I think the reason why it was given was because the ball would have hit a very similar area of his body and still go in towards goal.
The amount of area that it actually did hit his arm was so minimal that it was deemed not handball if you like.
Now if the direction flow of the ball changed course more drastically after hitting his arm, then that would have been a different outcome.
comment by Prem (U7618)
posted 8 hours, 18 minutes ago
I think the reason why it was given was because the ball would have hit a very similar area of his body and still go in towards goal.
The amount of area that it actually did hit his arm was so minimal that it was deemed not handball if you like.
Now if the direction flow of the ball changed course more drastically after hitting his arm, then that would have been a different outcome.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not the law, though, so I don't think that is correct at all.
That said, it does seem that UEFA and referees are making it up as they go along at the moment, so who knows.
Did the ball hit Llorente’s arm? Saw a few replays and it looked like his thigh to me.
Both the big calls were right last night. It’s awful for players and fans to celebrate like City last night, only for it to be taken away; but imagine being Spurs and going out because the lino missed something that he’d see nine times out of ten?
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 6 minutes ago
Did the ball hit Llorente’s arm? Saw a few replays and it looked like his thigh to me.
Both the big calls were right last night. It’s awful for players and fans to celebrate like City last night, only for it to be taken away; but imagine being Spurs and going out because the lino missed something that he’d see nine times out of ten?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it did but it doesn't matter, there's no way that's deliberate in terms of how the laws are written.
Sign in if you want to comment
VAR
Page 2 of 2
posted on 17/4/19
I think the reason why it was given was because the ball would have hit a very similar area of his body and still go in towards goal.
The amount of area that it actually did hit his arm was so minimal that it was deemed not handball if you like.
Now if the direction flow of the ball changed course more drastically after hitting his arm, then that would have been a different outcome.
posted on 18/4/19
comment by Prem (U7618)
posted 8 hours, 18 minutes ago
I think the reason why it was given was because the ball would have hit a very similar area of his body and still go in towards goal.
The amount of area that it actually did hit his arm was so minimal that it was deemed not handball if you like.
Now if the direction flow of the ball changed course more drastically after hitting his arm, then that would have been a different outcome.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not the law, though, so I don't think that is correct at all.
That said, it does seem that UEFA and referees are making it up as they go along at the moment, so who knows.
posted on 18/4/19
Did the ball hit Llorente’s arm? Saw a few replays and it looked like his thigh to me.
Both the big calls were right last night. It’s awful for players and fans to celebrate like City last night, only for it to be taken away; but imagine being Spurs and going out because the lino missed something that he’d see nine times out of ten?
posted on 18/4/19
comment by Clockwork Red (U4892)
posted 6 minutes ago
Did the ball hit Llorente’s arm? Saw a few replays and it looked like his thigh to me.
Both the big calls were right last night. It’s awful for players and fans to celebrate like City last night, only for it to be taken away; but imagine being Spurs and going out because the lino missed something that he’d see nine times out of ten?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it did but it doesn't matter, there's no way that's deliberate in terms of how the laws are written.
Page 2 of 2