Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Newcastle Penalty
- Thread starter Coxovi
- Start date
Nobby Cybergoat
Well-known member
- Jul 19, 2021
- 8,632
So handball.
What does the law say?
What does the directive from UEFA (referenced above) say?
What does Howard Webb / PGMOL recommend it's interpreted?
Where does the law even come from? What a mess. No wonder nobody knows what the rules are. No wonder refs are struggling with it.
There's only one thing i'm certain, is that the game needs far fewer penalties.
Handball should be reduced to covering situations where someone has handled on purpose (very rare) and artificially made their body bigger to stop a cross or shot etc. Any hand contact where someone is jumping normally to win a header, or to keep balance should not be handball.
If the ref is in doubt, benefit to the defender
What does the law say?
What does the directive from UEFA (referenced above) say?
What does Howard Webb / PGMOL recommend it's interpreted?
Where does the law even come from? What a mess. No wonder nobody knows what the rules are. No wonder refs are struggling with it.
There's only one thing i'm certain, is that the game needs far fewer penalties.
Handball should be reduced to covering situations where someone has handled on purpose (very rare) and artificially made their body bigger to stop a cross or shot etc. Any hand contact where someone is jumping normally to win a header, or to keep balance should not be handball.
If the ref is in doubt, benefit to the defender
I would love to see a ref ignore the var advice after visiting the screen
deletebeepbeepbeep
Well-known member
- May 12, 2009
- 21,806
Not you hopefully
Write, right or rite.
I'd like to say that was intentional but it would be a lee (lie).
Hotchilidog
Well-known member
- Jan 24, 2009
- 9,130
On the one hand it's hilarious to see the Saudis on the end of a bit of injustice (albeit to an equally squalid outfit), but in all seriousness did that ball to hand collision merit the defacto award of a goal to PSG, imo it's a resounding no.
As has been pointed above handball should be given for the playing of the ball with the hand to gain an advantage, pretty much the rule we grew up with as kids.
Again as has been stated in previous posts VAR now seems hellbent on finding the flimsiest excuse to deny what are perfectly good goals and equally hellbent on finding an excuse to award a goal winning opportunity in the form of a penalty kick for equally flimsy reasons.
The VAR genie is now out of the bottle but the authorities are not in control of it. Its application is still too varied and subjective creating as much dispute as good old fashioned on field decisions.
Good post.
Nobby Cybergoat
Well-known member
- Jul 19, 2021
- 8,632
This is well put
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
Context always matters. Context of the opening post is that they shouldn't whinge because we got the same decision against Luton. But that's daft, the context of the match matters.
PSG are currently one of the biggest sides in the world. They've got Mbappe playing for them. So what they started in the 70's? Sheffield Wednesday started 100 years earlier and despite being MASSIVE are not one of the biggest sides in the world.
Nobby Cybergoat
Well-known member
- Jul 19, 2021
- 8,632
One of the many reasons VAR should be scrapped is that the temptation for the VAR official to "check the club badge" will always be too strong.
It's not like we're going to suddenly get a new generation of much better officials through. If anything, we have to assume they are going to get worse as the profession gets ever less attractive due to the massive pressure they get, the abuse, death threats etc.
When VAR is abolished people will re-accept dubious but honestly given onfield decisions once more. Of course they won't like them. But they will have to acknowledge in their venting that reffing is tough and imprecise. VAR came with a prospectus of precision. Now they don't get them, the conspiracy theories rise in importance. (In this instance some of the conspiracy theories in my mind are very likely true). Look at the prevalence of the word "corruption" now. The jibe used to be that the ref is blind, the ref is too fat to keep up. Occasionally you'd also get, the ref has got a tenner on the game type chants, but nobody really thought it true. Now the allegation is institutional corruption and people believe it
It's not like we're going to suddenly get a new generation of much better officials through. If anything, we have to assume they are going to get worse as the profession gets ever less attractive due to the massive pressure they get, the abuse, death threats etc.
When VAR is abolished people will re-accept dubious but honestly given onfield decisions once more. Of course they won't like them. But they will have to acknowledge in their venting that reffing is tough and imprecise. VAR came with a prospectus of precision. Now they don't get them, the conspiracy theories rise in importance. (In this instance some of the conspiracy theories in my mind are very likely true). Look at the prevalence of the word "corruption" now. The jibe used to be that the ref is blind, the ref is too fat to keep up. Occasionally you'd also get, the ref has got a tenner on the game type chants, but nobody really thought it true. Now the allegation is institutional corruption and people believe it
This - the punishment is ludicrously harsh for the crime.
Nobby Cybergoat
Well-known member
- Jul 19, 2021
- 8,632
I don't agree with your point.
Context always matters. Context of the opening post is that they shouldn't whinge because we got the same decision against Luton. But that's daft, the context of the match matters.
PSG are currently one of the biggest sides in the world. They've got Mbappe playing for them. So what they started in the 70's? Sheffield Wednesday started 100 years earlier and despite being MASSIVE are not one of the biggest sides in the world.
The laws should be applied the same regardless of whether it's a world cup final or a pub match on Sunday morning.
Nobby Cybergoat
Well-known member
- Jul 19, 2021
- 8,632
What crime? The defender was looking to defend normally.
Badger Boy
Mr Badger
- Jan 28, 2016
- 3,658
It's one of the worst VAR decisions in the history of the technology. Absolutely pathetic.
Well quite.
mejonaNO12 aka riskit
Well-known member
I have to answer this with two different hats on.
Hat 1. "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA unlucky PIF PATROL"
and now Hat 2: "That's not a penalty. It would have been an appalling decision at the best of times, but for the ref to determine it is a 'clear and obvious error' is truly terrifying"
Hat 1. "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA unlucky PIF PATROL"
and now Hat 2: "That's not a penalty. It would have been an appalling decision at the best of times, but for the ref to determine it is a 'clear and obvious error' is truly terrifying"
We have. We saw it in the first full season with VAR when the ref was advised to look again at a March challenge v Tottenham. He stuck by his original decision of no foul (though most thought it was). And Earlier this season, when the ref was advised to look at a penalty shout for us v Marseille, and he decided we committed a foul before the penalty challenge instead (VAR wouldn't have called him to the screen for that foul, it can only decide on penalties/goals/red cards).
Kalimantan Gull
Well-known member
Oh I agree with you, that wasn't my point.
The point was you WILL feel worse having had that decision against you in a world cup final than a pub match on a sunday morning
deletebeepbeepbeep
Well-known member
- May 12, 2009
- 21,806
There was talk on R4 this morning that VAR may be extended to include throw-ins FFS.
As for last night's decision. It was "Smug Eddie and the Saudis".
Throw ins represent very marginal gain for the team awarded, if any gain at all. That would be ridiculous.