Philadelphia Union vs New York Red Bulls Subaru Park (2:30PM ET) REF: Fotis Bazakos AR1: Frank Anderson AR2: Oscar Mitchell-Carvalho 4TH: Rubiel Vazquez VAR: Geoff Gamble AVAR: Andrew Bigelow Sporting Kansas City vs Vancouver Whitecaps Children’s Mercy Park (5PM ET) REF: Alan Kelly AR1: Jason White AR2: Mike Rottersman 4TH: Rosendo Mendoza VAR: Drew Fischer AVAR: Cameron Blanchard
I was a little bit surprised to see a review for the handball penalty kick in the first half of SKC vs Vancouver. To me I think there’s definitely an argument to be made that the defender’s arms were in a natural position for his action at the moment, which was an attempted header. It’s far enough away to justify the penalty but, to me, this is a good example of where this year’s handball laws move into a gray area for me; we can no longer simply say “the arm is away from the body so it’s a handball.”
Don’t think we could ever properly say that. (There was the arms above the shoulder, not arms away from the body.) I don’t think this year’s revision changed what natural position meant, but simplify clarified what it had always meant.
It’s been made pretty explicit that the intent of the law change was to shift from a more objective, stringently black-and-white handball rule to a more subjective one that referees could interpret on a case-by-case basis, sacrificing objective consistency for common sense. I just think this sort of play is exactly what the mew law is talking about. He’s going for a header, and this is the natural position that a player’s arms can be in (for balance etc) when going for a header in this position. A similar example I can think of is Marcus Rojo vs Nigeria at the World Cup 2018. Players’ arms naturally go into this position when trying to head the ball; when they screw up the header, sometimes their arm gets hit because they have no time to react. I fully expect PRO to support Kelly and Fischer on this one, but something about it doesn’t sit right with me. I don’t agree with the decision because to me, the arm is in a position that is natural for the given action. Certainly the fact that none of the counterarguments here so far speak to what is and isn’t a natural position for this action, but instead only reference only how far away it was from the body, is unsatisfying to me, because my argument never disputed the fact that the arm was far from the body.
He's on the ground and his right arm is already extended laterally away from the body. This is not a natural position for someone running or someone who is about to jump.
Excuse me what!?! When was the handball law black and white? And you’re not hearing a lot of a discussion on natural vs unnatural because it isn’t the only consideration, or even the most important one
I think IFAB was trying to make hand ball closer to black and white over the last couple of years, and it just didn’t work. So his year we essentially went back to what is was, except biggering is now part of the law itself instead of an interpretation of deliberate.
Unless you’re arguing that the handball was deliberate or that the player immediately scored a goal, yes your argument absolutely does need to go through the “unnaturally bigger” section of law 12. If your position is that it wasn’t unnatural, and that it wasn’t deliberate, and that he didn’t immediately score a goal, then it would be no handball because you’ve exhausted all 3 possible ways of committing a handball.
What about this? Not the best angle, but I've got a penalty.It's a kick or trip, though, as opposed to a handball offense. #PHIvRBNY https://t.co/BbJxWI8vUo— MLS Referee Stats (@MLSRefStats) November 20, 2021
The part of the text you’re referring to quite literally is telling you how to “consider” unnaturally bigger. There are also many other considerations including motion towards the ball, distance and time to react, ball deflecting from other body parts, etc. If the player had caught the ball and run with it up the field then would you say because the arm was natural it’s still not a handball?
NYC:ATL I love that the flag is actually going up on offside situations. Is that a new instruction for the playoffs, or just that particular AR's personal style? Or is it that the AR is so close to the OSP player on that silly toy-size pitch that he can't keep himself from popping the flag?
1) Humorous moment of the weekend - an ATL defender appealing for an offside directly from a corner kick. 2) Penso is probably one of few referees who would give any sort of caution for dissent, let alone that dissent caution being a 2CT.
Well now I’m really confused because this one is way more of a handball to me than the one in Kansas City! I don’t see any justification for his arm being that high in this situation; he’s just trying to poke the ball with his foot, his arm doesn’t need to be way above his head for that. What is the reasoning for a no-call here, what is the counterargument?
Uh, the ball didn’t even hit his hand. It’s not the shot on goal we’re looking at, it’s the subsequent challenge. If you’re sure there’s a handball penalty here, that’s a big problem. As to the actual challenge, another replay pretty much confirmed it was a clear foul. But it was, all things being equal, a soft foul. It’s the kind of foul that sometimes got reviewed for C&O and sometimes didn’t. I think given instruction and the stage of the season, no intervention is the expected result. But it was very close. And if a penalty had been called, it would not have been overturned. Some of the problems with VAR sort of wrapped up in a nutshell here where the first subjective decision gets kicked upstairs for another subjective decision but with a slightly higher threshold.
Oh wait. Never mind. I’m seeing what you’re arguing. My apologies. Still, not a handball in my book. But I’ll concede it warrants discussion.
On the actual play in question, I believe Penso told the AR to put it up because he did not feel the attacking opportunity was obvious or would occur immediately. If it’s the play I’m thinking of it was going toward the corner flag so you were looking at a long period until a goal or the clear end of an APP. Better to just give it immediately. Allowing play to go would have the potential to create a controversy that never would have existed.
Certainly possible. The refs are encouraged to help identify when that immediate scoring chance has ended to avoid letting play go too long and create controversy.
85th minute in Portland - just a Caution for a nasty nasty MIN challenge (two foot jump into an ankle) That was just bad
The tackle is the bigger taking point, but... This is the kind of handball that I don't know how to apply the new law language to. It's it an expected position for the action? No probably not, and yet... It's a difficult decision that seems would be harsh to give knowing where the ball is going.
I could only find one angle online (there are a couple of others that show just how bad it was), but I think this tells most of the story: Yeah. this should be a red pic.twitter.com/901K6iDtn1— CJ Fogler account may or may not be notable (@cjzero) November 22, 2021 edit: Forgot to finish my post. Shouldn't VAR have intervened in this case? He jumps and goes two footed into the player, without any attempt to play at the ball, and gets the player in the ankle/shin with his studs, with pretty significant force.
I dunno. Is it really not natural in that kind of lunge? There is certainly no reason other than natural body movement for him to put his arm there. It’s not like the kind of scenario that lead to the creation of biggering—players deliberately taking up space and trying to disguise what they are doing.
And the no-call for the Minnesota penalty shout at 83’ was also puzzling. I had pen and red card in real-time at 83’ and 85’. I can understand needing video review for the first, though. I’m not understanding how neither was sent down. Both met the thresholds we saw all season. There really can’t be much debate here. Villarreal was locked in for MLS Cup if he got through this cleanly, I feel. He did not get through it cleanly. That said, the alternatives aren’t plentiful this year so we will have to see what happens.
Maybe. But I think I ascribe more to @socal lurker ’s interpretation. More importantly from a practical standpoint, if you’re not calling the foul there then you really can’t call the handball. It would be like nailing someone for a misdemeanor when the felony is staring you right in the face. That raised arm was part of the challenge. Punish the challenge or don’t punish the challenge. But ignoring it and then choosing to punish the ancillary action is a tough and unnecessary sell.