Yeah, that's what I put in my comment. But I'd love to be able to point to something other than my own understanding to make that point.
Just tag me on Twitter, and I'll be happy to explain gently why they're completely and utterly wrong, but I'm at work right now so it'll be later.
Quote law 12: the only handling offense is for deliberately handling the ball. (The GK offenses can't create a DFK or PK.)
Yes and no, I don’t think a full law change was necessary. Only a clarification that a keeper would not be exempt from a Dogso send off for throwing an object as part of some “extension of the hand” loophole. It was nice to put the “debate” to bed though.
Somebody, anybody, set Sean Curtis and Eric Edwards (in the replies) right. I've tried for the last two days and clearly am unable to express the laws correctly. Should #RCTID have gotten a penalty kick? Should @sjobergaxel have gotten a red? Read my breakdown below to see what you think #Rapids96 https://t.co/oSJ2jogiLf— Sean Curtis (@scurtis2611) March 4, 2019 Normally I wouldn't care about two people going off half-cocked about this but I've got friends/fellow Rapids fans pointing to their comments as reasons the red shouldn't be shown now.
I have been led to believe and confirmed that Fischer actually initiated the OFR himself as a management tool, which was door #3 and perfectly reasonable (it should be used rare/sparingly, but it's consistent with the protocols). So no mistake here from the VAR. Fischer got everything 100% correct in real-time (notwithstanding any unknown guidance about deliberate handling nullifying offside) and then chose to undertake a VAR for management purposes and to check his work. Really, really well done. It might be hard to see a better single piece of officiating this year.
Confirmed this today, as well. I have to expect PRO will praise the use of VAR here as a game management tool considering how tricky the call was.
I'll admit, it helped from a fan POV. When things we're getting crazy I turned and looked down my row to where a friend sits and he looked back at me and we both made the VAR symbol (an ongoing joke we have). That was before we knew for sure what was going on and figuring he'd need VAR to sort it out, not knowing he had it completely under control.
I'm hoping this gets discussed. I've been pondering this a bit. The fact that a handling offense is excluded from a save implies that deliberate handling can negate OS. What I have been pondering is whether it must negate OS. In the absence of guidance, I think the best answer is "not necessarily." While there is an instinct to say it must because the word deliberate is used in both places, it wouldn't be the first place in the Laws that the same word has different meanings. If we consider the guidance on the difference between a deflection and a deliberate play that resets OS, I think we see that the there is a difference. When we consider a deliberate play, a defender who stabs out at a ball is not considered to have made a deliberate play. But that same stab out with an arm would be enough to warrant deliberate handling. That to me suggests that deliberate handling might not always be enough to reset OS and there is logic in applying precisely the same standards to that reset that we would to an arm (except in the context of a save, as a save is a deliberate action and we should not exempt the calculated and illegal use of arms from resetting OS).
I dont know what the guidance is, but logically a deliberate handball should count as a deliberate play for offside since it gives the attacking team the advantage by making a player in OSP now onside. (Except in this case where it would have been to the defending teams advantage to have the goal count and their player cautioned.)
Agreed, with the movement toward wanting more goals and the fact that it would be a tremendous use of advantage to lower a red card to a yellow I think this fits with “what Soccer wants” since that seems to be the new thing to IFAB to claim is their goal.
I would completely agree if all deliberate handballs were, well, actually deliberate in any normal sense of the word. But I'd also be completely fine with that instruction. As of today (as i explained above), I think there is room to squabble because the standard for deliberate handling is lower than the standard for deliberate play. (I would not fault a ref for either interpretation within that very small gray zone.)
There was also the Ajax v Bayern handling that went to an offside player and led to a goal that we all lauded in the UEFA thread back in December...
The explanation I've gotten from an MLS AR is that you can't legally play the ball with your arms so offside must be given. No matter the logic of that, it remains to that, as far as the spirit of the Laws is concerned, disallowing the goal is actually more disadvantageous to the attacking team than sending off the defender and giving the penalty kick. IF the referee has a way to allow that goal within the Laws, Law 5 implies that giving the goal is the correct decision. But that's still a big if, and if the Law does not currently allow for it, I'd like to say that it should.
That doesn't make sense. IFAB defined "save" to ensure that a handling offense could not count as a "save" and avoid resetting OS: Save An action by a player to stop or attempt to stop the ball when it is going into or very close to the goal using any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless a goalkeeper within their own penalty area) The only reason to have that as the definition of save is to ensure that deliberate handling can be a deliberate play that resets OS. (I believe before the definition was in the Laws, we had an extensive discussion about whether a handling offense could also be a save that kept OS intact.)