Situation...
After the debacles of the CL final, when VAR awarded with 3 minutes only of the game played a penalty to Liverpool, to the shenanigans in the women's world cup, now the premier league referee's chief Mike Riley, says that when VAR is used next season," handballs will need to be 100% convinced of they are deliberate".
And then the referee's chief says " that arms are part of the game and as long as you are not trying to extend your body to block a shot then there is more scope so that we don’t penalise".
So changing the law now.
And then he says "What we don’t want to create is a culture when defenders have to defend with their hands behind their back or where it is acceptable for attackers to try to drill the ball at their hand to win a penalty."
I think that's too late.
When asked about the pen given against Spurs in the CL final, he said
"Sissoko’s a really interesting one," Riley added. "In real time it looks a clear penalty. With VAR you can actually see what he’s doing, and he’s not interested in trying to block the cross, he’s saying to the covering defender, 'Get over there and fill the space.'"
And he said
"That’s not a deliberate act of extending the arm away from the body. You also see the ball deflects off the chest on to the arm, and if you put everything together and apply the philosophy we do here, we wouldn’t say that was handball."
So VAR gave that pen and VAR was wrong according to Riley?
Of course, Liverpool were beneficials of the VAR call wrongly awarding the pen, by the admission of the referee's chief Riley
But now VAR also is helping bad defending and clever forward play when strikers are being called offside by 0.1mm?
Should we even be using VAR next season?
So now they are changing VAR handball
posted on 8/7/19
comment by Thörgen Kloppinson, First of mine own nameth, h'rald of demise, songbird of Asgard, defend'r/ protecteth'r of the weak and innocent, mast'r of disast'r, king of stingeth, dancing destroyeth'r and counteth of monte fisto (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah, I don't mean word for word but I think its in the rules. Nevertheless you are correct there but still wrong overall IMO.
the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
This is from the FA website. http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
Riley saying something doesn't stop us from discussing it too. So Riley said it that should be the end of it?
Also I don't disagree with the discretion created by the rules as the word "usually" would suggest.
In the end, Riley seems to be saying that what makes it not a penalty for him is hitting the chest first, not the position of the hand which is the point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
N
O
B
O
D
Y
C
A
R
E
S
posted on 8/7/19
Do Spurs fans honestly think the penalty decided the result of the final. They could still be playing now and Spurs wouldn’t have scored.
posted on 8/7/19
comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Thörgen Kloppinson, First of mine own nameth, h'rald of demise, songbird of Asgard, defend'r/ protecteth'r of the weak and innocent, mast'r of disast'r, king of stingeth, dancing destroyeth'r and counteth of monte fisto (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah, I don't mean word for word but I think its in the rules. Nevertheless you are correct there but still wrong overall IMO.
the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
This is from the FA website. http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
Riley saying something doesn't stop us from discussing it too. So Riley said it that should be the end of it?
Also I don't disagree with the discretion created by the rules as the word "usually" would suggest.
In the end, Riley seems to be saying that what makes it not a penalty for him is hitting the chest first, not the position of the hand which is the point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
N
O
B
O
D
Y
C
A
R
E
S
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I dunno, a certain few people still seem hurt.
posted on 8/7/19
comment by Firmino's Brightest Tooth (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Thörgen Kloppinson, First of mine own nameth, h'rald of demise, songbird of Asgard, defend'r/ protecteth'r of the weak and innocent, mast'r of disast'r, king of stingeth, dancing destroyeth'r and counteth of monte fisto (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah, I don't mean word for word but I think its in the rules. Nevertheless you are correct there but still wrong overall IMO.
the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
This is from the FA website. http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
Riley saying something doesn't stop us from discussing it too. So Riley said it that should be the end of it?
Also I don't disagree with the discretion created by the rules as the word "usually" would suggest.
In the end, Riley seems to be saying that what makes it not a penalty for him is hitting the chest first, not the position of the hand which is the point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
N
O
B
O
D
Y
C
A
R
E
S
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I dunno, a certain few people still seem hurt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do they?
Only in your head
Get a job, go to a game.
posted on 8/7/19
I know it is, my post had that exact quote from the FA website...
My point was there’s no point discussing what the rule is as I’ve already explained why it’s deliberately written to allow for interpretation and the fact that Riley is choosing that particular interpretation himself shows it is permissible with both the current and the revised laws.
We can continue to debate the interpretation of it, but I already know you think it was a handball and I’ve already said I’m fine with that, you’re perfectly entitled to think that.
I can’t really help with your comprehension of what Riley said. I can’t think of any time where you’d
use the second point after a conjunction like “also” as your main point rather than your supporting argument unless you had some bizarre Yoda type language skills going on.
I do think it’s worth you reading the full article about it though if you really do think that as the vast majority is about the position of the arms.
posted on 8/7/19
This bit in particular -
There are still areas of interpretation around the way the new handball has been written — effectively what you consider to be an unnatural position of hands and arms,"
"In this country we have always said — and this is the players and managers saying it to us — that arms are part of the game and as long as you are not trying to extend your body to block a shot then there is more scope so that we don't penalise.“
posted on 8/7/19
The state of Sizzle. Has the nerve to call us racist from behind the filter button. Fooking coward.
posted on 8/7/19
comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by Firmino's Brightest Tooth (U1217)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Automatic For The People (U21889)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Thörgen Kloppinson, First of mine own nameth, h'rald of demise, songbird of Asgard, defend'r/ protecteth'r of the weak and innocent, mast'r of disast'r, king of stingeth, dancing destroyeth'r and counteth of monte fisto (U1282)
posted 3 minutes ago
Yeah, I don't mean word for word but I think its in the rules. Nevertheless you are correct there but still wrong overall IMO.
the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
This is from the FA website. http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
Riley saying something doesn't stop us from discussing it too. So Riley said it that should be the end of it?
Also I don't disagree with the discretion created by the rules as the word "usually" would suggest.
In the end, Riley seems to be saying that what makes it not a penalty for him is hitting the chest first, not the position of the hand which is the point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
N
O
B
O
D
Y
C
A
R
E
S
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I dunno, a certain few people still seem hurt.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do they?
Only in your head
Get a job, go to a game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Got a job thanks, and it's pre-season.
posted on 10/7/19
This is now one of teh rules for when a pen/fk is not awarded:
- The ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/near.
This describes the Sisokko position, so although a correct determination of the laws at that time, it has been seen as unreasonable that a deflection at close range on to the arm/hand of a player is worthy of a penalty and is thus now unlikely to end in a penalty.
The law sucked. It's slightly better now although its still clearly written by people who never actually played the game
posted on 10/7/19
Obviously