Would the first Pieters handball have been a penalty before the rule change ?

Why is there so much scrutiny of this one yet nothing for the one we should have had against West Brom?

Without Var Arsenal would have probably gone away with 3 points again with a very late goal that should not have been

conyoviejo wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 2:44 pm

Would the first Pieters handball have been a penalty before the rule change ?

What rule change?

I personally think it’s absolutely reasonable to change handball rules mid-season.

Excellent point made vicar
Nearly as good as our point today

conyoviejo wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 2:44 pm

Would the first Pieters handball have been a penalty before the rule change ?

Which rule change?

conyoviejo wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 2:44 pm

Would the first Pieters handball have been a penalty before the rule change ?

Isn’t the rule change for the start of next season?

International change to the handball law however it has been left to individual nations if they want to bring it in earlier .

Yes it is ,sorry. Lol

ClaretMat wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 2:45 pm

Why is there so much scrutiny of this one yet nothing for the one we should have had against West Brom?

Both are penalties, under any version of the rules. If both are given and scored, we're a point better off than we are now. But still, lucky Burnley eh?

Elizabeth wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 2:57 pm

International change to the handball law however it has been left to individual nations if they want to bring it in earlier .

Maybe we've brought it in early then Elizabeth.

Different 'rule', the change refers to attacking teams, not defending.

Have heard nothing as to whether we will so I think today would be operated using the law that’s going to be replaced. Happy to be corrected
Now for that blasted offside law to be changed.
VAR has had many problems but it has highlighted laws that are currently not fit for purpose.
Eventually we will get rid of referees ruling over other referees but probably not before they go kicking and squealing

NottsClaret wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 2:58 pm

Both are penalties, under any version of the rules. If both are given and scored, we're a point better off than we are now. But still, lucky Burnley eh?

I agree - I think there was more argument for ours v west brom purely because there was no need to have arms that high but almost nothing was said on that one. Pieters arm was in a natural position and had it there for balance but couldn't have any major complaints had it been given.

Struggle to have any sympathy for Arsenal given some of the blatantly wrong decisions theyve had against us over the years.

Imagine there would have been a lot more made of the Saka contact om Vydra also had it been the other way around.

DAVETHEVICAR wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 2:48 pm

Without Var Arsenal would have probably gone away with 3 points again with a very late goal that should not have been

This is true but if it had been working properly we could have come away with three points having been awarded a penalty for the foul on Vydra.

The change in the handball law would make no difference whatsoever to this incident.

I like var...and today justified it

That was a pen , hey we lucked out

I think it shows how ridiculous the laws have gotten when the vast majority of people seem to think that should have been a penalty.

I don't!

DAVETHEVICAR wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 2:48 pm

Without Var Arsenal would have probably gone away with 3 points again with a very late goal that should not have been

Absolutely bang on

Nice to be not robbed by the arse

The VAR haters are quiet tonight.

superdimitri wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 6:11 pm

The VAR haters are quiet tonight.

I wouldn’t count myself as a VAR hater, I’d definitely prefer we didn’t have it though. However I’m obviously going to be happy when the VAR intervenes to overturn a bad decision in our favour.

I do question how the referee was certain enough that Pieters handled the ball to give the pen and second yellow, when he in fact didn’t handle the ball.

bfcmik wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 5:51 pm

Rocky VAR.jpg

Looked like an absolute nailed on penalty to me, arm stretched out to the max, the ball is in the air, not blasted at him and he moves his arm towards the ball.

The Lowton one is never a penalty in a million years though.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 6:15 pm

I do question how the referee was certain enough that Pieters handled the ball to give the pen and second yellow, when he in fact didn’t handle the ball.

If you only see the incident from behind the referee, and at normal speed, then it appears Pieters raises his arm and knocks the ball up onto the bar - which is a penalty and red card. It is only the alternative angles and slow mo that prove it was off the shoulder.

bfcmik wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 6:47 pm

If you only see the incident from behind the referee, and at normal speed, then it appears Pieters raises his arm and knocks the ball up onto the bar - which is a penalty and red card. It is only the alternative angles and slow mo that prove it was off the shoulder.

I'll take your word for it - but from the replays I saw Pieters had his arm behind his back. But my point is that such a pivotal decision as a penalty should only be awarded if the referee is certain that a foul has been committed, which in this case he obviously couldn't have been.

I think the issue is that most people including pundits just ignore the 'clear and obvious' element of VAR. If there is any debate at all you stay with the Referees decision (think of it like the 'umpires call' decisions from Cricket). In other words, if the referee had given the pen it wouldn't have been overturned.

If that is the case, then football should follow Cricket, and make it known it was a 'Referees call', and make that clear both on the TV and on the field. Everyone then has the understanding that the referee hasn't made a clear and obvious error (like Pieter's shoulder), and that's why it wasn't a penalty.

Whilst I think it was a penalty tbh, it's not clear cut and could be argued against, so VAR stays as the referees call. The issue at the moment is that viewers and pundits seem to be interpreting it as VAR thought it wasn't a penalty, whereas actually they are probably saying there is some degree of debate, so it's not a clear and obvious error, hence not a penalty.

If that makes sense!

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 7:26 pm

I'll take your word for it - but from the replays I saw Pieters had his arm behind his back. But my point is that such a pivotal decision as a penalty should only be awarded if the referee is certain that a foul has been committed, which in this case he obviously couldn't have been.

Why couldn't he?

Best thing to happen in football is VAR. Var favours the under dogs and makes a level playing field

Tall Paul wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 8:10 pm

Why couldn't he?

Because it didn't hit his arm, so the ref couldn't be certain that it did.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 8:13 pm

Because it didn't hit his arm, so the ref couldn't be certain that it did.

He can be certain, but he'd have been wrong.

Tall Paul wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 8:13 pm

He can be certain, but he'd have been wrong.

Split hairs if you like, he didn't see the ball hit Pieters arm because it didn't hit Pieter's arm, which incidentally was behind his back. For me it is much more forgivable for a referee to fail to give a decision for not seeing an incident, than to give a decision for something that he didn't see.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 8:19 pm

Split hairs if you like, he didn't see the ball hit Pieters arm because it didn't hit Pieter's arm, which incidentally was behind his back. For me it is much more forgivable for a referee to fail to give a decision for not seeing an incident, than to give a decision for something that he didn't see.

I'm not splitting hairs. I hope he was certain that he thought it hit Pieters arm.

As you say, they shouldn't be giving those decisions if they're not certain, but we can't know if he was certain or not.

Seemed to take a hell of a long time to spot that the on field call was a (very) clear and obvious mistake.

Tall Paul wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 8:30 pm

I'm not splitting hairs. I hope he was certain that he thought it hit Pieters arm.

As you say, they shouldn't be giving those decisions if they're not certain, but we can't know if he was certain or not.

Fair enough. My use of the word certain was probably not the correct choice. I just find it hard to conclude that there wasn’t an element of guesswork in awarding the penalty, which shouldn’t be the case with such a match-defining decision.

superdimitri wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 6:11 pm

The VAR haters are quiet tonight.

I don’t hate it but it’s not worked properly today.

Chalking off their penalty and the red card is such a blatant decision we shouldn’t have to be “grateful” for it.

The bigger question here is “why was the ref so keen to rush into such a bad decision?”

And then there’s the question as to why Vydra wasn’t awarded a penalty. They didn’t even seem to review it yet I was convinced they’d have no choice but to give us the penalty.

The law on tripping is very, very clear. It’s a foul. No ifs no buts. No wiggle room for “accidentally” tripping somebody.

Ours was a clear penalty. Theirs wasn’t.

As for their claim for the earlier handball, that is subjective at best.

VAR if used correctly shouldn't impact the Referee at all, he should just make calls as he sees them, rightly or wrongly and VAR overturns the calls that are clearly wrong i.e. not debateable. The issue is that it's not made clear to people that if there is any doubt, it stays with the referees original call.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 8:43 pm

I don’t hate it but it’s not worked properly today.

Chalking off their penalty and the red card is such a blatant decision we shouldn’t have to be “grateful” for it.

The bigger question here is “why was the ref so keen to rush into such a bad decision?”

And then there’s the question as to why Vydra wasn’t awarded a penalty. They didn’t even seem to review it yet I was convinced they’d have no choice but to give us the penalty.

The law on tripping is very, very clear. It’s a foul. No ifs no buts. No wiggle room for “accidentally” tripping somebody.

Ours was a clear penalty. Theirs wasn’t.

As for their claim for the earlier handball, that is subjective at best.

I don't dispute what you're saying, but I feel VAR gets the blame from many when decisions don't go our way. Today we had a big decision which went our way so people aren't blaming it. The first thing you usually see on here is a four letter word followed by a three letter one.

At the end of the day its there needs to be consistency, and I don't think you can really say after today's game whether the decisions were right or not we came away unlucky, because like other incorrect calls decisions like these two could have and will be called wrongly against us. Rules are rules, but in the context of what we see given, and what we don't see given (rightly or wrongly) we were lucky imo.

Well we can look at it both ways:

We can say that VAR went “our way”.

Certainly the VAR decision was in our favour.

But it was also the correct decision.

So in that respect, nothing has gone “our way” at all - we’ve simply had one remarkably dreadful decision put right.

The original call by the referee was *impossibly* bad.

Rowls wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 06, 2021 9:17 pm

Well we can look at it both ways:

We can say that VAR went “our way”.

Certainly the VAR decision was in our favour.

But it was also the correct decision.

So in that respect, nothing has gone “our way” at all - we’ve simply had one remarkably dreadful decision put right.

The original call by the referee was *impossibly* bad.

I think you look at it differently from me. Its about the likelhood of the call being made a certain way that makes me feel lucky, rather than whether it should have been called that way according to the rules.

Of course if we were playing a less reputable team with less celebrity fans then maybe the trip on Vydra would have gone our way. But knowing how it has been previously and seeing other decisions, you can only admit you wouldn't have been surprised to see both decisions go against us.