Not sure i understand your take on this. Haaland quite clearly takes hold of Cucurella and drags him back so that he gets infront of him, when he’s gained his advantage there’s no need to keep holding. There’s no way you can isolate these two situations, the only reason Haaland gets infront of Cucurella is because he fouls him by pulling him back and out of balance.
I can completely understand that Anthony Taylor doesn’t see this, because he’s looking out wide until the cross is hit and only then does he look into the box, where Cucurella can be seen fouling Haaland.
VAR however, should definetely sort out situations like this.
But the lead referee should observe the entire play and see the first advantage gained by a blatant foul committed by the attacker which should negate anything thereafter, including the embellished fall by Haaland. Amazing how he's so strong to whip his opponent back a yard but falls down at the least bit of holding.
Why wouldn't an official view the entire sequence?
From the what I saw in the reply they both had a hold of eachother were it may have canceled out, but then Haaland let go and made the run Cucurella kept holding him and bought him down hence why they may have given Haaland the advantage.
Second reply shows a good angle as I said it seems Cucurella kept holding him that led to the PK, but again something could be missing in this video.
Liverpool avoid a blatant red card and a goal from a cross that was almost certainly out. If that was UTD that would surely be a red and the goal disallowed. I know I’m a little biased in our favour, but Jesus.
Well, it wasn’t. It should have been. And sometimes it would have been- it’s the blatant inconsistency that I and many others take issue with.Clearly as that's never a red card.
Well, it wasn’t. It should have been. And sometimes it would have been- it’s the blatant inconsistency that I and many others take issue with.
Re.: Havertz leg breaker.It's just not a red card challenge. It wasn't dangerous and there wasn't a lot of force behind it. It wasn't a potential leg breaker like what Havertz got away with last week. There've been some bad decisions lately but this wasn't one of them.
Liverpool avoid a blatant red card and a goal from a cross that was almost certainly out. If that was UTD that would surely be a red and the goal disallowed. I know I’m a little biased in our favour, but Jesus.
Liverpool avoid a blatant red card and a goal from a cross that was almost certainly out. If that was UTD that would surely be a red and the goal disallowed. I know I’m a little biased in our favour, but Jesus.
You’re looking at a still. Isn’t that what we’ve been complaining about? You can take a still of almost any passage of play and there would be a foul in there somehow. Maybe you didn’t watch the match because if you did you would have realized that it’s not a red. Looks like you’re a proponent of VAR .
I've seen the replay and it looked a yellow to me. It certainly wasn't a leg-breaker and breaking the skin doesn't constitute a red card.
Yeah neither of those things happened, ball was still in the red card was at most a yellow.
Re.: Havertz leg breaker.
First of all, it was nothing of the kind. Lead foot looked awful in real time but in reality, Havertz only clipped a grounded foot with his trail (also along the ground) foot.
But secondly, if you want to tell me it was a reckless to intentional bad foul that only wasn't worse because Havertz's bad tackling is about as accurate as his shooting, and no one should get away with a very raised, straight leg, studs up, just because it missed, I'm on board with that.
Seriously, real time, I thought Havertz was off. Turns out, he's no better at kicking players than balls. Sometimes you ride the luck of your own incompetence.
Disagree. Could've easily gotten a red for it. Endo didn't even go for the ball.
It's not like he was aiming for the ball, but the other player kicked the ball, moved it out of his foot's way and Endo ended up getting contact on the player. That would've been understandable.
It was clear that the Brentford's player action, if successful would've cleared the ball. On the other hand, I have no idea what Endo's intention was if not to go straight for the opposition player. He's sliding straight ahead and next to the ball. He's not clearing the ball like that.
I don't agree with the Utd victim complex around these days, but if Rodri does exactly that against Liverpool in their next match we'd never hear the end of it. My mate still goes on about some Kompany foul on Salah from decades ago.
Forcing the viewing audience to wait through a VAR check on Haaland's second goal today epitomizes what is wrong with VAR. Even had the ball grazed his elbow, there was nothing clear and obvious in the ref not blowing the whistle. It was an absolute waste of time and another example of VAR looking for every opportunity to rule out a goal. VAR is like the annoying bastard who points out grammatical errors in text messages/social media posts.
Forcing the viewing audience to wait through a VAR check on Haaland's second goal today epitomizes what is wrong with VAR. Even had the ball grazed his elbow, there was nothing clear and obvious in the ref not blowing the whistle. It was an absolute waste of time and another example of VAR looking for every opportunity to rule out a goal. VAR is like the annoying bastard who points out grammatical errors in text messages/social media posts.
There are a lot of stupid rules in football but this might be the dumbest. If the ball had grazed Haaland's arm, the goal is ruled out. If he had instead squared it for a tap-in, it's a goal again. How that can make sense in any person's mind is beyond me.IFAB strongly disagrees with you there.
Handling the ball
For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence.
It is an offence if a player:
- deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball
- touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised
- scores in the opponents’ goal:
- directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
- immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental
Any touch whatsoever between the ball and Haalands arm, no matter how accidental or minimal, will continue to be an offence and result in the goal being disallowed.
There are a lot of stupid rules in football but this might be the dumbest. If the ball had grazed Haaland's arm, the goal is ruled out. If he had instead squared it for a tap-in, it's a goal again. How that can make sense in any person's mind is beyond me.
I agree.
What makes it even more absurd is that they have two completely different interpretations depending if it's handball by a defending or attacking team. If it's a defender in his own box it's a subjective call based on position of hand and so on, while if it's an attacking player in the opposition box it doesn't matter that your hand is completely tucked in, they will only make a subjective decision on handball if you pass it to a teammate that instantly scores. There's no reason to have two different sets of rules for this
I could be wrong here, but didn't they really only decide to bring in that rule after some team conceded in the CL from a ball that hit a player on the hand and went in?
It always puzzles me why, after a bad call against us, people are calling for more similarly bad decisions in other games. "This is at least as bad as Rashford's tackle/Maguire's handball." Well, if we all agree that those calls were wrong, surely we don't want more of them?
It always puzzles me why, after a bad call against us, people are calling for more similarly bad decisions in other games. "This is at least as bad as Rashford's tackle/Maguire's handball." Well, if we all agree that those calls were wrong, surely we don't want more of them?
Yeah - not sure why people think that's a red card for Endo - it's not even close to being a red (it's barely a yellow).
I've not seen the replay, but from the still, and when compared to the incident that saw Rashford sent off (and the incident a day later that saw Endo booked against Toulouse), does it not highlight the obvious flaws in the current interpretation of "endangering an opponent"?
You are clearly more likely to be endangering an opponent if you challenge for the ball, lunging in with studs raised (which, from what I've seen, you could easily argue Endo did for both challenges) than you are from stepping across to shield the ball in a perfectly normal manner, but the key differentiating factor is now down to the opponent's movements and their influence on the outcome of contact.
The issue many had with the Rashford card was that it punished the freak outcome (which was actually not that bad) than the action, which is surely not what the law is designed for?
I could be wrong here, but didn't they really only decide to bring in that rule after some team conceded in the CL from a ball that hit a player on the hand and went in?
It was Neymar's goal in the 2015 CL final against Juventus. The consensus was that the officials made the correct call (despite it being neither deliberate nor affecting the direction of the ball) because, in the game called football, you simply can't score a goal with your hands. Here's the incident:
None of these examples explain the rule that they made, though.
If the idea was that you shouldn't be allowed to score with your hand, then make that the rule: If your hand or arm is the last thing the ball touches before crossing the line, the goal is ruled out.
Instead you can now outdribble nine players from one end of the pitch to the other before chipping the keeper, and if the ball was kicked straight at your arm, which was glued to your body, from two feet's distance before you controlled it, it's not a goal. It's such an unbelievably nonsensical rule that I genuinely can't get my head around how it was invented by adults.
I know, that's what I said, and it's a very clear-cut and also extremely moronic rule.That's exactly what they implemented at first, and the "old guard" of pundits and ex-player analysts went berserk at the first opportunity. You can't score a goal if the last touch is with your hand, even when it's completely accidental. So, yes, you could out dribble an entire team and if the defender's last ditch tackle kicks the ball right at your face with you instinctively extending your arms, and the ball ricochets off them and goes in, it's disallowed. Unfair, maybe, but clear-cut as it can get. That's the rule, deal with it.
The rules are a bit of a joke alright. The Haaland one was very weird too, like the only potential outcome from that ball hitting Haaland on the arm was the lessened likelihood of the ball rolling into the net.I agree.
What makes it even more absurd is that they have two completely different interpretations depending if it's handball by a defending or attacking team. If it's a defender in his own box it's a subjective call based on position of hand and so on, while if it's an attacking player in the opposition box it doesn't matter that your hand is completely tucked in, they will only make a subjective decision on handball if you pass it to a teammate that instantly scores. There's no reason to have two different sets of rules for this
The old rule was more based and interpreted on advantage gained from the handball. An inconsequential brush didn't rule goals out, but if there was a clear advantage gained - such as the Neymar header - then refs disallowed them. In the attempt to codify the new handball rules to suit VAR and improve consistency, they've diverged from what the purpose of the law is in the first place.I agree.
What makes it even more absurd is that they have two completely different interpretations depending if it's handball by a defending or attacking team. If it's a defender in his own box it's a subjective call based on position of hand and so on, while if it's an attacking player in the opposition box it doesn't matter that your hand is completely tucked in, they will only make a subjective decision on handball if you pass it to a teammate that instantly scores. There's no reason to have two different sets of rules for this
Because watching united getting decisions against us or not given for us, that there and then you can say ‘that will happen next week and not be given’ and then watch that happen the next day/week on repeat is killing my love for football. It’s a liberty.It always puzzles me why, after a bad call against us, people are calling for more similarly bad decisions in other games. "This is at least as bad as Rashford's tackle/Maguire's handball." Well, if we all agree that those calls were wrong, surely we don't want more of them?
It was Neymar's goal in the 2015 CL final against Juventus. The consensus was that the officials made the correct call (despite it being neither deliberate nor affecting the direction of the ball) because, in the game called football, you simply can't score a goal with your hands. Here's the incident:
I’d accept and agree with that decision - as it was missing and it hits his hand and goes in, intentional or not.
What I don’t like is if hits your arm sometime during play, and you go on and score it’s disallowed - but if you pass it onto someone else, it’s allowed.
Haalands one would have been crazy if it was disallowed. He gained absolutely no advantage and I’m glad they used common sense in that case
Yeah, we have found ourselves on the wrong end of some of these calls. For what it's worth, one of the amendments they made to the handball rule makes it certain that Haaland's goal stands not only according to the spirit, but also according to the letter of the law. I also feel that one of the reasons why decisions that seem pretty straightforward currently get overlong examinations is Klopp and Arteta's outbursts. Especially in the London derby, it felt like they were trying to prove a point about being thorough enough after the previous debacle at the same stadium.
Don't think it's a weird take (and this isn't football tribalism, I don't think you'll find an Arsenal supporter in the world who wouldn't want Havertz to get a three game suspension just to get him out of the XI!).Weird take, imo.
Havertz's tackle on Longstaff, like Nketiah on Vicario, not resulting in a nasty injury is coincidence. Havertz runs at high speed and lunges in with a straight leg, the height he jumps with and the distance he slides after missing Longstaff should tell you everything about the forces involved and the potential for injury. Mental attempt. Longstaff gets lucky, Havertz is less than a flaccid penis' length from planting his studs on his ankle, and when he does miss it's pure coincidence that Havertz trailing foot doesn't hit Longstaff standing foot higher up or that he gets caught between the trailing leg and the foot Havertz jumps in with.
Serious foul play
A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.
Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play.
