[Albion] Sanchez handball/red card?

[Swansman]

Nice for the bedwetters to have something to enjoy in what was an otherwise slow day for them

I dont see anyone wetting any beds here?

 

[Triggaaar]

I dont get this. How are people looking at this image and seeing it all outside the box? That is the var image that was shown. We didnt get away with one, it was the correct decision, although it was close

If that is really when he first touched the ball, then it looks as if a fair bit of the ball is over the line, but (despite my comment about angles above) other images look very different.

 

[Milano]

I’ll be quite surprised if one of our ‘first team ready’ signings this summer is not a keeper.

 

[DavePage]

maybe a the end of the day he should have just kicked the bloody thing into touch

 

[zefarelly]

I was genuinely shocked that he wasn't sent off. I'd be absolutely fuming if I was a Grimsby fan.

You're absolutely fuming all the time, unless you're eating pizza

 

[Bodian]

maybe a the end of the day he should have just kicked the bloody thing into touch

Exactly. And also, I do wonder whether it could be said that even if did handle it outside the box that it would have been 'denying a clear goal-scoring opportunity' as the attacker would have had to both get the ball, and get it round Sanchez before actually having a scoring opportunity.

 

[Eeyore]

I was genuinely shocked that he wasn't sent off. I'd be absolutely fuming if I was a Grimsby fan.

My understanding is that it would more likely been a yellow. It is treated like any other handball offence and their appears to be discretion applied. The question is if he denied an obvious goalscoring opporunity.

I'm not sure how VAR concluded that he didn't handle outside the box.

 

[jcdenton08]

My understanding is that it would more likely been a yellow. It is treated like any other handball offence and their appears to be discretion applied. The question is if he denied an obvious goalscoring opporunity.

I'm not sure how VAR concluded that he didn't handle outside the box.

I view it more like a court trial. They don’t always necessarily think they’re innocent, but there wasn’t evidence available to prove his guilt.

 

[nwgull]

I dont get this. How are people looking at this image and seeing it all outside the box? That is the var image that was shown. We didnt get away with one, it was the correct decision, although it was close.
View attachment 158539

Me neither. It’s like people want it to be the case that Sanchez should have got a red so that he can be called a liability.

The above freeze is from the in-line camera. The angle of the other cameras gives a misleading view.

 

[Bodian]

My understanding is that it would more likely been a yellow. It is treated like any other handball offence and their appears to be discretion applied. The question is if he denied an obvious goalscoring opporunity.

I'm not sure how VAR concluded that he didn't handle outside the box.

Maybe VAR decided it wasn't an obvious goal scoring opportunity - and therefore not a red card offence. They couldn't then say to the ref - 'by the way, it was still handball and a yellow and a free-kick' - that's not VAR's remit.

 

[Swansman]

Exactly. And also, I do wonder whether it could be said that even if did handle it outside the box that it would have been 'denying a clear goal-scoring opportunity' as the attacker would have had to both get the ball, and get it round Sanchez before actually having a scoring opportunity.

If the ball is less than a meter from the striker and the goalie picks it up with his hands outside the penalty area, it will always be seen as denying a clear goal-scoring opportunity. That is certain. The reason for their decision must have been that they couldnt 100% be sure that it was outside and therefore went with the refs decision.

 

[nwgull]

Maybe VAR decided it wasn't an obvious goal scoring opportunity - and therefore not a red card offence. They couldn't then say to the ref - 'by the way, it was still handball and a yellow and a free-kick' - that's not VAR's remit.

More likely that VAR looked at the replay from the camera in line with the edge of the box showing that the ball was just over the line.

 

[Acker79]

This is the law:

Handling the ball​

For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of​

the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a​

player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence.​

It is an offence if a player:​

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the​

hand/arm towards the ball​

• touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body​

unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body​

unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence​

of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By​

having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their​

hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised​

• scores in the opponents’ goal:​

• directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the​

goalkeeper​

• immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental​

The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other​

player outside the penalty area. If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their​

penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but​

there is no disciplinary sanction. However, if the offence is playing the ball a​

second time (with or without the hand/arm) after a restart before it touches​

another player, the goalkeeper must be sanctioned if the offence stops a​

promising attack or denies an opponent or the opposing team a goal or an​

obvious goal-scoring opportunity.​

Further on it says:

An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area,​

commits any of the following offences:​

• controls the ball with the hand/arm for more than six seconds before releasing​

it​

• touches the ball with the hand/arm after releasing it and before it has touched​

another player​

• touches the ball with the hand/arm, unless the goalkeeper has clearly kicked​

or attempted to kick the ball to release it into play, after:​

• it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate​

• receiving it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate​

Further on it says:

Sending-off offences​

A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following​

offences is sent off:​

• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by​

a handball offence (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)​

​

To me, that reads like where the goalkeeper is is important - if he's in the area he can handle the ball. And there is a certain logic to that - how can you punish a goalkeeper for handling the ball if he is inside his penalty box? But, I will say I don't think it is especially clear for situations like today's, but I'm pretty sure we've been on the other side where a goalkeeper was stood at the edge of his box and grabbed the ball from the air before it was 'in' the penalty box and this was the explanation then. (We've also had it with the keeper sliding out of the box, but because the ball was in the box it wasn't an offense because that's where the contact was, so )

My understanding is that it would more likely been a yellow. It is treated like any other handball offence and their appears to be discretion applied. The question is if he denied an obvious goalscoring opporunity.

I'm not sure how VAR concluded that he didn't handle outside the box.

If it would have been a yellow, why did VAR take a look at it? VAR can only look at goals, penalties, sendings off or mistaken identities. That VAR looked at it means it would have been a red card (denying a goal scoring opportunity).

 

[ConfusedGloryHunter]

On a slight tangent it gets my goat when keepers kick the ball from hand but seem to carry it out of the area before kicking it for an extra step or two.

 

[Swansman]

This is the law:

Handling the ball​

For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of​

the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a​

player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence.​

It is an offence if a player:​

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the​

hand/arm towards the ball​

• touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body​

unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body​

unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence​

of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By​

having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their​

hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised​

• scores in the opponents’ goal:​

• directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the​

goalkeeper​

• immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental​

The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other​

player outside the penalty area. If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their​

penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but​

there is no disciplinary sanction. However, if the offence is playing the ball a​

second time (with or without the hand/arm) after a restart before it touches​

another player, the goalkeeper must be sanctioned if the offence stops a​

promising attack or denies an opponent or the opposing team a goal or an​

obvious goal-scoring opportunity.​

Further on it says:

An indirect free kick is awarded if a goalkeeper, inside their penalty area,​

commits any of the following offences:​

• controls the ball with the hand/arm for more than six seconds before releasing​

it​

• touches the ball with the hand/arm after releasing it and before it has touched​

another player​

• touches the ball with the hand/arm, unless the goalkeeper has clearly kicked​

or attempted to kick the ball to release it into play, after:​

• it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate​

• receiving it directly from a throw-in taken by a team-mate​

Further on it says:

Sending-off offences​

A player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following​

offences is sent off:​

• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by​

a handball offence (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)​

​

To me, that reads like where the goalkeeper is is important - if he's in the area he can handle the ball. And there is a certain logic to that - how can you punish a goalkeeper for handling the ball if he is inside his penalty box? But, I will say I don't think it is especially clear for situations like today's, but I'm pretty sure we've been on the other side where a goalkeeper was stood at the edge of his box and grabbed the ball from the air before it was 'in' the penalty box and this was the explanation then. (We've also had it with the keeper sliding out of the box, but because the ball was in the box it wasn't an offense because that's where the contact was, so )


If it would have been a yellow, why did VAR take a look at it? VAR can only look at goals, penalties, sendings off or mistaken identities. That VAR looked at it means it would have been a red card (denying a goal scoring opportunity).

Yes he's allowed to handle the ball inside the penalty area.

He's not allowed to handle the ball outside the penalty area. The goalies body, legs and soul could be on Jupiter - as long as his hands touch the ball outside the penalty area, its an offense.

 

[sydney]

very close call ....went our way , i think another referee gives it , Gillett had a decent game.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

Was in East Upper and it looked very very much like handball to me in real time. I was convinced.

 

[The Fits]

Was clearly outside the box but clear also VAR didn't have an angle. Presumably they don't get every single camera which seems a bit odd..
The Bob we know and love. There's a big difference between calm and wreckless. Very lucky boy especially after being dropped.

 

[nwgull]

Was clearly outside the box but clear also VAR didn't have an angle. Presumably they don't get every single camera which seems a bit odd..
The Bob we know and love. There's a big difference between calm and wreckless. Very lucky boy especially after being dropped.

No it wasn’t. The replay from the camera position directly in-line with the edge of the box shows this.

 

[Acker79]

Yes he's allowed to handle the ball inside the penalty area.

He's not allowed to handle the ball outside the penalty area.

He wasn't outside the penalty box. That's the point.

The goalies body, legs and soul could be on Jupiter - as long as his hands touch the ball outside the penalty area, its an offense.

That's not what the law says. The law says "The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area." it doesn't specify that where the ball is, is important (for situations like this, it would be quite helpful). It does, however, specify in multiple places, that the location of the goalkeeper is important.