washboard Didgets]

All this thread has done is make me more annoyed about Welbeck's goal being disallowed.

The on-field decision was to give the goal, and VAR overruled it as a 'clear and obvious' handball. Yet no camera angle I've seen has shown the ball touching anything other than Mac Allister's hip...

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Leeds v Liv: So a crystal clear handball by Trent AA to win the ball is allowed by VAR in the build up to Liverpool's first goal - whereas Mitoma's shoulder control against Tottenham gets ruled out...

VAR is utterly bonkers!

*cough* it's the officials *cough*

The reason given yesterday was that the phase of play had moved on. Yes....to a goal.

 

[dazzer6666]

All this thread has done is make me more annoyed about Welbeck's goal being disallowed.

The on-field decision was to give the goal, and VAR overruled it as a 'clear and obvious' handball. Yet no camera angle I've seen has shown the ball touching anything other than Mac Allister's hip...

100% this……..not seen a single angle that indicates anything more than even a possible but unconfirmed very light brush against his hand. It hit his hip. Goal was given initially so should have stood.

 

[southstandandy]

Leeds v Liv: So a crystal clear handball by Trent AA to win the ball is allowed by VAR in the build up to Liverpool's first goal - whereas Mitoma's shoulder control against Tottenham gets ruled out...

VAR is utterly bonkers!

 

[Bodian]

Yes, I think the decision was incorrect. Don't get me wrong. I also think the goalposts for a clear and obvious error have moved considerably. I think if there is any argument for the decision being correct on field (the ball hit Mitoma on the sleeve and that is the borderline and it directly led to a goal) they have decided to stick with the on-field decision.

Similarly for TAA, whilst it clearly hit his arm, you could argue that once you factor in distance and that it didn't directly lead to a goal, then you have enough doubt to say that it could go either way so stick with the on-field decision. I don't like it, but ultimately it's the same decision being made by VAR across multiple games.

And the MacAllister/Welbeck goal?

 

[Flagship]

Mitoma got a two handed push in the back, in the penalty area, so either the goal should have stood or a penalty kick awarded with the defender being dismissed.
VAR fukked that up good and proper.
McAllister was hit on the hip.
Trent AA was a clear handball and protocol like - it's too far before the goal was scored shouldn't enter the equation it was handball simple. It was no more than about 4 seconds between the handball and the goal.

 

[Triggaaar]

Ref said that Trent AAs was not handball. VAR said that it was not a clear and obvious error. Which it wasn't.

Did the ref actually say that it wasn't, at the time, or do you mean his inaction means he thought it wasn't?

And it was handball, so it's clearly and obvious error.

 

[Triggaaar]

I hate to say it but yep, this is correct for both Mitoma and TAA.

Ultimately, Darren Cann shouldn't have flagged for Mitoma and VAR would've come to the same conclusion that it was a contentious decision and therefore not a clear and obvious error and the goal would have been awarded. But he flagged.

Last night, TAA had a contentious handball decision that wasn't given and because it wasn't a clear and obvious error, it wasn't overturned. They're the same decisions from VAR but with different results.

I understand Mitoma's, but Trent's was clear and obvious. The ref didn't see it properly, VAR did.

 

[Triggaaar]

Yes, I think the decision was incorrect. Don't get me wrong. I also think the goalposts for a clear and obvious error have moved considerably. I think if there is any argument for the decision being correct on field (the ball hit Mitoma on the sleeve and that is the borderline and it directly led to a goal) they have decided to stick with the on-field decision.

So MacAllister's goal should have stood then.

 

[Triggaaar]

Then fact that just on this single thread there have been different interpretations of what the handball rule actually is highlights what a mess they have made of the handball rule, let alone how rubbish VAR is at then interpreting it.

The graphic shown earlier said the rule has been updated/made clearer to say that it's from the armpit, not the sleeve. What's confusing is that we had previously been told it was the sleeve line (based on a std shirt, not an oversized one etc). So if it's the armpit, fine, but it's obviously been confusing.

But even if that's the case and made clear, it still doesn't excuse the Trent handball, or explain the MacAllister one (unless the VAR footage showed the ball hitting his arm, which wasn't the case in the footage I saw).

 

[kevo]

This was definitely not handball and definitely not a penalty. According to Attwell and Salisbury.

 

[Albion my Albion]

Baseball?

 

[Normal Rob]

Did the ref actually say that it wasn't, at the time, or do you mean his inaction means he thought it wasn't?

And it was handball, so it's clearly and obvious error.

I disagree. But it's Liverpool, so I also don't really care.

 

[One Teddy Maybank]

This was definitely not handball and definitely not a penalty. According to Attwell and Salisbury.View attachment 159851

Although I accept it was accidental, the way football is interpreted today it is handball.

That is also why Salisbury particularly should not be allowed anywhere near the PL.