| Law 12 principle 18:00 - Aug 30 with 2670 views | Weekender |
Player handles the ball, then shoots off target. Because the shot itself misses the target, there is no direct or immediate goal from the handball. When the shot then deflects off a defender and into the net, that deflection is treated as a distinct, intervening act by an opposing player, which is enough to break the causal chain between the handball and the goal. The own goal stands.
Had the shot been on target and the deflection merely diverted it into the net rather than away from goal, the causal chain would arguably remain unbroken, and VAR would be more likely to intervene and disallow it for the earlier handball, subject to the referee’s judgement on “immediacy.” |  |
| |  |
| Law 12 principle on 18:44 - Aug 30 with 327 views | Weekender |
| Law 12 principle on 18:41 - Aug 30 by Tristan90 |
I know that one of the issues with VAR is/was that we don't want it interfering with absolutely everything and there's the whole 'how many phases should we go back' question, but surely - surely - that is so blatantly clear and obvious error that the VAR check shouldn't just be the goal but should also be the build up. If someone's bootlace can be offside two passes before a finish and a goal gets disallowed, why does Maguire's poor finishing allow him to get away with it.
Yes, this is a post that just rewords several other posts but still! |
Thing is, it’s not an error because of the way the laws are worded. it the laws that are wrong not the officials on this occasion | |
| |
| Law 12 principle on 18:48 - Aug 30 with 312 views | Trequartista |
All that only applies if it wasn't handball but it hit a hand. It was handball! |  |
| |
| Law 12 principle on 18:48 - Aug 30 with 311 views | urbanblue |
But goals have been disallowed by VAR due to a foul in the build up often. So why not for a handball? If it had been a foul by McGuire and not a hand ball would it have still stood? |  | | |
| Law 12 principle on 18:51 - Aug 30 with 296 views | Weekender |
| Law 12 principle on 18:48 - Aug 30 by Trequartista |
All that only applies if it wasn't handball but it hit a hand. It was handball! |
Again, that is not what the laws say. Sky have of just explained it. | |
| |
| Law 12 principle on 18:52 - Aug 30 with 289 views | Trequartista |
| Law 12 principle on 18:48 - Aug 30 by urbanblue |
But goals have been disallowed by VAR due to a foul in the build up often. So why not for a handball? If it had been a foul by McGuire and not a hand ball would it have still stood? |
As I understand there is a) handball - free-kick, b) not handball, no free-kick but it hit the hand. Both rule out a goal if it is a direct shot, but only a) applies if it was not a direct shot on goal.
So VAR thought that hit a hand but wasn't handball. Which is even more baffling than the stupid rule above. | |
| |
| Law 12 principle on 18:52 - Aug 30 with 282 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Law 12 principle on 18:44 - Aug 30 by Weekender |
Thing is, it’s not an error because of the way the laws are worded. it the laws that are wrong not the officials on this occasion |
Are you saying that crossing your arms across your chest is a natural position?
He wasn’t protecting ant part of his body that might need protection? |  |
| |
| Law 12 principle on 18:53 - Aug 30 with 283 views | Weekender |
| Law 12 principle on 18:48 - Aug 30 by urbanblue |
But goals have been disallowed by VAR due to a foul in the build up often. So why not for a handball? If it had been a foul by McGuire and not a hand ball would it have still stood? |
Because interpretation of the on field officials and VAR officials was that it wasn’t a handball that’s why wasn’t ruled out. | |
| |
| Law 12 principle on 18:53 - Aug 30 with 281 views | Lamp |
The real cop out was that (in my view) that was not an accidental handball. His hand moves towards the ball in an effort to protect his face from the ball. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Law 12 principle on 18:54 - Aug 30 with 283 views | Trequartista |
| Law 12 principle on 18:51 - Aug 30 by Weekender |
Again, that is not what the laws say. Sky have of just explained it. |
Sorry when i say "It was handball" that was my opinion, not that of the referee or VAR [Post edited 30 Aug 18:55]
| |
| |
| Law 12 principle on 18:57 - Aug 30 with 261 views | urbanblue |
| Law 12 principle on 18:53 - Aug 30 by Weekender |
Because interpretation of the on field officials and VAR officials was that it wasn’t a handball that’s why wasn’t ruled out. |
But was it that though? The replays being shown were concentrating on the deflection and the fact it came off Greaves. | | | |
| Law 12 principle on 19:05 - Aug 30 with 243 views | farkenhell |
| Law 12 principle on 18:53 - Aug 30 by Lamp |
The real cop out was that (in my view) that was not an accidental handball. His hand moves towards the ball in an effort to protect his face from the ball. |
This. Surely it was a deliberate handball. |  | | |
| Law 12 principle on 19:19 - Aug 30 with 228 views | Weekender |
| Law 12 principle on 18:57 - Aug 30 by urbanblue |
But was it that though? The replays being shown were concentrating on the deflection and the fact it came off Greaves. |
That’s a good point. I assumed they had looked at the possible handball previously | |
| |
| Law 12 principle on 19:21 - Aug 30 with 222 views | snotbucket |
Big question is, how the hell has the ref missed the handball in the first place, it's just inept refereeing! | | | |
| Law 12 principle on 19:21 - Aug 30 with 220 views | Weekender |
| Law 12 principle on 18:52 - Aug 30 by Pinewoodblue |
Are you saying that crossing your arms across your chest is a natural position?
He wasn’t protecting ant part of his body that might need protection? |
But it’s not a question of whether your arms are in a natural position it’s more question of whether your arms make the silhouette bigger | |
| |
| Law 12 principle on 19:25 - Aug 30 with 218 views | TheBoyBlue |
Yet Egypt had a goal disallowed against Argentina in the WC for a shove 3 or 4 passes earlier? Make it make sense!
I guess it is a rule that won't be changed until it disadvantages a 'big' team. | |
| |
| Law 12 principle on 19:26 - Aug 30 with 211 views | Weekender |
| Law 12 principle on 19:21 - Aug 30 by snotbucket |
Big question is, how the hell has the ref missed the handball in the first place, it's just inept refereeing! |
But did he miss it?
This is the test:
Unnatural silhouette — the hand/arm made the body bigger than its natural shape for that movement, so the player took the risk of being hit.
His arms were across his body, so the silhouette wasn’t unnatural or larger | |
| |
| Law 12 principle on 19:32 - Aug 30 with 188 views | OldFart71 |
Immediacy ? Don't you mean idiocy. Too many open to interpretation and whether VAR intervenes. Of course they won't , they probably had a home win on their acca. | | | |
| Law 12 principle on 19:36 - Aug 30 with 181 views | snotbucket |
| Law 12 principle on 19:26 - Aug 30 by Weekender |
But did he miss it?
This is the test:
Unnatural silhouette — the hand/arm made the body bigger than its natural shape for that movement, so the player took the risk of being hit.
His arms were across his body, so the silhouette wasn’t unnatural or larger |
His arms weren't in a natural position. | | | |
| Law 12 principle on 19:39 - Aug 30 with 173 views | Weekender |
| Law 12 principle on 19:36 - Aug 30 by snotbucket |
His arms weren't in a natural position. |
Totally irrelevant - see above | |
| |
| Law 12 principle on 19:40 - Aug 30 with 179 views | Trequartista |
| Law 12 principle on 19:19 - Aug 30 by Weekender |
That’s a good point. I assumed they had looked at the possible handball previously |
Can VAR actually rule on part 1 ("was it handball?") ?
It says it was accidental handball but is that just a reference to the referee's verdict? I'm beginning to think from the way it concentrated on part 2 ("was it a direct shot on goal") that VAR can't overrule the accidental handball decision?
Surely if Maguire catches the ball, plops it down and shoots VAR can overrule that if the referee misses it and gives accidental handball? [Post edited 30 Aug 19:45]
| |
| |
| Law 12 principle on 19:45 - Aug 30 with 168 views | Weekender |
| Law 12 principle on 19:40 - Aug 30 by Trequartista |
Can VAR actually rule on part 1 ("was it handball?") ?
It says it was accidental handball but is that just a reference to the referee's verdict? I'm beginning to think from the way it concentrated on part 2 ("was it a direct shot on goal") that VAR can't overrule the accidental handball decision?
Surely if Maguire catches the ball, plops it down and shoots VAR can overrule that if the referee misses it and gives accidental handball? [Post edited 30 Aug 19:45]
|
VAR can go back through the whole attacking move that led to the goal, no fixed limit. It stops once the defending team gets clear control of the ball, a clean clearance, or a settled pass or dribble. Handball, shot, deflection, goal, with no clean defensive touch in between, all counts as one phase, so checking the handball is fair game.
I had assumed that they checked the handball and the shot, but the earlier post was right the sky TV feed only showed the shot footage | |
| |
| Law 12 principle on 19:47 - Aug 30 with 168 views | Trequartista |
| Law 12 principle on 19:45 - Aug 30 by Weekender |
VAR can go back through the whole attacking move that led to the goal, no fixed limit. It stops once the defending team gets clear control of the ball, a clean clearance, or a settled pass or dribble. Handball, shot, deflection, goal, with no clean defensive touch in between, all counts as one phase, so checking the handball is fair game.
I had assumed that they checked the handball and the shot, but the earlier post was right the sky TV feed only showed the shot footage |
That's what i assumed, and of course Egypt had that goal disallowed against Argentina as someone else pointed out way before the ball went in.
So it remains to be seen whether VAR actually looked at the handball, it will be interesting to hear the VAR commentary. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
