I wasn't implying that there is no true description in which there is contact between ball and arm/hand, simply pointing out that "palmed Tzolis's goal bound shot away" is actually a false description of what occurred. If someone is going to claim that a blatant handball offence was wrongly ignored by the officials, the least they can do is try to get the basic facts straight.
There is a video that I posted that clearly shows the ball leaving Tzolis's head and contact between said ball and the defenders hand was made . Changing the trajectory and pace from the shot .
David Freezer on the Schlar handball of Tzolis incident: "In the first half there was also a handball, when a Christos Tzolis header just clipped Fabian Schar’s hand from similarly close quarters when the ball was heading towards goal, with his arm low but away from his body. In real time it was barely noticeable. When seen on slow-motion replays it was far clearer. Ultimately, it seems the VAR officials deemed it was not a clear and obvious mistake from the referee." For me, that's the subjective element of VAR that makes people distrust the consistency and fairness of the process.
Even Freezer is forced to guess what VAR was thinking. Reasons for VAR decisions should be public. I can't tell where the ref was standing during that play, but maybe he couldn't see what happened; in which case VAR must step in and make the correct call.
Why did no one ever break into the big space at the top of the "D" to receive the ball? Don't we have a player with the confidence and ability to get the ball there and put pressure on the central defense?
Spurs are in a funny place and while we played badly against Newcastle, if we can have Rashica and or Normann back I fancy us to be in with a chance of a point. But it’s still effectively a free game. For Man U - rinse and repeat my comment above. I would rather we played them with OGS in charge! But who knows what form they will be in. Villa at home we should be targeting a win, I feel. West Ham away will be tough, but then maybe their form will dip? Free chance for points without pressure in some ways. The main thing will be to avoid a hammering. Arsenal home - similar feeling to West Ham, they are in good form. That being said I feel like we might stand a bit more of a chance here as Arsenal are more likely to let us play our game. Who knows, main aim is to avoid being thrashed. Crystal Palace away - let’s target a win and be satisfied with a draw? We need points on the road to survive. So I’d say 4 points would be below hopes, 5 points would be acceptable, 6 points good and 7 points or more great news.
The correct call in this case being? I agree that it would be in everyone's interest to improve understanding of the Laws and their application (though some people clearly don't want to understand and show little interest in trying). Regarding Rick's point about "subjectivity", the idea that you can have a set of rules such that applying them involves no element of interpretation is a myth. VAR is not there to resolve questions of interpretation; it's there to resolve questions of fact -- Was the ball wholly over the line? Did the ball hit the player's arm? etc. etc. Duncan's video does not answer the question of whether Tzolis's header coming into contact with Schar's arm/hand in the particular situation in which the contact occurred, does or doesn't mean that a handball offence has been committed. That depends on the interpretation of the handball rule and its application in this particular case.
That sounds right in theory, but it’s not in practice is it Robbie. I have watched many matches with VAR and I can say with absolute confidence that only once, of the matches I have watched, has the referee been called to the monitor and decided that his decision was correct and the VAR replay us not changed his mind. So in other words, it would appear that VAR is selectively opining on those replayed incidents the VAR operator thinks should be reviewed and changed. That is not a matter of fact, that is opinion. If it were just fact, the ref should have been given a look at both the Tzolis header and the Idah shot. There is no way the referee can claim for those incidents that he saw the handball and judged it not a penalty already, because he would have given both as corners if he knew the hand had been used (but it was not a foul). If VAR were just establishing facts, we would see referees considering the replay and sometimes overruling themselves, and other times sticking with the on-field decision. That’s how it works in rugby (albeit they collectively consult as the two linesmen and the VAR operator are all technically referees for the purposes of the match).
Schar's (?) hand was away from his body when it hit the ball. Not a natural position. Therefore, it should have been a penalty. The PL doesn't want to have to answer for anything so they keep us in the dark. Let them come out and explain the ruling.
Precisely. In all 3 cases the ref doesn't give handball. In Gilmour's case detailed study is made and the ref watches replays on the monitor. In the other cases the decision, if there was one, was made by the VAR official, apparently wrongly, that the ref doesn't need to know. The handling of the 3 occurrences doesn't appear to be consistent.
This is exactly what got me about both decisions, the ref clearly didn’t see each instance as if he had but not deemed them to be penalties then both would have resulted in corners. For me the Tzolis one is a penalty as the arm is in an unnatural position away from his body, if that is still the rule? I actually don’t think the Idah one is a penalty, yea it hits his arm but his arm is tucked into his body as he pushing in front of Idah, it should still be a corner though!
For me, the sticking point is that key decisions are still being taken by people who are not on the pitch. The VAR team now decide whether to ask the on-pitch referee to look at the evidence and reconsider his decision (and, as Rob points out, this seems less of an 'ask' than a 'demand'). A 'sin of omission' (deciding not to do this, as in the case of Tzolis) is as much of an intervention in the game as directly overruling the on-pitch ref's decision. I want the person responsible for making decisions in a match to be visible and accountable. I think the fans deserve that. My overall feeling is another week, another VAR controversy. This will never end because there is no technology, and indeed no system, that can ever remove subjectivity from so many key decisions during a football match. People who believed that technology could perform the same role in football that it does in tennis or badminton need to accept that the experiment has failed.
Having watched the goal on MoTD I doubt it would have rated very highly on Xgoals. If Pukki was in a team where the chances cane more frequently he would be up there with the top scorers.
Re. the sentences I've highlighted: (1) the Law understands "natural position" as relative to the action, so the fact that "Schar's hand was away from his body when it hit the ball" does not in itself mean that the position wasn't natural. (Notice incidentally how different "when it hit the ball" is from "when the ball hit it", and both from "there was contact between hand and ball".) You are putting an interpretation on "natural position" and it may or may not be a correct interpretation . (2) The Rule is quite explicit that, in a situation in which the arm is NOT in a natural position according to the Rule, contact with the ball MAY constitute an offence; the Rule does not state that, in such a case, contact with the ball WILL constitute an offence.
Would it be better for the team to have 2 reviews and the team captain can decide if they want something reviewed? If it is not deemed clear to overturn they lose the review. (that would stop Man Utd for example surrounding the ref every 5 mins signalling VAR). I was wondering when Newcastle would be booked for time wasting, because each kick or throw in was taking 30 seconds before they did it. Don't think they ever were, but with one side trying to get things started and the other intent on slowing it down I wonder how much the ball was in play that half compared with others.
Yeah there was no booking for timewasting which was a disgrace. As for your suggestion, I would say two reviews, but the first person to ask the referee for a review will count (rather than just the captain). That should stop players appealing as otherwise they will lose their reviews.
