A scenario relating to our penalty...

[jdrobbo]

Dwight crosses
Hits arm of Bournemouth player
Huge appeal by players and crowd
Play on...
Bournemouth shot is saved by Pope
Remains in play
Burnley counter
Burnley score....

Now what happens?


Goal

Or

VAR and penalty given?

[SalisburyClaret]

Correct decision is VAR and penalty given

Not saying it’s right!

[rob63]

Going off today's change of luck we'd probably get both

[Tricky Trevor]

I can’t understand all the complaints. I break it down they have a big red “M” on their biceps. Both of them handballs, the disallowed goal & the pen, came smack off the logo. Now as long as I’ve been breathing the biceps are not in your shoulder. Therefore they were both handballs

[martin_p]

Dwight crosses
Hits arm of Bournemouth player
Huge appeal by players and crowd
Play on...
Bournemouth shot is saved by Pope
Remains in play
Burnley counter
Burnley score....

Now what happens?


Goal

Or

VAR and penalty given?

A goal. Why would VAR be looking for offences against Burnley in the build up to a Burnley goal?

[dsr]

Goal given on the advantage rule. It's the same scenario, only more extreme, as if a linesman signals for a penalty and the ref doesn't see it for a few seconds, the ball is cleared and put back in and they score. The ref would be entitled to take advantage of the linesman's opinion to give a penalty, but he wouldn't.

[Funkydrummer]

Would it have gone to VAR for the penalty had they not scored ?

[jdrobbo]

Assuming that the ball was in the same phase of play? Surely yes?!

[dsr]

Would it have gone to VAR for the penalty had they not scored ?

It had already gone to VAR. The VAR people don't wait for play to stop before starting their review; if there is an obvious possible penalty, they will already be looking.

There was a game not so long ago, can't remember who, when play had gone on for 2 minutes without play stopping before VAR signalled to the ref to stop the game and award a penalty. And quite often you hear commentaters say that a VAR review is complete even though play never stopped.

If play stops, then it won't restart until the VAR check has finished, but if it hasn't stopped, then they let it roll - unless perhaps the ball is in a very non-controversial position, eg. with a goalkeeper.

[DCWat]

It had already gone to VAR. The VAR people don't wait for play to stop before starting their review; if there is an obvious possible penalty, they will already be looking.

There was a game not so long ago, can't remember who, when play had gone on for 2 minutes without play stopping before VAR signalled to the ref to stop the game and award a penalty. And quite often you hear commentaters say that a VAR review is complete even though play never stopped.

If play stops, then it won't restart until the VAR check has finished, but if it hasn't stopped, then they let it roll - unless perhaps the ball is in a very non-controversial position, eg. with a goalkeeper.

And was two minutes added on for the play that was effectively void?

[dsr]

And was two minutes added on for the play that was effectively void?

That's one of the unaddressed anomalies. Let's say Red committed the foul and Blue were going (eventually) to get the penalty. The time was effectively void for Red, because no matter what they did, their goal if they got one would be disallowed for the penalty. (Like Bournemouth today.) But Blue could attack at will for those two minutes and their goal would count. So Red should have had 2 minutes added but Blue not!!!

But no, the two minutes were not added on.

[Somethingfishy]

How about this one? If VAR had ruled that it was handball but not deliberate would they then have disallowed the Bournemouth goal because of handball in the build up? That is the new rule after all?

[Vegas Claret]

I'm still waiting for the Laurent Koscielny goal to be ruled out

[claretandy]

Watford nearly scored while we were waiting for the VAR review for our penalty.

[Nonayforever]

If Pope had saved their shot, we wouldn't have had a penalty.

[jdrobbo]

Why not?

[cricketfieldclarets]

Why not?

I suspect because the review was to see if there was a hand in the lead up to their goal. I.e. dean saw it and deemed no penalty. But when it shows on VAR that it did hit his arm in build up to the goal they can’t them not give the penalty. Accidental or not.

It’s a stupid rule and I can’t even begin to imagine what would’ve happened had it been Leeds or Blackburn in the away end not Bournemouth.

[paulatky]

Dont think there were many in the ground who saw any hint of handball in their dissallowed goal

[FactualFrank]

Wouldn't advantage come into play? Therefore our goal is allowed.

[bfcjg]

If we were playing Arsenal the player who deliberately kicked the ball at the arsenal players torso would have been red carded for serious foul play the goal would have been given and every Burnley player given a yellow for playing on whilst the Arsenal player rubbed his arm better.

[martin_p]

How about this one? If VAR had ruled that it was handball but not deliberate would they then have disallowed the Bournemouth goal because of handball in the build up? That is the new rule after all?

Doesn’t matter whether it’s deliberate or not these days. If it hits a defender’s arm in the penalty area and that arm is in an unnatural position it’s a pen. The only exception to that is if it’s rebounded off the players body onto his own arm.

[basil6345789]

As kids we used to say "you can't penalise a goal".

[thatdberight]

Doesn’t matter whether it’s deliberate or not these days. If it hits a defender’s arm in the penalty area and that arm is in an unnatural position it’s a pen. The only exception to that is if it’s rebounded off the players body onto his own arm.

That's not what he's talking about. He's saying if it had been deemed a natural position so not a penalty, would they have disallowed the goal because it hit an arm in the build-up?

I don't think so; the law says they have to create a goal-scoring opportunity. Surely there's too much time between that touch and the goal?

[turfytopper]

Correct decision is VAR and penalty given

Not saying it’s right!

It would be a goal .... advantage to the offended team.

It's not happened yet...then again neither had yesterday's embarrassing incident.. but it will given time

[BabylonClaret]

People (by which I mean everyone it seems - probably because Bournemouth are nice and everyone seems to want them to stay up) are only moaning about this because Bournemouth scored. Had say Mee taken him out and copped a yellow and free kick it would not have raised much of a fuss other than - Jug ears: was it handball? Pundit: well it certainly looks like he puts his arm out on purpose and it hits the top of his arm - yeah fair cop although quite a harsh one.

[BabylonClaret]

I do think the first one is harsh but tjere jave been a number loke that rhis season so thats just consistent with the current rule

[SalisburyClaret]

It would be a goal .... advantage to the offended team.

It's not happened yet...then again neither had yesterday's embarrassing incident.. but it will given time

The referee has to give advantage for this to happen!

[Hipper]

Goal given on the advantage rule. It's the same scenario, only more extreme, as if a linesman signals for a penalty and the ref doesn't see it for a few seconds, the ball is cleared and put back in and they score. The ref would be entitled to take advantage of the linesman's opinion to give a penalty, but he wouldn't.

I can't be sure but I would think this sort of scenario happened back in the day when referees were allowed to ref the game, as they still do lower down the pyramid.

Similarly, perhaps even more so, if the linesman had thought the ball went out of play. He would usually stay in place whilst flagging. If the ref didn't respond he would then continue with play but furiously flag the ref at the next opportunity. The ref should then go over and consult the linesman.

[Devils_Advocate]

Our VAR penalty decision was not related to them scoring it was just that them scoring was the first time the ball went dead so our penalty claim could be reviewed. We would have got a penalty even if the Bournemouth player would have put his shot wide

With regards the OP's scenario I would have thought it would have to still be a penalty to us. There was no initial advantage and us subsequently scoring would have been a completely different phase of play and so the original offence should have stood.

Whether this is how it is interpreted if it ever happens is another thing altogether though

[wilks_bfc]

Our VAR penalty decision was not related to them scoring it was just that them scoring was the first time the ball went dead so our penalty claim could be reviewed. We would have got a penalty even if the Bournemouth player would have put his shot wide

Exactly. It happened the other week in a game (I think it was involving Spurs - and it might even have been Dean reffing as well)

The ball didn’t go out of play at all for 3mins afterwards and in the end the VAR official had to tell the ref to stop the game for a penalty to be awarded