Refs & VAR 2020/2021 Discussion

100% pen. Not even debatable for me. It doesn’t matter where abouts you are in the box....the rule is the same. Had that come from a cross in the six yard box and he took it off Greenwood’s head, with every other context being the same...it’s a penalty. Of course it doesn’t matter or shouldn’t matter to the interpretation of the rule.
 
I think if we forget the game for a moment and whether that was a penalty or not . If VAR doesn't intervene then pretty sure no one cares about the incident and the game goes on . My concern is that once var has made the ref aware of this having looked at various angles , what interpretation of the law does he use to not give a penalty there .Whether its soft or not is out of the picture , the game has to be run by the laws . This is where the Rugby system is great where you can hear the decision making. All this system is doing is letting refs make decisions with no accountability
 
Dumbstar said:
Not sure they have weightings. A penalty is a penalty. I stand to be corrected if you can dig out the weightings ruling though.
Click to expand...
Well, some have no impact on a result and some do. Just apply some common sense.
 
Why does VAR intervene in that call if not to say its a pen?

On call decision was fair enough to the human eye.

Whole thing just stinks, noone wants this.
 
Dumbstar said:
What was his understandably fuming view on the previous Rashford toe nail clipping dive-penalty? Was it more along the lines of "well sometimes they're given sometimes they're not"?
Click to expand...
Sorry are we talking about Salah here? An Olympic diving career awaits when he retires.
 
Dumbstar said:
What was his understandably fuming view on the previous Rashford toe nail clipping dive-penalty? Was it more along the lines of "well sometimes they're given sometimes they're not"?
Click to expand...
I don’t know but given all the pundits I heard agreed the Rashford one was a penalty, I’m not sure what your point is? It was less an obvious penalty than today but would still have been a bad decision if not given.

Today is one of the most blatant handballs I’ve ever seen not given and the fact that it was after the referee had seen it on VAR is astonishing. I say that by the way as someone who feels that the handball rule has been stupidly applied over the last year or so but today’s one was a penalty in 1970, 2000 or today. If that’s not a penalty then neither was Pogba’s against Liverpool a few years back and I don’t recall anyone trying to argue that wasn’t.
 
sullydnl said:
Another example of why we should be able to hear the referee's conversation with VAR, as works so evidently well in rugby. We'd know exactly how he interpreted the incident, his reasoning for not giving the penalty and what he said to the players afterwards.

We still might not agree with the decision but there should be clarity on why it was made.
Click to expand...

I was going to make the exact same comment. VAR in football will never be accepted by most people until we can all hear the conversations. It appears commentators can but fans cannot. This is a fundamental floor right now and diminishes any credibility it may still have with fans. I mean what are they hiding or afraid will happen? As you say, even if you disagreed with the rationale for today’s handball decision, you could at least accept it and move on rather than being left feeling short changed and slightly despondent about the whole concept of VAR.

Regarding the use of VAR in that handball incident today, it appeared to be operating how it was intended, assuming in the first instance Atwell thought it hit Greenwood’s hand or he did not see it full stop. The VAR hi lights that he’s missed something classed as clear and obvious, tells him to review on the screen where the Chelsea player is clearly seen moving his arm to the ball and touches it yet inexplicably Atwell disregards that and says no penalty. How has he come to that decision you ask? We shall never know.
 
Last edited:
At the risk of being annihilated in this thread, I suspect part of the reason the penalty wasn't awarded was because CHO didn't really benefit - if he hadn't handled it, it would have been handball by Greenwood anyhow so the arguments that it was advantageous fall flat for me. Two players have jockeyed for position shoulder to shoulder, both players' arms went up as a result of their jostling, and minor contact with the ball occurred. Calling that deliberate or that CHO was making himself bigger to prevent Greenwood getting the ball is disingenuous, especially as it fell for Greenwood anyhow.

I can empathise with your frustrations given the context of VAR and how it's been applied this season, but if the laws say that's a penalty then that's objectively ridiculous and the laws should be changed. If the contact with CHO's hand had taken it away from Greenwood and prevented him from being able to control it, then yeah that's an obvious advantage gained and a valid penalty. Don't think anyone can argue that it's a big enough advantage gained given they were at the corner of the 18 yard box with their backs to goal.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
At the risk of being annihilated in this thread, I suspect part of the reason the penalty wasn't awarded was because CHO didn't really benefit - if he hadn't handled it, it would have been handball by Greenwood anyhow so the arguments that it was advantageous fall flat for me. Two players have jockeyed for position shoulder to shoulder, both players' arms went up as a result of their jostling, and minor contact with the ball occurred. Calling that deliberate or that CHO was making himself bigger to prevent Greenwood getting the ball is disingenuous, especially as it fell for Greenwood anyhow.

I can empathise with your frustrations given the context of VAR and how it's been applied this season, but if the laws say that's a penalty then that's objectively ridiculous and the laws should be changed. If the contact with CHO's hand had taken it away from Greenwood and prevented him from being able to control it, then yeah that's an obvious advantage gained and a valid penalty. Don't think anyone can argue that it's a big enough advantage gained given they were at the corner of the 18 yard box with their backs to goal.
Click to expand...

The rule does not state, did the player benefit.
 
ManUnitedCanuck said:
I disagree with that, there are hand balls that are at the corner of the box, nowhere near danger that are given.
Click to expand...

Yes but if that's to block a cross or a shot then that's much more valid in my opinion. This was two players moving away from goal trying to control the ball, and the player who handballed it didn't even emerge from the challenge with possession - I just can't really see how anyone can argue that there was a major advantage gained by CHO's actions, even if you think they were deliberate.

Again, I understand that this isn't the law as written but I do think this is how referees interpret it.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
At the risk of being annihilated in this thread, I suspect part of the reason the penalty wasn't awarded was because CHO didn't really benefit - if he hadn't handled it, it would have been handball by Greenwood anyhow so the arguments that it was advantageous fall flat for me. Two players have jockeyed for position shoulder to shoulder, both players' arms went up as a result of their jostling, and minor contact with the ball occurred. Calling that deliberate or that CHO was making himself bigger to prevent Greenwood getting the ball is disingenuous, especially as it fell for Greenwood anyhow.

I can empathise with your frustrations given the context of VAR and how it's been applied this season, but if the laws say that's a penalty then that's objectively ridiculous and the laws should be changed. If the contact with CHO's hand had taken it away from Greenwood and prevented him from being able to control it, then yeah that's an obvious advantage gained and a valid penalty. Don't think anyone can argue that it's a big enough advantage gained given they were at the corner of the 18 yard box with their backs to goal.
Click to expand...
CHO benefited by getting to a contested ball in his own 18 yard box before an attacking player.

It is not objectively ridiculous to award a foul, or in this case a penalty, if a player controls or alters the path of the ball in a game where not doing so is one of the most fundamental aspects of said game.

The game has attempted to adjust handball rules periodically to compensate for inevitable handball accidents (bouncing off of your own body, drilled at you from inches away) but that type of handball we saw today has always been a penalty and always will be.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
CHO benefited by getting to a contested ball in his own 18 yard box before an attacking player.

It is not objectively ridiculous to award a foul, or in this case a penalty, if a player controls or alters the path of the ball in a game where not doing so is one of the most fundamental aspects of said game.

The game has attempted to adjust handball rules periodically to compensate for inevitable handball accidents (bouncing off of your own body, drilled at you from inches away) but that type of handball we saw today has always been a penalty and always will be.
Click to expand...

How did he benefit if Greenwood emerged with the ball? Unless you're arguing that touch put Greenwood off somehow which is odd because Greenwood probably would have controlled it in exactly the same manner with his arm anyway.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
At the risk of being annihilated in this thread, I suspect part of the reason the penalty wasn't awarded was because CHO didn't really benefit - if he hadn't handled it, it would have been handball by Greenwood anyhow so the arguments that it was advantageous fall flat for me. Two players have jockeyed for position shoulder to shoulder, both players' arms went up as a result of their jostling, and minor contact with the ball occurred. Calling that deliberate or that CHO was making himself bigger to prevent Greenwood getting the ball is disingenuous, especially as it fell for Greenwood anyhow.

I can empathise with your frustrations given the context of VAR and how it's been applied this season, but if the laws say that's a penalty then that's objectively ridiculous and the laws should be changed. If the contact with CHO's hand had taken it away from Greenwood and prevented him from being able to control it, then yeah that's an obvious advantage gained and a valid penalty. Don't think anyone can argue that it's a big enough advantage gained given they were at the corner of the 18 yard box with their backs to goal.
Click to expand...
Think the above is a fair point. Just a general frustration that none of us trust the rules to stay the same from one week / one ref to the next.
 
Utd heap said:
Think the above is a fair point. Just a general frustration that none of us trust the rules to stay the same from one week / one ref to the next.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you. There's an unacceptable lack of transparency regarding decisions at this point and VAR has only exacerbated that.
 
Utterly ridiculous decision.........
It’s the most blatant penalty I’ve seen recently.
No reason at all for his hand being there apart from to play the ball.
It will never be corroborated but if the ref did say that to Maguire he should never referee again.
I’m sure there are some lip readers that will analyse that particular chat.
I’m betting atwell will be sweating...........
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
At the risk of being annihilated in this thread, I suspect part of the reason the penalty wasn't awarded was because CHO didn't really benefit - if he hadn't handled it, it would have been handball by Greenwood anyhow so the arguments that it was advantageous fall flat for me. Two players have jockeyed for position shoulder to shoulder, both players' arms went up as a result of their jostling, and minor contact with the ball occurred. Calling that deliberate or that CHO was making himself bigger to prevent Greenwood getting the ball is disingenuous, especially as it fell for Greenwood anyhow.

I can empathise with your frustrations given the context of VAR and how it's been applied this season, but if the laws say that's a penalty then that's objectively ridiculous and the laws should be changed. If the contact with CHO's hand had taken it away from Greenwood and prevented him from being able to control it, then yeah that's an obvious advantage gained and a valid penalty. Don't think anyone can argue that it's a big enough advantage gained given they were at the corner of the 18 yard box with their backs to goal.
Click to expand...

That isn’t the rule, never has been the rule and never will be the rule so, effectively, you agree it should have been a penalty.
 
Doracle said:
That isn’t the rule, never has been the rule and never will be the rule so, effectively, you agree it should have been a penalty.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was the rule? But if you're arguing that that isn't how the (ambiguously written) law has been interpreted more or less forever then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
I didn't say it was the rule? But if you're arguing that that isn't how the (ambiguously written) law has been interpreted more or less forever then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Click to expand...

“If the laws say that’s a penalty then that’s objectively ridiculous “

Erm no
Wtf are you seeing there? He’s gained a material advantage by handballing it
 
The Purley King said:
“If the laws say that’s a penalty then that’s objectively ridiculous “

Erm no
Wtf are you seeing there? He’s gained a material advantage by handballing it
Click to expand...

How? Greenwood retained possession and by handballing it CHO prevented Greenwood from handballing it, which would have been a Chelsea free kick even if you'd gone on to score in that move. What advantage did he gain?
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
Yes and look how far away from his body Greenwood's arm is and how it's in contact with CHO's! It's almost like the two of them are contesting for position and not actually trying to handle the ball.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry you are embarrassing yourself here.
Undeniably a pen.
Not to say Chelsea didn’t deserve a draw you definitely did. But that is a pen every day of the week and twice on Sundays
 
The Purley King said:
I’m sorry you are embarrassing yourself here.
Undeniably a pen.
Not to say Chelsea didn’t deserve a draw you definitely did. But that is a pen every day of the week and twice on Sundays
Click to expand...

It's obviously deniably a pen as it wasn't given and presumably the referee didn't decide so arbitrarily. Again, how did CHO gain an advantage from the handball in that situation, because regardless of how the law is written that's how it's interpreted?
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
It's obviously deniably a pen as it wasn't given and presumably the referee didn't decide so arbitrarily. Again, how did CHO gain an advantage from the handball in that situation, because regardless of how the law is written that's how it's interpreted?
Click to expand...
The opinion of a misguided referee is not the gospel truth btw. Or drogba would never have got to score the offside goal at old Trafford that helped you win the title that year.

It’s hand TO ball

Ergo hand ball

Capiche?
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
I didn't say it was the rule? But if you're arguing that that isn't how the (ambiguously written) law has been interpreted more or less forever then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
Click to expand...
There has never been any part of the handball rule which requires an advantage to be gained as a result of the handball nor has that ever been an “unwritten” requirement. It’s a nonsense argument which you are presumably making because it’s a blatant penalty (as it would have been a blatant free kick if Greenwood’s arm had connected first).
 
I’m sure there was a penalty awarded against Maguire early this season when the ball hit his arm from a short distance and the decision was criticised. The rule was changed not long after. I don’t agree with the change, all teams should play under the same rules all season, wondering what Linekar & co will be saying on MoD, definite penalty for me.
 
The Purley King said:
The opinion of a misguided referee is not the gospel truth btw. Or drogba would never have got to score the offside goal at old Trafford that helped you win the title that year.

It’s hand TO ball

Ergo hand ball

Capiche?
Click to expand...

Of course not, but he's a professional referee and he deemed that the situation wasn't "undeniable".

I'm not sure why you're trying to explain the etymology of the term "handball" but power to you I suppose? Just curious what the phrase would be if it's "hand pushed by your opponent innocuously into the ball which the opponent then controlled anyway"?

Doracle said:
There has never been any part of the handball rule which requires an advantage to be gained as a result of the handball nor has that ever been an “unwritten” requirement. It’s a nonsense argument which you are presumably making because it’s a blatant penalty (as it would have been a blatant free kick if Greenwood’s arm had connected first).
Click to expand...

For the 5th time on this thread, I understand that that is the case. Did you even read the post you quoted? I didn't say that it was a requirement, I said that that's how it's been interpreted more or less since the law has been in effect. I genuinely don't understand how this is even up for debate at this point.

There are also different standards between attackers and defenders re: Greenwood, but that's neither here nor there.

Comet49 said:
I’m sure there was a penalty awarded against Maguire early this season when the ball hit his arm from a short distance and the decision was criticised. The rule was changed not long after. I don’t agree with the change, all teams should play under the same rules all season, wondering what Linekar & co will be saying on MoD, definite penalty for me.
Click to expand...

You're thinking of Dier.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
How did he benefit if Greenwood emerged with the ball? Unless you're arguing that touch put Greenwood off somehow which is odd because Greenwood probably would have controlled it in exactly the same manner with his arm anyway.
Click to expand...
Probably doesn't matter in this case. The defender beats the attacker to the ball in the penalty area using a hand illegally, with none of the caveats that allow accidental handball to be cited under the rules being applicable. It is, objectively, a penalty both in the spirit of and the letter of the law.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
Probably doesn't matter in this case. The defender beats the attacker to the ball in the penalty area using a hand illegally, with none of the caveats that allow accidental handball to be cited under the rules being applicable. It is, objectively, a penalty both in the spirit of and the letter of the law.
Click to expand...

Well clearly it did matter, because the ref decided that it wasn't objectively a penalty. And again, the two players are jostling for the ball. Is it a penalty if an attacker bumps a defender's arm into the ball when they're contesting for it? Of course not. It's completely against the spirit of the law, which is to penalise defenders who gain an advantage by using their arms - generally by making themselves bigger.

I can appreciate the argument that it is inconsistent with what we've seen from VAR this year. Arguing that it's some sort of stonewall penalty or that it's in line with the spirit of the law when plainly he gained no advantage from handballing it is what I take issue with.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:
I'm not sure why you're trying to explain the etymology of the term "handball" but power to you I suppose? Just curious what the phrase would be if it's "hand pushed by your opponent innocuously into the ball which the opponent then controlled anyway"?
Click to expand...

Greenwood didn’t push him. Fact.
Odoi deliberately moved his hand towards the ball to move it AWAY from greenwood .

As I said I think a draw was fair even with the pen that never was it’s just annoying the mental gymnastics that people go through to deny that it was actually a stonewall penalty.
If atwell really did bottle it due to shitting himself about the potential reaction then he should never referee again.
 
The Purley King said:
Greenwood didn’t push him. Fact.
Odoi deliberately moved his hand towards the ball to move it AWAY from greenwood .

As I said I think a draw was fair even with the pen that never was it’s just annoying the mental gymnastics that people go through to deny that it was actually a stonewall penalty.
If atwell really did bottle it due to shitting himself about the potential reaction then he should never referee again.
Click to expand...



Here's Greenwood making contact with CHO before the ball gets there. Both of them have their arms up to ward off the other; it can thus be argued that CHO's arm is in an entirely natural position given the impending contact with Greenwood.

Greenwood makes contact with CHO's arm which makes contact with the ball. Before VAR, this wouldn't even be looked at twice. It's completely accidental, CHO gains no advantage as Greenwood controlled anyway, and there is no chance the incident impeded Greenwood's ability to shoot or cross or do anything dangerous.

I agree that a draw was fair enough. I don't agree this was a stonewall penalty.
 
Pre VAR = never a pen

VAR = assumed it would be given as a pen

It was by no stretch a 'stone waller' that seems a strange take to me.

But once three geezers in a van stop the game to look at it, bizarre that its not given.

My conclusion - we are talking about VAR being subjective again. Go away please.
 
TheMagicFoolBus said:


Here's Greenwood making contact with CHO before the ball gets there. Both of them have their arms up to ward off the other; it can thus be argued that CHO's arm is in an entirely natural position given the impending contact with Greenwood.

Greenwood makes contact with CHO's arm which makes contact with the ball. Before VAR, this wouldn't even be looked at twice. It's completely accidental, CHO gains no advantage as Greenwood controlled anyway, and there is no chance the incident impeded Greenwood's ability to shoot or cross or do anything dangerous.

I agree that a draw was fair enough. I don't agree this was a stonewall penalty.
Click to expand...


Do you work for the iraqi PR team?
That image is proof that Greenwood pushed odoi? Really?
Must do better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.