2018-2019 UEFA Season Referee Discussion [Rs]

Actually, I thought that the goal, and then the reversal, made it even more dramatic. Crazy roller coaster of emotions, and I don't even care about either team.

And how do you think the "Aguero!!! Moment" would have been remembered if it turned out that he was offside and the officials missed it?

 

I'm not so sure. This was years ago, but how else do you explain him disallowing Neymar's goal in the Juve vs. Barcelona Final in 2015 (6:15 in the video) and not the goal today provided it clearly hit Llorente's hand? There is no way this is deliberate by any stretch and a penalty kick would never be given for this.



Even though the Law change isn't in effect until next year, the fact that the VAR sent that down means that it is practically an "official but unofficial instruction."

Maybe he allows the goal even if it clearly hit Llorente's hand, we are all speculating here, but the fact that it was sent down combined with the fact that Cakir looked at it for so long tells me they were just looking for confirmation of touch rather than confirmation of it being deliberate,.

Regardless, the correct decision was made, but this goal will be disallowed next year which is pretty silly. I couldn't agree more with how stupid and how many problems this law change will create next year.

What people don't realize is that with VAR, this will eventually lead to some crazy penalty kicks being awarded.

Imagine that if Llorente is a defender and heads the ball down like that on his arm, the ball falls to a teammate and it leads to a goal in the other end of the pitch via APP. By VAR, APP and the law change you have to disallow the goal and award the PK right?

The new Law will state:

"The following ‘handball’ situations, even if accidental, will be a free kick:

• A player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm•and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity"

 

take it with a bit of salt with my flair to the left, but I agree, no one on the pitch or in that stadium was looking or thinking about the offside position of Aguro, not that it should matter in the matters of the Law, but everyone at that point was resigned to their fate when... Boom, there goes the blue screen of death for City.

 

Agreed, the Llorente review too. I also didn’t care who advanced.

 

And that's exactly what "clear and obvious" should be. Call on the field stands unless there is evidence clearly supporting a reversal.

 

So we have gone through 64 World Cup matches with VAR and now 24 knockout matches in the CL with VAR. That's 88 matches in the two most high profile and most important competitions in the World.

We have yet to have one red card given for SFP or violent conduct via VAR. Even more remarkably we haven't had a red card given on the field first for VC or SFP in those 88 matches.

As far as I'm aware we haven't even had a review yet in the CL for SFP or VC and I think we might have had two total OFRs for VC/SFP in the World Cup.

To be fair, there has not been anything on top of my head that would have qualified for review in the CL this season that I can think of. It shows that the play is just so much cleaner at more disciplined at that level.

But the point is that UEFA and FIFA are using or not using VAR in ways that the rest of world is simply not. FIFA and UEFA have basically limited VAR to offside and the occasional handling offense.

In MLS we are getting almost a review every other game for SFP or violent conduct and SFP and APP.

 

The Neymar one was called because of expectation I believe. This is with VAR, the expectation is to have a trashcan for a heart.

 

Yea.... Ok, I can see that side of it as well. Still gutted...

 

I had no issues whatsoever with how the offside review of the last Man City goal transpired. It took less than a minute, it didn't require an OFR because it was fact-based, and it led to the correct call. Full disclosure again - I'm a Tottenham fan. However, switch Aguero for Son and my opinion from a refereeing perspective remains exactly the same.

I thought Cakir and his crew handled both critical reviews in an exemplary manner. The Llorente goal stood because there was no clear and obvious evidence that the call on the field was wrong. The offside decision was eventually correct. Neither review took a significantly long time (at least by my standards - others may disagree). They were both huge calls with tie-changing implications.

Where I get frustrated with VAR is when reviews take 5-7 minutes looking for the most minute detail to get to "clear and obvious". If it takes that long, it isn't clear and obvious. Let the call on the field stand. What VAR needs to overturn are the big misses like some of the offside misses we've seen in the FA Cup and EPL this year.

 

This is the crux of the change, and one that we can't resolve here - unless IFAB ask us!

The issue is what does "gains possession" actually mean? For the time being, let's assume the ball did hit Llorente's arm, and we can see that on VAR, the question becomes : do they consider Llorente to have "gained possession"?

Because then, as per the new wording, the goal would be disallowed as it is "an offence if a player gains possession after it has touched their hand/arm and then scores a goal". You can certainly argue that by directing the ball into the goal you have "gained possession" and therefore a disallowed goal would be correct.

However, if that is not considered to be "gaining possession" then this bit of the new wording kicks in: "except for the above offences, it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player's hand/arm if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body naturally bigger". Well, you can certainly argue that one here as I don't think anyone would disagree that the arm was close to the body and he didn't make the body bigger.

So, that question of what constitutes "gaining possession" is the key to the whole thing as you would have a strong case to argue either of these stances right now.

For what is worth, I believe that the intention of IFAB was to make any contact with arm or hand that leads to a goal to be an infringement, but I don't think their current wording makes that clear. I am not saying that's the right approach - in fact I do not like it - but I believe that is where they are going with this, and how it will be applied next season.

 

That's only part of the summary of the new handling laws. pg. 7: http://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/documents/786/111531_110319_IFAB_LoG_at_a_Glance.pdf

So of the four accidental handling free kick situations, #3 & #4 are definitely out. #2 appears to be out because Llorente doesn't gain control. For #1, the ball hits the arm and then the hip, it doesn't go directly arm to goal. Does that mean it's out too?

 

It says "after" not "directly after." Handling offense.

 

I never said IFAB could write well!

But until they clarify, my view is that it means if the ball goes into the goal more-or-less directly after the contact the goal comes out. I think that is the spirit of the rule here.

Of course, I don't have VAR to deal with. I think the bigger APP issue is the second bullet--just how far back do we go. Inadvertent handling at midfield gains possession, we have no call. Player dribbles through three defenders and is preparing to cross into the PA--oops, since he has now created a goal scoring opportunity, we go all the way back and call handling? (Yes, there is the even more wild possibility that it happened way back in the PA--but that is very unlikely that the same player will then create a goal scoring opportunity--but from midfield with a meaningful time delay until is apparent doesn't' seem all that unlikely to me.)

 

Ooops-- @GreatGonzo quoted from the summary, not the actual Law changes. The actual language says:

It is an offence if a player:
• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
• gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:

• scores in the opponents’ goal
• creates a goal-scoring opportunity ​

• scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper

It is usually an offence if a player:
• touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
• the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger
• the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)

The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close.
​

So while I still think the spirit of the law would say arm to hip into goal is an offense, we can certainly argue about the word directly--how many different ways is that same word used in the Laws? I would think here it means without an active play by any player.

 

This issue with this Law change is that for 99.9999% of all games, there is no VAR, there is no APP, there is no "wait and see and maybe go back and check". There is only the "right now, right here, I have to make a decision." Any handling by an offensive player could possibly lead to a goal as any offensive handling could be in the APP. And it takes video looking back to know if it was or wasn't.

 

William Barr must have written that summary.

(too soon?)

Sorry about that!

 

as always the IFAB just creates more problems in trying to fix non-problems

 

^^This^^