VAR

This Forum is the main messageboard to discuss all things Claret and Blue and beyond
dsr
Posts: 11314
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 3309 times
Has Liked: 1390 times

Re: VAR

Post by dsr » Sun Feb 23, 2020 12:22 am

nil_desperandum wrote:
Sat Feb 22, 2020 10:06 pm
As I understand the handball rule this season if the ball hits the hand or arm - intentional or not - and it leads to a goal then the goal has to be ruled out and a free-kick given where the incident took place. So as I see it Mike Dean might not have adjudged it to be deliberate handball and didn't give a penalty, and had the ball then gone out of play VAR might have stuck with Dean's decision,(no penalty) but since the handball led directly to a goal then once the VAR check confirmed that it was handball then there was no option but to bring play back to where the infringement took place. On this occasion - unfortunately for Bournemouth it was in their own box, but there was no decision for VAR to make: it was a handball and it led to them scoring a goal The VAR ref didn't have any discretion in the matter.
That's the rule, but in this case it's irrelevant. The VAR review was over whether Burnley should have been given a penalty for handball, and the answer was yes.

What would have happened for a purely accidental handball, I don't know. It's a paradox - the ref should disallow the goal because the ball came off the arm during the attack, but then again he should not award a free kick (penalty) for an accidental handball by a defender. Drop ball maybe?

But in this case it is irrelevant. It was deliberate handball. There is no case to say that it came off his shoulder, because you cannot extend your shoulder by stretching the arm out; the shoulder does not change position in that way. If his arm had been by his side, the ball would have gone past or just skimmed his shoulder; he blocked the ball by extending his arm, not by extending his shoulder, so the ball must have hit his arm.

Long Time Lurker
Posts: 1155
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 8:12 pm
Been Liked: 545 times
Has Liked: 369 times

Re: VAR

Post by Long Time Lurker » Sun Feb 23, 2020 12:33 am

The bigger problem with VAR is that it sows seeds of doubt. When the potential for a decision arises some players seem to switch off slightly or shift their focus towards appealing for that decision instead of sticking to the primary task of playing the ball.

In respect to the second hand ball Bournemouth kept their focus and caught us on the break. Even though the decision went our way in the end it doesn't paper over the fact that they caught us with our pants down.

That needs to be addressed. When a player is near to the ball they have to maintain their focus and keep playing. They can wave their arms about if they feel like it, but they have to keep concentrating on the task in hand. The players who aren't in the thick of the action can badger the ref or everyone can wait until the game breaks for a pause.

Somethingfishy
Posts: 1035
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:03 pm
Been Liked: 371 times
Has Liked: 289 times
Location: Padiham

Re: VAR

Post by Somethingfishy » Sun Feb 23, 2020 12:36 am

MOTD cleared it up for me. On both occasions it hits the red Mansion logo on their shirts. This is at the very top of their arms.The bit they can move. That to me is handball. Too low for the shoulder. Harsh on Billing but the new rule is there now. The Smith one is more obvious..he knew what he was doing. Amazing how people see it differently and despite the clear close up and freeze framing on MOTD Keown and Wright thought shoulder. Definitely not in my opinion. Top of the arm. The area where you have the BCG at school.
This user liked this post: dsr

tim_noone
Posts: 15009
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:12 pm
Been Liked: 3856 times
Has Liked: 13368 times

Re: VAR

Post by tim_noone » Sun Feb 23, 2020 12:42 am

Somethingfishy wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 12:36 am
MOTD cleared it up for me. On both occasions it hits the red Mansion logo on their shirts. This is at the very top of their arms.The bit they can move. That to me is handball. Too low for the shoulder. Harsh on Billing but the new rule is there now. The Smith one is more obvious..he knew what he was doing. Amazing how people see it differently and despite the clear close up and freeze framing on MOTD Keown and Wright thought shoulder. Definitely not in my opinion. Top of the arm. The area where you have the BCG at school.
And Ben Mee at Southampton...could you clarify that one?

Somethingfishy
Posts: 1035
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:03 pm
Been Liked: 371 times
Has Liked: 289 times
Location: Padiham

Re: VAR

Post by Somethingfishy » Sun Feb 23, 2020 12:48 am

tim_noone wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 12:42 am
And Ben Mee at Southampton...could you clarity that one?
Sure. If it had hit him as we were attacking..the goal would have been ruled out..but as he was defending it then becomes up to the ref and VAR to decide if there was any intent or how close it was to his body. The Ben Mee one could have gone either way to be honest. He has his arm by his side but is jumping..he was also quite close to the ball as it was hit so had little time to react. I think the correct decision on the balance of it but if it had been given it would have been difficult to argue.
Smith watched the cross come over and decided to wave his arm at it for some bizarre reason and it hits his upper arm. Very different situations.

tim_noone
Posts: 15009
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2017 8:12 pm
Been Liked: 3856 times
Has Liked: 13368 times

Re: VAR

Post by tim_noone » Sun Feb 23, 2020 12:56 am

Very similar situations...I was very surprised at the Ben mee one....tbh. but I'll take all the good fortune we get.

Somethingfishy
Posts: 1035
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 8:03 pm
Been Liked: 371 times
Has Liked: 289 times
Location: Padiham

Re: VAR

Post by Somethingfishy » Sun Feb 23, 2020 1:03 am

Only similar in that it hits their arms. Ben Mee had the ball hit at him from a matter of yards and had no time to get his arm (by his side) out of the way...if we both agree he didnt move it towards the ball? I certainly don't think he did.
Smith watched the ball come right across in the air. He had the time to knit a jumper before it got to him and it still hit his arm. That is the difference.Nailed on for me.
Ben Mee one could have gone either way the way things are...so yes a little good fortune there.

Holtyclaret
Posts: 835
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:35 pm
Been Liked: 283 times
Has Liked: 1071 times
Location: Wantage

Re: VAR

Post by Holtyclaret » Sun Feb 23, 2020 2:04 am

FactualFrank wrote:
Sat Feb 22, 2020 6:01 pm
The penalty that we were given and scored looked to have come off the shoulder, so we got fortunate there.
Reverse angle on tv replay showed clearly it was top of his arm but main replay it looked like his shoulder blade. Correct decision but shows how different camera angles could result in various decisions and that var is flawed.

Claretlad
Posts: 627
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:52 pm
Been Liked: 161 times
Has Liked: 122 times
Location: Burnley

Re: VAR

Post by Claretlad » Sun Feb 23, 2020 7:00 am

We should have had another penalty when their No3 Steve Cook swipes his right hand at the ball to clear it from their penalty area...

beddie
Posts: 2265
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:10 pm
Been Liked: 551 times
Has Liked: 87 times

Re: VAR

Post by beddie » Sun Feb 23, 2020 8:05 am

If Jugs ears doesn't know where the shoulder starts or the arm then if he'd like to call me I'll glady show him, it's not that hard. What a prat.

cricketfieldclarets
Posts: 19742
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:59 pm
Been Liked: 7745 times
Has Liked: 10623 times

Re: VAR

Post by cricketfieldclarets » Sun Feb 23, 2020 9:16 am

Long Time Lurker wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 12:33 am
The bigger problem with VAR is that it sows seeds of doubt. When the potential for a decision arises some players seem to switch off slightly or shift their focus towards appealing for that decision instead of sticking to the primary task of playing the ball.

In respect to the second hand ball Bournemouth kept their focus and caught us on the break. Even though the decision went our way in the end it doesn't paper over the fact that they caught us with our pants down.

That needs to be addressed. When a player is near to the ball they have to maintain their focus and keep playing. They can wave their arms about if they feel like it, but they have to keep concentrating on the task in hand. The players who aren't in the thick of the action can badger the ref or everyone can wait until the game breaks for a pause.
I agree. But it’s human instinct. We used to get told to play to the whistle. But emotion kicks in.

Duffer_
Posts: 1509
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 am
Been Liked: 494 times
Has Liked: 889 times

Re: VAR

Post by Duffer_ » Sun Feb 23, 2020 9:45 am

MOTD didn't show the hand to ball swipe from Cook. That was a pen imo.

It hit Billing's shoulder - goal should have stood.

I thought Smith handballed when I saw it live. It was an unnatural movement towards the ball. We stopped play to appeal. Having seen it back it is more shoulder than arm and certainly not a clear and obvious mistake. Should have gone 1-1.

Having said all that, we deserved to win.

UTC!

Firthy
Posts: 3199
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:04 am
Been Liked: 1040 times
Has Liked: 191 times

Re: VAR

Post by Firthy » Sun Feb 23, 2020 9:55 am

Having seen some of the VAR decisions on MOTD it's clear and obvious that it's only as good as the people reviewing the footage and is open to interpretation. Both of our incidents could have gone against us because they were so close to the top of the arm, the first I thought was very harsh on Bournemouth but the second was clearer because he puts his arm back when he didn't need to.

The two incidents in the Leicester/Man City game were far more obvious handballs but the reviewers decided they were accidental because they were defenders. The difference in the first Bournemouth non goal is that it was an attacker so viewed differently, the only doubt is wether it hit the very top of his arm or corner of the shoulder but no different to judging fractional offsides where it's literally inches that are being judged.

The stamp in the Chelsea/Spurs game is something else, how the hell he wasn't sent off I'll never know. Wether it was intentional or not it was a red card all day long and no interpretation needed.

All VAR does is bring a completely different element to the game and unfortunately it's more to the detriment than the good. Spoils the flow of the game, takes too long, takes the away the excitement of scoring for both players and fans and is causing more controversy than it's fixing.

nil_desperandum
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1494 times
Has Liked: 2908 times

Re: VAR

Post by nil_desperandum » Sun Feb 23, 2020 3:41 pm

dsr wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 12:22 am
That's the rule, but in this case it's irrelevant. The VAR review was over whether Burnley should have been given a penalty for handball,
With respect, how do you know why Kavanagh and Dean were checking for handball? It could be that they both agreed that it was accidental and therefore "No penalty", but they might have decided that they would have to check to see if the "handball" led directly to a goal, which it obviously did, so once Kavanagh looked at the replays and concluded that it did hit the upper arm (not the shoulder) it de facto became a penalty check. (Obviously, as another poster pointed out, when the new rule came in that said accidental handball should be penalised if it leads directly to a goal they never foresaw such an incident whereby a handball in your own area would result in a quick counter-attack and a goal just a few seconds later.)
If I had been in Kavanagh's shoes, I would have simply said to Dean, "I don't need to decide whether this was deliberate or not. It came of his upper arm so the goal has to be disallowed. Bring play back for the handball, which unfortunately in this case means double jeopardy for Bournemouth - "penalty kick""
It would be interesting, (and much better for the spectator) to be able to hear the officials discussing the VAR check as in Rugby and Cricket.

taio
Posts: 6097
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
Been Liked: 1787 times
Has Liked: 148 times

Re: VAR

Post by taio » Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:00 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 3:41 pm
With respect, how do you know why Kavanagh and Dean were checking for handball? It could be that they both agreed that it was accidental and therefore "No penalty", but they might have decided that they would have to check to see if the "handball" led directly to a goal, which it obviously did, so once Kavanagh looked at the replays and concluded that it did hit the upper arm (not the shoulder) it de facto became a penalty check. (Obviously, as another poster pointed out, when the new rule came in that said accidental handball should be penalised if it leads directly to a goal they never foresaw such an incident whereby a handball in your own area would result in a quick counter-attack and a goal just a few seconds later.)
If I had been in Kavanagh's shoes, I would have simply said to Dean, "I don't need to decide whether this was deliberate or not. It came of his upper arm so the goal has to be disallowed. Bring play back for the handball, which unfortunately in this case means double jeopardy for Bournemouth - "penalty kick""
It would be interesting, (and much better for the spectator) to be able to hear the officials discussing the VAR check as in Rugby and Cricket.
You're probably overthinking it. It was rightly awarded as a penalty irrespective of what followed.

nil_desperandum
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1494 times
Has Liked: 2908 times

Re: VAR

Post by nil_desperandum » Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:11 pm

taio wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:00 pm
You're probably overthinking it. It was rightly awarded as a penalty irrespective of what followed.
Actually I think the reverse is true. I'm simplifying it.
No point checking for an LBW in cricket if it's already proved to be a "no ball", so in this case if the ball is judged to have hit the arm then it's penalty whether you consider it to be deliberate or not because the "handball" led directly to a goal. It's as simple as that in my book.
(And in that respect Bournemouth were unlucky. Had they failed to score then I honestly don't think that VAR would have over-ruled Dean's decision not to award a penalty. And that's the important element as I see it).

taio
Posts: 6097
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
Been Liked: 1787 times
Has Liked: 148 times

Re: VAR

Post by taio » Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:17 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:11 pm
Actually I think the reverse is true. I'm simplifying it.
No point checking for an LBW in cricket if it's already proved to be a "no ball", so in this case if the ball is judged to have hit the arm then it's penalty whether you consider it to be deliberate or not because the "handball" led directly to a goal. It's as simple as that in my book.
(And in that respect Bournemouth were unlucky. Had they failed to score then I honestly don't think that VAR would have over-ruled Dean's decision not to award a penalty. And that's the important element as I see it).
Haven't seen it back but had a great view of it from JMU. I was in no doubt at that time it would be pulled back for a penalty regardless of what followed. If it it had say gone out for a throw in it would have been given. When the ball hits a player's arm from a cross 40 yards away the offending player is in trouble. Obvious penalty.
Last edited by taio on Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Rileybobs
Posts: 8866
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:37 pm
Been Liked: 3654 times
Has Liked: 831 times
Location: Leeds

Re: VAR

Post by Rileybobs » Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:17 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:11 pm
Actually I think the reverse is true. I'm simplifying it.
No point checking for an LBW in cricket if it's already proved to be a "no ball", so in this case if the ball is judged to have hit the arm then it's penalty whether you consider it to be deliberate or not because the "handball" led directly to a goal. It's as simple as that in my book.
(And in that respect Bournemouth were unlucky. Had they failed to score then I honestly don't think that VAR would have over-ruled Dean's decision not to award a penalty. And that's the important element as I see it).
It’s a good point. I suspect that a penalty wouldn’t have been given.

Was there another decision Dean could have made once it was established that the ball hit Smith’s arm? If Dean thought that the handball was totally accidental (which granted it wasn’t in this case), could Dean still have disallowed the goal and given Burnley an indirect free kick?

It’s a curious one because a handball that leads to a goal isn’t necessarily a deliberate handball that should be punished with a penalty.

nil_desperandum
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1494 times
Has Liked: 2908 times

Re: VAR

Post by nil_desperandum » Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:28 pm

taio wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:17 pm
Haven't seen it back but had a great view of it from JMU. I was in no doubt at that time it would be pulled back for a penalty regardless of what followed. If it it had say gone out for a throw in it would have been given. When the ball hits a player's arm from a cross 40 yards away the offending player is in trouble. Obvious penalty.
With respect I think you need to see it back. It's very far from clear even after several replays whether it is the top of the arm or the shoulder, and would have been a bit of a guess from Dean. Some angles on the replay suggest upper arm, others suggest shoulder. We'll never know what conversation Dean had with Kavanagh, but Mike Dean didn't give it initially , and IMO, VAR would not have over-ruled him had the ball simply then gone out of play or been stopped for any other reason other than Bournemouth scoring.
In fairness I also thought it was a clear and obvious penalty when I watched it live on the ground. Having seen the replays I think it's one of those that we would have contested if awarded against us.

taio
Posts: 6097
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
Been Liked: 1787 times
Has Liked: 148 times

Re: VAR

Post by taio » Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:37 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:28 pm
With respect I think you need to see it back. It's very far from clear even after several replays whether it is the top of the arm or the shoulder, and would have been a bit of a guess from Dean. Some angles on the replay suggest upper arm, others suggest shoulder. We'll never know what conversation Dean had with Kavanagh, but Mike Dean didn't give it initially , and IMO, VAR would not have over-ruled him had the ball simply then gone out of play or been stopped for any other reason other than Bournemouth scoring.
In fairness I also thought it was a clear and obvious penalty when I watched it live on the ground. Having seen the replays I think it's one of those that we would have contested if awarded against us.
Fair enough. Will search for the highlights later. But I was sure it hit his upper arm and was a clear penalty especially after the ball had travelled such a distance. Was right on top of it so had an excellent view. If it's not clear I apologise in advance. At the time I said immediately to the good bloke who sits next to us it would be brought back for a pen. He thought exactly the same and so we weren't particularly worried when they scored.

thatdberight
Posts: 3753
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
Been Liked: 925 times
Has Liked: 716 times

Re: VAR

Post by thatdberight » Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:42 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:11 pm
Actually I think the reverse is true. I'm simplifying it.
No point checking for an LBW in cricket if it's already proved to be a "no ball", so in this case if the ball is judged to have hit the arm then it's penalty whether you consider it to be deliberate or not because the "handball" led directly to a goal. It's as simple as that in my book.
That's your definition of "directly". The law says "creates a goal-scoring chance". It certainly contributed to it, but in the common usage of the term, if Smith had chested it down, no-one would say he'd created a goal-scoring chance by facilitating the three or four passes that followed.

taio
Posts: 6097
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 am
Been Liked: 1787 times
Has Liked: 148 times

Re: VAR

Post by taio » Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:44 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:28 pm
With respect I think you need to see it back. It's very far from clear even after several replays whether it is the top of the arm or the shoulder, and would have been a bit of a guess from Dean. Some angles on the replay suggest upper arm, others suggest shoulder. We'll never know what conversation Dean had with Kavanagh, but Mike Dean didn't give it initially , and IMO, VAR would not have over-ruled him had the ball simply then gone out of play or been stopped for any other reason other than Bournemouth scoring.
In fairness I also thought it was a clear and obvious penalty when I watched it live on the ground. Having seen the replays I think it's one of those that we would have contested if awarded against us.
Just looked up the highlights. It's how I remember it. Penalty was definitely the right decision and so would have been given regardless of what followed. Ref and linesman not well sighted. Don't like VAR but it's an example of it working.

chorleyhere
Posts: 2039
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:57 pm
Been Liked: 176 times
Has Liked: 199 times
Location: Chorley Lancs

Re: VAR

Post by chorleyhere » Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:01 pm

Mr Dean wasn't up with play on quite a few occasions and Smith's arm incident was one of those. The misuse of "hit his arm" is annoying, in Smith's case he moved his ARM and hit the ball - Dean may have been unsighted, but the lino could not have. He may have been unsure where the arm touched the ball and should have waved for a penalty. The game stops, VAR looks at on behalf of both officials and either penalty is given or we restart with a free kick to the Cherries either way all fans are aware of the in identity and their goal doesn't happen as part of the continuous action.
I watched the footage afterwards and agree with a previous poster, the ball hit Billing on the badge and Smith hit the ball in between the black band and the badge and no-one has a shoulder that you can extend up and back from your body. Clear penalty 2 - 0 right decision.

Ashingtonclaret46
Posts: 2980
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 1383 times
Has Liked: 1996 times
Location: Ashington, Northumberland

Re: VAR

Post by Ashingtonclaret46 » Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:12 pm

MIke Dean was up with play and in the position he should have been, however, it is very possible that his view may have been obstructed and, in such cases, you do not guess what may or may not have happened. He got no help whatsoever from his AR on the Bob Lord side, mind you it wasn't just that decision that the AR missed!
VAR was correct because the balll hit the forearm of both players and that is not the shoulder or the chest or the side in spite of what some pundits and players think!
These 2 users liked this post: beddie mdd2

nil_desperandum
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1494 times
Has Liked: 2908 times

Re: VAR

Post by nil_desperandum » Sun Feb 23, 2020 7:49 pm

thatdberight wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:42 pm
That's your definition of "directly". The law says "creates a goal-scoring chance". It certainly contributed to it, but in the common usage of the term, if Smith had chested it down, no-one would say he'd created a goal-scoring chance by facilitating the three or four passes that followed.
Didn't intend to contribute so much to this thread!, but anyway...
IMO it was crucial, because we had possession until the arm intervened, so the handball changed the momentum of play and they broke away and scored. So IMO the goal was a direct result of the handball.
i.e. If he hadn't handled the ball it would of either gone to Hendrick, or more likely gone out for a goal kick.

nil_desperandum
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1494 times
Has Liked: 2908 times

Re: VAR

Post by nil_desperandum » Sun Feb 23, 2020 7:54 pm

taio wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 5:44 pm
Just looked up the highlights. It's how I remember it. Penalty was definitely the right decision and so would have been given regardless of what followed. Ref and linesman not well sighted. Don't like VAR but it's an example of it working.
Fair enough. I think it's one of those that in real time Dean could be forgiven for not awarding. Maybe VAR would have over-ruled Dean, but I remain unconvinced, based on the low percentage of decisions that have been over-ruled so far this season. But if you're convinced that VAR would have reversed Dean's initial decision then it's not something that we need argue about.
At the end of the day some decisions will go for us, and some against, so irrespective of our own view, we definitely take it and enjoy it.

thatdberight
Posts: 3753
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 9:49 am
Been Liked: 925 times
Has Liked: 716 times

Re: VAR

Post by thatdberight » Sun Feb 23, 2020 8:38 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 7:49 pm
Didn't intend to contribute so much to this thread!, but anyway...
IMO it was crucial, because we had possession until the arm intervened, so the handball changed the momentum of play and they broke away and scored. So IMO the goal was a direct result of the handball.
i.e. If he hadn't handled the ball it would of either gone to Hendrick, or more likely gone out for a goal kick.
Did you just type "would of"? That's a red card offence.

In my view, the problem doesn't arise on this one. It was a penalty and all's OK. I think it was a penalty because he thrust at it and it hit the top of the arm. Harsh? Yes. Only just? Yes. But still a penalty. If it hadn't been, I believe Bournemouth's goal should have stood. That's too far back in the play, for me, to deem it creating the opportunity. How perverse would it be if it was in Bournemouth's interest not to score the goal yesterday?!? If one believes it was only a handball because it led to a chance for them, they'd have been better missing it so that the score could only be 1-0 for us.

I was never a fan of this reclassification of accidental handball as an offence. Everything I see confirms my original view.

NewClaret
Posts: 2434
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
Been Liked: 451 times
Has Liked: 418 times

Re: VAR

Post by NewClaret » Sun Feb 23, 2020 9:39 pm

Can’t understand the controversy over VAR in this game. The replays clearly show that the ball hits the arm before the goal. If the sponsor on your shirt sleeve isn’t your arm, I don’t know what is.

I didn’t see the first one live. It’s very harsh, but the rules are that a hand ball in the lead up to a goal means it’s ruled out. Rule was applied correctly by VAR. Whether you agree with the rule is a different question.

The second was hand ball all day long. Again hits him on the shirt sleeve, this time with his arm outstretched in an unnatural position, he moves it towards the ball and the action potentially stops the ball going out of play. Ref should have seen it and given it, but didn’t. Again, not VARs fault and I for one am glad it was there to correct a very clear and obvious error by the ref.

As for the more general dislike of VAR, again, I can’t understand it. For years cheats have prospered in the PL. Diving, shirt pulling, pushing, play acting to con the ref, all that stuff... now they can’t get away with it. It’s brilliant, and no surprise to me that an honest team like Burnley are doing better this season with it in place.

As a match-going fan, I understand the point about ability to celebrate goals. But I celebrated Vydra’s wildly, and JRods, oh and Dwight's... because I knew there was nowt wrong with them. And that’s what I want us to be doing - scoring goals where VAR doesn’t even get a look in.

When it was introduced, the only thing I worried about was VAR sanitising the game to a point where there was no controversy or talking points. As it turns out, it appears to have given us more of them, which is fine by me :lol:

nil_desperandum
Posts: 6172
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:06 pm
Been Liked: 1494 times
Has Liked: 2908 times

Re: VAR

Post by nil_desperandum » Sun Feb 23, 2020 9:44 pm

thatdberight wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 8:38 pm
Did you just type "would of"? That's a red card offence.
Crikey, I did!
I had to read it back 3 times to actually believe my own eyes. Anyone who actually knows who I am would find it hilarious. I used to mark "A" level and it was always something that I absolutely used to go on and on about.
Anyway, it just shows I've been posting too much, so yes, a definite red card offence and a self-imposed 7 day ban from posting on the site. (Hopefully some others will take heed of this!).

claretnproud
Posts: 651
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 12:20 am
Been Liked: 261 times
Has Liked: 21 times

Re: VAR

Post by claretnproud » Sun Feb 23, 2020 10:45 pm

DomBFC1882 wrote:
Sat Feb 22, 2020 5:01 pm
Correct decisions all round for me. It was 100% a penalty to us and defo handball from billing. You could also argue we should have another penalty for the handball swipe in the first half
Billing didnt handle ball. It was shoulder. Our penalty was a good decision. He saw the ball coming and made sure it caught his upper arm. I find it amazing that anybody would argue differently in this day and age where spectacles are relatively cheap.

Bullabill
Posts: 517
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:40 am
Been Liked: 145 times
Has Liked: 114 times

Re: VAR

Post by Bullabill » Sun Feb 23, 2020 10:58 pm

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 6:12 pm
MIke Dean was up with play and in the position he should have been, however, it is very possible that his view may have been obstructed and, in such cases, you do not guess what may or may not have happened. He got no help whatsoever from his AR on the Bob Lord side, mind you it wasn't just that decision that the AR missed!
VAR was correct because the balll hit the forearm of both players and that is not the shoulder or the chest or the side in spite of what some pundits and players think!
Ashington, my forearm is between my elbow and my wrist.
This user liked this post: mdd2

SalisburyClaret
Posts: 1797
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:32 pm
Been Liked: 538 times
Has Liked: 323 times

Re: VAR

Post by SalisburyClaret » Sun Feb 23, 2020 11:04 pm

VAR - 100% correct
The rules - 100% wrong

Ashingtonclaret46
Posts: 2980
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 1383 times
Has Liked: 1996 times
Location: Ashington, Northumberland

Re: VAR

Post by Ashingtonclaret46 » Sun Feb 23, 2020 11:07 pm

Bullabill wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 10:58 pm
Ashington, my forearm is between my elbow and my wrist.
So is mine! I meant to type upper arm, however, then you will get the nit-pickers telling you that that includes the shoulder! Bullabill 1 Ashington 0 ---subject to VAR!
This user liked this post: mdd2

NL Claret
Posts: 1714
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2016 12:37 pm
Been Liked: 435 times
Has Liked: 179 times

Re: VAR

Post by NL Claret » Sun Feb 23, 2020 11:16 pm

The problem for me is the subjectivity, one game it's a goal , the next it's not. Handball is now a guessing game.

PSG 2nd goal tonight would possibly been disallowed yesterday, was it shoulder / chest?

NewClaret
Posts: 2434
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
Been Liked: 451 times
Has Liked: 418 times

Re: VAR

Post by NewClaret » Sun Feb 23, 2020 11:29 pm

claretnproud wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 10:45 pm
Billing didnt handle ball. It was shoulder. Our penalty was a good decision. He saw the ball coming and made sure it caught his upper arm. I find it amazing that anybody would argue differently in this day and age where spectacles are relatively cheap.
Just watched it again on MOTD2. Hits the sponsor on his sleeve. That’s his arm. As if that weren’t enough, diverts the ball to King to score (not like it glances off him but continues in the direction it was heading). 100% correct decision. As was the very similar Watford call in the United game.

NewClaret
Posts: 2434
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
Been Liked: 451 times
Has Liked: 418 times

Re: VAR

Post by NewClaret » Sun Feb 23, 2020 11:35 pm

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 11:07 pm
So is mine! I meant to type upper arm, however, then you will get the nit-pickers telling you that that includes the shoulder! Bullabill 1 Ashington 0 ---subject to VAR!
Arm consists of the forearm, bicep, tricep and shoulder. So anyone saying it hits his shoulder are saying it hit his (upper) arm.

Notsosuperstevedavis
Posts: 134
Joined: Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:59 pm
Been Liked: 41 times
Has Liked: 26 times

Re: VAR

Post by Notsosuperstevedavis » Sun Feb 23, 2020 11:50 pm

1.you simply cannot score with any part of your arm. It did hit the Mansion emblem on his arm and he did move toward the ball also.
Clearand obvious doesnt come into it.
All goals are checked
2. The pen. It might have hit the top of his shoulder, had he not extended his arm 90 degrees. It hits near the black band of his shirt at the edging of the arm. It was also under duress of Hedrick’s presence.

3. The southampton Ben Mee one, his arm was by his side and not in an unnatural position.

I hope this clears it all up for you. 😀

Ashingtonclaret46
Posts: 2980
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 1383 times
Has Liked: 1996 times
Location: Ashington, Northumberland

Re: VAR

Post by Ashingtonclaret46 » Sun Feb 23, 2020 11:53 pm

NewClaret wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 11:35 pm
Arm consists of the forearm, bicep, tricep and shoulder. So anyone saying it hits his shoulder are saying it hit his (upper) arm.
Fair enough,I do not wish to become a member of nitpickers anonymous so I shall just say that VAR said it was handball and, as much as I disagree with VAR in football, I accept the decision and the resullt is now in the papers.
This user liked this post: beddie

Bullabill
Posts: 517
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:40 am
Been Liked: 145 times
Has Liked: 114 times

Re: VAR

Post by Bullabill » Mon Feb 24, 2020 9:36 am

The problem we have with the debate is that many of the posters were basing their opinions on the replay of the footage taken parallel to the goal line. The broadcast I was watching showed this angle repeatedly and I was sure the ball hit the top of the shoulder. However, the footage taken towards the goal shows quite clearly that the ball missed the point of the shoulder and hit the upper arm. I suggest VAR had access to those pics. and the decision was correct. It seems to me that there wouldn't be so much misinformed debate if VAR policy was to release all the views they see pretty quickly, even showing the most pertinent on the big screen.

NewClaret
Posts: 2434
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
Been Liked: 451 times
Has Liked: 418 times

Re: VAR

Post by NewClaret » Mon Feb 24, 2020 10:37 am

Bullabill wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 9:36 am
The problem we have with the debate is that many of the posters were basing their opinions on the replay of the footage taken parallel to the goal line. The broadcast I was watching showed this angle repeatedly and I was sure the ball hit the top of the shoulder. However, the footage taken towards the goal shows quite clearly that the ball missed the point of the shoulder and hit the upper arm. I suggest VAR had access to those pics. and the decision was correct. It seems to me that there wouldn't be so much misinformed debate if VAR policy was to release all the views they see pretty quickly, even showing the most pertinent on the big screen.
Agreed, it didn't look handball on the view from the James Hargreaves stand. It was the view from behind the goal that confirmed it.

That's why I think VAR, on balance, is a good thing; otherwise so much can go completely unnoticed by the ref because he can't be expected to see a situation from every angle. Even if he's perfectly positioned, in real time, could he be certain it came off his arm?

I do think more refs are bottling more decisions since VAR was introduced, safe in the knowledge that VAR will check and get it right either way. Then VAR is the villain, not them. Refs used to be lambasted walking off the field at HT/FT... now everyone is just discussing the VAR officials.

Agree that seeing the most pertinent angle on the big screen after a decision like that is helpful.

dsr
Posts: 11314
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:47 pm
Been Liked: 3309 times
Has Liked: 1390 times

Re: VAR

Post by dsr » Mon Feb 24, 2020 10:47 am

Bullabill wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 9:36 am
The problem we have with the debate is that many of the posters were basing their opinions on the replay of the footage taken parallel to the goal line. The broadcast I was watching showed this angle repeatedly and I was sure the ball hit the top of the shoulder. However, the footage taken towards the goal shows quite clearly that the ball missed the point of the shoulder and hit the upper arm. I suggest VAR had access to those pics. and the decision was correct. It seems to me that there wouldn't be so much misinformed debate if VAR policy was to release all the views they see pretty quickly, even showing the most pertinent on the big screen.
I agree. But even more helpful would be if this stupid law was repealed and defenders and attackers had the same rules, because under normal handball rules that goal would never have been disallowed no matter how many angles they used.

Firthy
Posts: 3199
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:04 am
Been Liked: 1040 times
Has Liked: 191 times

Re: VAR

Post by Firthy » Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:39 pm

NewClaret wrote:
Sun Feb 23, 2020 11:29 pm
Just watched it again on MOTD2. Hits the sponsor on his sleeve. That’s his arm. As if that weren’t enough, diverts the ball to King to score (not like it glances off him but continues in the direction it was heading). 100% correct decision. As was the very similar Watford call in the United game.
Totally agree with this. Having watched both replays on MOTD2 for a second time. It's obvious on both occasions that the ball hits both players on the red sponsors logo which is on the upper arm so both decisions correct. Second one not accidental either because he'd overrun and extended his arm backwards because he thought it was going to Hendrick.

claretnproud
Posts: 651
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2018 12:20 am
Been Liked: 261 times
Has Liked: 21 times

Re: VAR

Post by claretnproud » Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:50 pm

It was 110 percent billings shoulder. NOT NOT NOT his upper arm. Shoulder isnt hand ball in the rules regardless of weather its part of the arm or not.
Check the slow mo. It hits Billings shoulder and arcs upwards. Extremely clear to see this and we got lucky with that one. Our pen was cast iron.

Claretmatt4
Posts: 3946
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:31 am
Been Liked: 1049 times
Has Liked: 722 times

Re: VAR

Post by Claretmatt4 » Mon Feb 24, 2020 1:49 pm

scouseclaret wrote:
Sat Feb 22, 2020 8:40 pm
VAR worked well during the World Cup. Yes, there were a few incidents, but nothing like the controversy we’ve seen this season.

I don’t think the Premier League, and it’s biggest members, ever wanted VAR - they were dragged kicking and screaming into it. As the seasons gone on, I’ve become increasingly convinced that the Premier League is trying to trash it. The way it’s been implemented, the rank irrational decisions, the refusal to allow refs to use pitch side monitors, it all seems designed to whip up the kind of fury we’re now seeing.

The World Cup demonstrated that VAR can improve decision making outcomes - why hasnt the PL implemented it in the same way. The problem is with then, not VAR itself.
Exactly my thoughts. Its being purposely mismanaged in my opinion.

Mattster
Posts: 352
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:02 am
Been Liked: 87 times
Has Liked: 47 times

Re: VAR

Post by Mattster » Mon Feb 24, 2020 1:54 pm

What's been lost in the furore around arm/shoulder is how this decision is consistent with their definition of what you can legally play the ball with.

When checking for offside on VAR they use the armpit if the upper body is the furthest point forward. It's physically impossible for that section of an arm/shoulder (whatever you want to call it) to be further back than the armpit, ergo that section of a player's arm/shoulder cannot legally play the ball therefore it's handball.

NewClaret
Posts: 2434
Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2019 9:51 am
Been Liked: 451 times
Has Liked: 418 times

Re: VAR

Post by NewClaret » Mon Feb 24, 2020 2:25 pm

Claretmatt4 wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 1:49 pm
Exactly my thoughts. Its being purposely mismanaged in my opinion.
Disappointing, if it is, but not entirely inconceivable.

Do agree its implementation could be improved, with one such improvement being better use of pitch side monitors.

martin_p
Posts: 7615
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 2480 times
Has Liked: 520 times

Re: VAR

Post by martin_p » Mon Feb 24, 2020 3:13 pm

Smith knew it’d hit his arm for the pen. I’ve just watched to ‘match day’ video on Clarets Player and there’s an interesting view of the Bournemouth ‘goal’ after the penalty appeal. It’s a view from low down on the Jimmy Mac side of the ground and as the ball heads towards goal Smith appears in shot with his hands on his head. It’s clear he knows what’s happened and what the likely outcome would be.

martin_p
Posts: 7615
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:40 pm
Been Liked: 2480 times
Has Liked: 520 times

Re: VAR

Post by martin_p » Mon Feb 24, 2020 3:20 pm

Here you go. Smith knows what’s about to happen.
6A8E10F1-9242-4A8E-93F8-BDC0C09451DD.jpeg
6A8E10F1-9242-4A8E-93F8-BDC0C09451DD.jpeg (677.9 KiB) Viewed 527 times
This user liked this post: simonclaret

Mala591
Posts: 1147
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:02 pm
Been Liked: 275 times
Has Liked: 188 times

Re: VAR

Post by Mala591 » Mon Feb 24, 2020 5:48 pm

Surely HANDball is when the ball hits the HAND not the ARM or the SHOULDER. Now if the ball was to hit the WRIST then referees/VAR might have a difficult decision to make!

Ashingtonclaret46
Posts: 2980
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2016 9:15 am
Been Liked: 1383 times
Has Liked: 1996 times
Location: Ashington, Northumberland

Re: VAR

Post by Ashingtonclaret46 » Mon Feb 24, 2020 5:51 pm

Mala591 wrote:
Mon Feb 24, 2020 5:48 pm
Surely HANDball is when the ball hits the HAND not the ARM or the SHOULDER. Now if the ball was to hit the WRIST then referees/VAR might have a difficult decision to make!
Are you really being serious? You should have a good read of TLOG ---very enlightening for anyone interested in football.

Post Reply