I honestly think they dont. Even Sat mcoist and whoever was with him bantered around the decisions.
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Rules VAR
- Thread starter Matt1882
- Start date
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
Not that I have much sympathy for Woolwich, and this is what they did to Vicario on every corner, but it is a blatant free-kick against Isak...
View: https://x.com/EPLBible/status/1876741936213598249
View: https://x.com/EPLBible/status/1876741936213598249
It's not about intention is about what's actually happening: and the hand is clearly moving towards the ball and changes its direction because of that. Had he not moved his hand the ball would not have hit his hand.
So you are saying a hand can be moved to stop a ball as long as it is a so-called "natural position"?
Joelinton is in perfect balance and in control of all his limbs. Moura is a sprawling mess completely out of control. Couldn't avoid the ball even if he wanted to. His was only given as handball because it had to be according to the rules. The Joelinton one was subjective. He had a chance to remove his hand from the path of the ball but in the split second he had his brain told him not to. That's the difference.
You seem to think:
- intent doesn’t matter
- the player has a duty to move their hand out the way.
Both are false.
Here’s what the laws say:
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
Joelinton‘s hand did not deliberately touch the ball.
His hand/arm did not make his body unnaturally bigger.
Therefore it was not a handball offence.
There’s nothing more to it.
Don't fall for your argument that your point is the last word and thus you are right
Are you a mind reader? Do VAR read the minds of players?
Yes, there are some cases when the intention can be "seen" (like Son tackle on Gomes a few years back) but in this case - and knowing but how Joelinton plays - no-one can say for sure intention was never to stop the ball.
Joelinton's hand did indeed make the body bigger - simply by the fact that had the hand not been there he would not have stopped the ball.
So many penalties - and yellow & red cards - are given when the player's intention did not match the outcome.
Anyway, we will just agree to disagree and the decision made by VAR is irreversible now anyway.
In your opinion. This is my only point. That it is subjective.
The lucas one wasn't. You asked the difference. The difference is that there is a matter of opinion. You think I'm wrong, I think you're wrong.
In the Lucas situation the officials had no wiggle room. It objectively lead directly to a contravention of the rules as they stood.
Most handballs given are accidental.
Although some people don't like it laws are rarely enforced by letter of the law but precident and a level of common sense. that's the difference between moura and Joelinton one is normally given and the other never.
The one at the weekend was a handball because it's normally given when a player moves his hand towards on a clearance/ breakaway.
This is the thing, you can't actually prove intent without being a mindreader.
What is plainly apparent is that him hitting the ball with his hand led directly to a goal. If the ball deflected off the referee in similar circumstances the goal wouldn't be given regardless of intent.
You wouldn't penalise the player but the goal should not have stood if any common sense prevailed.
I agree in the sense that refereeing decisions will always require judgement and that often reasonable people can disagree about contentious decisions.
However, in this case the clause about making your body unnaturally bigger is redundant if examples like this are deemed to be deliberate. When could we ever possibly rule that a player did not make a deliberate play in a natural position, if not in situations like this?
You will find that this sort of play is being refereed consistently to my point and that spurs’ fans outrage is forever going to be shouting at the clouds because the rules as they stand are that this is a textbook example of a non-handball offence.
In your opinion.
It is not normally given this season. It’s a good thing too. Too many ridiculous handballs given in seasons past.
After Moura and Dier, I’d have thought we’d be the first to be on boards with that.
And the referee. And the VAR. And the consistent decisions rendered this season.
You can ignore the law but it will not ignore you.
Why are defenders coached to put their hands behind their backs in these situations?
I was only trying to point out that there was an answer to what you thought what a rhetorical question. I'll state the difference one more time. One required judgement/opinion/subjectivity. The other did not.
Well done for getting the words 'refereed' and 'consistently' side by side in the same sentence. If you watch any game (last night's for example) they are two words that really do not belong together.
In previous years, the handball laws were more punitive (see Moura and Dier situations) and you could hit the ball against someone’s hand from close range and win a penalty.
The rules have been improved (in my opinion) and non-deliberate handballs in a natural position are no longer an offence.
So defenders don't need to put their hands behind their backs anymore, because the rules have changed.
That’s largely correct.
I would have to go and read the language in the laws but I am pretty sure there’s an exception for denying a clear goal scoring opportunity.
Let’s say a defender is on the 6 yard box and the handball stops a certain goal…
But I’m really not sure.
But to defend crosses or in general play, absolutely 100% no need.