Double Jeopardy?

[Alex_BCFC]

1 hour ago, alexukhc said:

Thing that gets me is no one was screaming handball and everyone just got on with it, knew it was accidental 

No one cared at all yet because of the ridiculous VAR the game was ruined.

[Sarumred]

1 hour ago, RedM said:

I don’t think VAR should be used unless all participants have it equally, and in the FA cup they don’t. Therefore it should only be used at Semi Final stage at Wembley and beyond.

Agreed. Had the game been played at Ashton Gate the penalty wouldn’t have been given and Mawson wouldn’t have been sent off.

[spudski]

With the rule interpretation, you may as well get the ball in the box and aim for a defenders arm with the ball instead of looking for a pass... especially if playing with Var. If it hits your arm first, whether intentional or not...it's deemed handball and penalty.

I'm seriously baffled as to why players don't try this.

It seems a no brainer to me.

 

[dREDful]

49 minutes ago, RobArnold10 said:

Congratulations, you missed the point

I'm highlighting that you're missing the point. 

[lager loud]

8 minutes ago, redrob said:

The rule book says it sending off offence when a player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:

• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)

The rule book defines a handball offence as being when a player does any of the following: 

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball - definitely not
• scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper - definitely not
• after the ball has touched their or a team-mate’s hand/arm, even if accidental, immediately:
  • scores in the opponents’ goal - definitely not
  • creates a goal-scoring opportunity - definitely not
• touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
  • the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger - questionable
  • the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm - definitely not
•  
•  
• So the questionable aspect is the interpretation of what is meant hy 'unnaturally makes the body bigger.' My understanding of that from qualified referees is that this is not as clear cut as 'if it hits the arm its outside the cylinder of the body it is making the body bigger' but that the official has to consider what is a natural body position. Its why if a player was falling and put their arm down to break their fall a referee is guided to consider this as a natural body position. 

I think your analysis is spot on. What refs sometimes don’t take into account is that a natural position for the arm is sometimes away from the body - for example when running or jumping, both of which are pretty typical activities when playing football!

To be honest, I don’t have much of an issue with a penalty being awarded in a case like tonight’s, as without the ball hitting Mawson’s hand it would definitely have ended up in the net - it’s just the flipside of goals being disallowed if the ball hits an attacker’s hand, regardless of how that happens. Intent is sometimes very difficult to determine, so taking it out of the equation for goalscoring situations seems a sensible approach.

As a matter of principle, though, I don’t think you should be sent off simply for denying a goalscoring opportunity if a penalty results: the penalty means the goalscoring opportunity is still available, just in a different format (and whilst it’s true that you could miss the penalty, you might also have missed the original chance). To have to try to get the goal back a man short seems to me an excessive punishment, particularly if there is no clear intent. 

 

[grifty]

38 minutes ago, redrob said:

The rule book says it sending off offence when a player, substitute or substituted player who commits any of the following offences is sent off:

• denying the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by a handball offence (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area)

The rule book defines a handball offence as being when a player does any of the following: 

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball - definitely not
• scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper - definitely not
• after the ball has touched their or a team-mate’s hand/arm, even if accidental, immediately:
  • scores in the opponents’ goal - definitely not
  • creates a goal-scoring opportunity - definitely not
• touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
  • the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger - questionable
  • the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm - definitely not
•  
•  
• So the questionable aspect is the interpretation of what is meant hy 'unnaturally makes the body bigger.' My understanding of that from qualified referees is that this is not as clear cut as 'if it hits the arm its outside the cylinder of the body it is making the body bigger' but that the official has to consider what is a natural body position. Its why if a player was falling and put their arm down to break their fall a referee is guided to consider this as a natural body position. 

Yeah I agree. My view is the law should be, if your arm isn't there, would the balls direction have changed, so if its in front of you, say both arms across your chest, if your arms disappeared it would hit your chest, then no penalty. If, like Mawson as harsh as it is and it's not deliberate it shouldn't be a red. It's obvious he hasn't pushed it off the line like Suarez did for Uruguay a few years back.

[Portland Bill]

1 hour ago, JoeAman08 said:

I don’t think deliberate comes into play anymore. I said in another thread that its tough times for defenders and the handball rule is another way it is a bit unfair on them.
 

By the letter of the law it is probably a sending off but you will Never convince me a defender should be sent off for that. His arm has to go somewhere. He is lunging so his arm will be out a bit for balance. He is 4-5 yards away and you won’t see many more powerful strikers than that. It may have deflected off his thigh onto his hand. So yea not sure what he can really do. 

Deliberate handball is a free kick everywhere on the pitch. But, it doesn’t have to be deliberate if it’s in the penalty area. 

If Mawson had done exactly the same on the halfway line, it’s a 99% chance a free kick would not have been given.

People wanted tv cameras to get involved in football, VAR is the result of this, the fact is,we now have two handball laws ( one in the box, one everywhere else on the pitch) making the game a farce. 

 

[RobArnold10]

42 minutes ago, dREDful said:

I'm highlighting that you're missing the point. 

No, I opened debate that the rule needs to be reconsidered to accommodate for var. You just inferred the rules are the rules. I accepted that the current rule means he has to be sent off, but suggested that needs a revisit. You’re just being contrarian now.

[RobintheRed Red]

2 hours ago, BigTone said:

Penalty yes. Red never.

Very Harsh as ball was blasted at him .

[Eddie Notgetinya]

After a farcical week of VAR Mawsons red card is right up there with the most ridiculous sending offs I’ve seen, nobodies talking about it though because we’re a championship team. 

[RedM]

7 hours ago, BCFCGav said:

Does the red carry into the league?

Of course. We are out of the cup anyway so we can’t serve it then! But yes it will be the next League match

[Robin Wood]

He stopped the ball going in not delibrate but it would have been a goal a penalty and no red card is sufficient punishment 

[handsofclay]

In circumstances such as last night where a goal would have occurred had the ball not accidentally struck Mawson on the hand, surely a penalty goal should be awarded, as happens in rugby with a penalty try, thus eliminating the chance that a penalty kick could be missed. Then there would be no need to issue a red card too.

[The Swan and Cemetery]

48 minutes ago, handsofclay said:

In circumstances such as last night where a goal would have occurred had the ball not accidentally struck Mawson on the hand, surely a penalty goal should be awarded, as happens in rugby with a penalty try, thus eliminating the chance that a penalty kick could be missed. Then there would be no need to issue a red card too.

And no need to even convert these days, all 7 points given automatically if a try would have been scored beyond reasonable doubt. Can pick up a yellow card at the same time, but 10 mins off the pitch very different to being sent off (another area rugby does better, as requires serious foul play to be sent off, not technical offences re stopping the opposition). 
 

 

[Numero Uno]

8 hours ago, Portland Bill said:

Deliberate handball is a free kick everywhere on the pitch. But, it doesn’t have to be deliberate if it’s in the penalty area. 

If Mawson had done exactly the same on the halfway line, it’s a 99% chance a free kick would not have been given.

People wanted tv cameras to get involved in football, VAR is the result of this, the fact is,we now have two handball laws ( one in the box, one everywhere else on the pitch) making the game a farce. 

 

Totally agree. It was whining Premier League Managers like Allardyce, Hughes and the like combined with Sky who put the real pressure on for VAR and "wronged" fans fell for it hook, line and sinker. We now have the game all these fans wanted and I have to admit right now that if VAR drops down to Championship level I will seriously be reconsidering whether to purchase a season ticket in future. I go to football for entertainment and there is nothing about VAR that makes me want to step foot into a football ground.

Goal line technology and Referees is ample for me.

[Rocking Red Cyril]

10 hours ago, BCFCGav said:

Does the red carry into the league?

Not think so 

[Mr Popodopolous]

17 hours ago, megansdad said:

am sure I saw a Sheffield hand push the ball away in the 1st half from a corner....

 

If that was the VAR check, the check deemed otherwise bit you might be right.

[redrob]

17 hours ago, grifty said:

Yeah I agree. My view is the law should be, if your arm isn't there, would the balls direction have changed, so if its in front of you, say both arms across your chest, if your arms disappeared it would hit your chest, then no penalty. If, like Mawson as harsh as it is and it's not deliberate it shouldn't be a red. It's obvious he hasn't pushed it off the line like Suarez did for Uruguay a few years back.

That's the case for deciding if it's a penalty but the issue of is it sending off-able or not () falls back to the idea of if you've made your body unnaturally bigger or not. 

[redrob]

18 hours ago, lager loud said:

I think your analysis is spot on. What refs sometimes don’t take into account is that a natural position for the arm is sometimes away from the body - for example when running or jumping, both of which are pretty typical activities when playing football!

To be honest, I don’t have much of an issue with a penalty being awarded in a case like tonight’s, as without the ball hitting Mawson’s hand it would definitely have ended up in the net - it’s just the flipside of goals being disallowed if the ball hits an attacker’s hand, regardless of how that happens. Intent is sometimes very difficult to determine, so taking it out of the equation for goalscoring situations seems a sensible approach.

As a matter of principle, though, I don’t think you should be sent off simply for denying a goalscoring opportunity if a penalty results: the penalty means the goalscoring opportunity is still available, just in a different format (and whilst it’s true that you could miss the penalty, you might also have missed the original chance). To have to try to get the goal back a man short seems to me an excessive punishment, particularly if there is no clear intent. 

 

I'd like to see a situation like in rugby where if you deny (either purposefully or accidentally) a score (rather than a scoring opportunity the referee can award the penalty points (in footballs case a goal) thus negating the need for the jeopardy of a penalty kick in such cases. Then the disciplinary decision would simply be a case of has the player intentionallly tried to deny the goal or not. If not player stays on, if intentional the player walks. 

[redrob]

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

If that was the VAR check, the check deemed otherwise bit you might be right.

It was VARd though in my view the ball hit Amapdu's arms on the way down outside the cylinder of his body (thus gaining control to be able to clear the ball) with Dhiedhou loitering to strike. Why that is not a handball is still beyond me. 

[E.J.Thribb]

The problem with VAR is whilst it’s pointing out handballs that wouldn’t have been caught the reality is, without, said incident would’ve been replayed over and over with social media, TV etc scrutinising it and complaining that it’s unfair that Sheff Utd didn’t get a penalty. 
 

VAR is ‘careful what you wish for’. Refs will never get every decision right. Having hundreds of cameras at the ground with football coverage near incessant means that we have this never-ending cycle of regurgitation about refs not making the right call, and now with VAR there’s another guest at this shit party.
 

Unless you get rid of VAR, stop the over-saturation of over-analysis of matches and go back to a ‘less is more’ approach to match coverage then these issues will be with us forever, or until football runs out of steam and dies (slightly hyperbolic I must admit but empires rise and fall) 

 

[lager loud]

54 minutes ago, redrob said:

I'd like to see a situation like in rugby where if you deny (either purposefully or accidentally) a score (rather than a scoring opportunity the referee can award the penalty points (in footballs case a goal) thus negating the need for the jeopardy of a penalty kick in such cases. Then the disciplinary decision would simply be a case of has the player intentionallly tried to deny the goal or not. If not player stays on, if intentional the player walks. 

That would be better than now, for sure - although I suspect there will always be ambiguity about whether something was intentional.

On balance I’d probably still feel that conceding the goal and losing a player for the rest of the game was too big a penalty. But there needs to be some consequence to discourage players doing this. Not sure what: ten minute sin bin, suspension for a later game?? 

[Portland Bill]

On 11/02/2021 at 17:22, redrob said:

I'd like to see a situation like in rugby where if you deny (either purposefully or accidentally) a score (rather than a scoring opportunity the referee can award the penalty points (in footballs case a goal) thus negating the need for the jeopardy of a penalty kick in such cases. Then the disciplinary decision would simply be a case of has the player intentionallly tried to deny the goal or not. If not player stays on, if intentional the player walks. 

The problem with this is the massive extra pressure you are going to put on to the officials. They already have to make tough decisions, but you are asking them to judge whether a goal would have been scored or not.

In rugby it’s just a judgment of whether a player would have got over the line or not, in football you have a goalkeeper that is intent on stopping the ball going in the net.

It would be absolute carnage if referees were able to actually give goals when one isn’t actually scored.

VAR is bad enough, this would take football controversy to a new level!

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

It’s an old fashioned concept now, but I think intent should come into it.  It is hard to see how any offence which is patently accidental should be penalised.  I disagree with the new system of stopping play if the ball hits the referee, much offering the old interpretation where the referee was part of the field of play.  If the referee accidentally blocks or deflects the ball, do what?  If the ball is accidentally blocked or deflected by a player of either side it’s not an issue, after all.  If the rules were simple and clear, then surely VAR would not be necessary, other than perhaps on line calls.  Football is meant to be the beautiful game because of its simplicity after all.