"minimum interference, maximum effect" was the motto bandied about. It hasn't quite lived up to those expectations.
So much for "doubtful" being part of the lexicon anymore. Seems we are slowly and unwisely moving in a binary direction. Yes or no, on or off, in or out. No doubts allowed.
If it was truly for only clear & obvious errors, it would only be reviewed at realtime speed and maybe only twice... Using a digital micrometer for OS and multiple reviews of a grid of super slow-mo 50x zoom frames means it ain't clear and obvious. Video tech will continue proliferating the game because the tech exists, just like it has in the NFL to show the slightest bobble of the ball in a receiver's hands while getting tackled by four players. I figure at some point someone's going to feed a plethora of hi-def cameras into an AI/Watson system and co-referee a big game to demonstrate machine-based officiating...
Does this surprise anyone? And that this took a while is not totally surprising, as there are two questions: was it handling and was it in the PA. I think it was handling and that our R couldn't see the contact because of the body position. And it seems to be that clear error has been considered differently where the R doesn't see the initial event. But that doesn't mean the game was made better by this review.
What the hell? A full 90 seconds after that play and two up and down the field trips later they had a stoppage and called that handling? And a straight RC? Surely the red was for AL out of the view of the camera. He can’t possible have called that DOGSO-H. Please tell me that wasn’t DOGSO.
In the video, Cagliari #12 committed the handling. Cagliari #8 got a yellow, presumably for dissent. Cagliari #21 got a straight red, presumably for AL. It doesn't show in the video, but Napoli #24 (the PK scorer) got a yellow for excessive celebration. One can see him starting to remove his jersey at the end of the clip.
Wow that is ugly. Ugh. But at the end of the day, aren't sports really just something to argue about? This advances that cause.
Good God. Looked to me like everyone on the field had moved on from the possible hand ball. This was definitely a case where VAR made everything worse. The more I watch VAR episodes, especially in MLS (good work last weekend, Unkel family), the less I think I know what hand ball, offside, or "clear and obvious error" are.
This is a hand ball next year though. So although they moved on now, next year doesn't matter their opinions.
It's a handball today. That's not really the issue. The issue is whether or not missing this handball is a "clearly wrong" decision that warrants VAR intervention. There's also the inherently intertwined issue of whether or not this was clearly in the penalty area or not. And then the bigger umbrella issue is whether or not it's worth changing our game to get this "right." The stoppage. The long delay. The farce of having players wait in stoppage time near the monitor. I don't think this is what attracted people to sports.
I can see some people saying this isn't a handball so I was trying to put it in the context of the future law change. The VAR would have to intervene on this miss if it hit his arm at all correct? I don't think this is a long term issue if that's the case, the issue I see is the players behavior.
Well the big question here, I imagine, was whether this was inside or outside the penalty area. I don’t think the veracity of the handling offence was the issue. Understandable that the CR couldn’t see in real-time, but if this was 5 yards into the PA it would have been an easy VAR intervention now or next year.
I was wondering if it would affect VARs intervention. Since they're not judging whether it was deliberate, but whether it touched. Massachusetts points out that the real question is whether it's in or out. I don't know what angles the VAR had so i don't know.
Handling next year is still deliberate--except for narrow contexts relating to attacking players. The "usually" section is essentially existing guidance about recognizing what is deliberate. So what VAR is looking for doesn't change.
My bad, should've looked up the wording. Still not very happy that the players are allowed to be so forceful at this level. That needs to change.
Not being sarcastic. Asking an honest question of experienced refs. https://streamable.com/14u34 As I see the Cagliari v Napoli incident (link above), the Cagliari player is running to the player with the ball, jumps and turns his body away from the ball while pulling his arms in. Here's IFAB text on handball: "Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm. The following must be considered - the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)" As I see it, the Cagliari player is deliberately moving his arm away from ball contact. "- the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)" Maybe a factor to not call the foul. Maybe not. " the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence" His forearm looks to be tucked into his body. The upper part of his arm seems to be not an unreasonable distance from his body. He doesn't seem to be using his arm to "make himself bigger." How do you see this differently? Thanks.
He is jumping into the ball with the purpose of blocking the shot. His turn means that his arms are in fact making him bigger--the ball would not have hit him in the body, it only hit his arms that were away from his body. There is nothing remotely unexpected here--he is deliberately throwing himself in front of the anticipated kick. To me, this is an easy handling call--if you fling yourself at the ball, you have an obligation to make sure your arms are not making you bigger. This was deliberate within the meaning of the Laws.
This article hits on some familiar themes: http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/...terference-problem-makes-replay-review-tricky
"...league executives must nail down an objective dividing line for a subjective judgment, a tightrope that would allow them to correct obvious mistakes while not disrupting the rest of the game." Good luck with that.
Yeah, not to get too far off-topic into another sport, but one thing that strikes me about all this is how everything I've read has been laser-specific on the expansion being for pass interference only. Leaving aside the question about whether or not that includes offensive pass interference, it seems abundantly clear that it does not include defensive holding. The nuance between defensive pass interference and defensive holding on passing plays is mostly one of timing (whether or not the quarterback has released the ball) and since that has never been subject to review, you occasionally have holding calls that should have been PI calls and vice versa. So what's going to happen when a blatant infraction gets missed, but video proves it was defensive holding and not defensive pass interference? Outrage, of course. And then replay gets expanded again.
A few years ago I sat next to a guy on a plane who had himself buried into a ring binder (a big one) of many many pages. He was a replay official for the NFL and he was reading/studying the latest changes to the rules for replay officiating. I just remember my takeaway (it was 15 years ago) being the LOTG for soccer was a small, palm size book that really wasn't that much vs the NFL rules, just for replays, was mind bogging big.