I'm just shocked to hear that IFAB wrote something that isn't perfectly clear . . . Like mass ref, I've always understood that "except" language to apply when the ball is still loose after it bounces away from the GK and he is trying to get it--just touching a loose ball then doesn't equate possession. Maybe it's because I'm a former GK, but I'm totally OK with VAR flagging this and the goal being cancelled. I just don't agree there is anything hyper-technical about kicking the ball out once the GK pinned it--it's black letter law. (I will admit on the first live view I thought the kick and pin were simultaneous, but on review, the GK clearly pinned the ball just before it was kicked.)
If we aren’t awarding cheap penalties via VAR then we shouldn’t be disallowing goals for technicalities either. Not a single Leicester player including Schmeichel thought that goal should be disallowed. Not clear and obvious.
As soon as I saw the replay I said no goal. It’s not a “technicality”. If a coach said that I’d ask him what other laws he wanted me to ignore.
The ones for careless tripping and striking that get ignored every single match? I get your point. But it does also illustrate a philsophical problem. We have all this wiggle room for the penal fouls in Law 12 that we stretch in the age-old name of "trifling." Or just because we feel like it and something feels soft. But, we aren't creative enough to invent wiggle room here? What constitutes "between the hand and the ground?" Is it a finger tip? The whole hand? Does the hand merely need to touch the ball or must it press the ball against the ground? I mean, by a literal reading of that passage, if I hover my hand over the ball while it's on the ground, then the ball is "between the hand and ground"--the Law doesn't literally say the hand needs to touch the ball. I'm being more than a bit sarcastic. I've got no problem with this call in a vacuum. But we referee a sport where, at the highest levels, we don't call trips or flailing arms because they "aren't enough," so it would be foolish to pretend making this call because the Laws say we have to wouldn't be met with some warranted pushback.
It’s interesting you ask this. I was taught that all it takes is a finger tip. I completely understand that this isn’t stated in the law. Just out of curiosity I checked a version of the old Advice to Referees (2020/11) and it says that “for purposes of determining goalkeeper possession, the ‘handling’ includes contact with any part of the goalkeeper’s arm from the fingertips to the shoulder.” I know that doesn’t have the force of the laws, I was just checking to see if my instructor drew on that for his teaching.
I asked that rhetorically because I was taught the same thing! Now ask yourself what would have happened if Oliver disallowed a goal today via VAR because Schmeichel had his fingertip on the ball, without that instruction being explicit in the Law. The pushback today was already strong enough, it would have been infinitely worse if Oliver's call hung by, well, a fingernail. Again, no problem with the call in a vacuum. It's the correct call. But I think this is yet another major VAR issue. We have referees doing the unequivocally correct thing per the Laws via VAR on some very specific and rare issues. At the same time we have erratic applications and punishments of everyday incidents via VAR. I think it's inherently difficult--if not impossible--to say you're adhereing to a "clear and obvious" standard when some of your affirmative decisions aren't clear at all to the public at-large (because they are so rare) while others, that seem quite clear on video, aren't called because of reasons that emante from essentially a common law history of the game. That's not a credible way of officiating.
Interestingly, if there were no VAR, I would accept the original decision because the amount of time his hand was on top of the ball was difficult to determine in real-time from a position on the field. That said, the only reason for the referee not to call it would be either: a) I didn't see it, or b) I'm not sure he got his hand on top of the ball before the attacker kicked it. If either of those answers were given to the VAR and with clear photographic evidence regarding what happened - a whole hand pinning the ball to the ground, then VAR intervention was appropriate. The question as to the gray area is a good one to consider, but if pictures are worth anything, the question here is pretty black and white and less grey than something with just a finger or the edge of the palm on the side of the ball.
You know, sometimes to see the rare thing draws referee's attention because you spend years training for certain situations that almost never arise, so when they finally do it piques interest.
In a professional game, I completely agree. (IMO, the offense here is clear--but barely clear if that makes sense. A mere moment later or a lesser part of the hand and I would have a different outcome.) But in a youth game, I'm still thinking fingertip and err on the side of protecting keepers. So in my youth games, this would have been a relatively easy call live, not because it is so easy to see but because the GK protection moves the line a bit for me. And in that respect, I really like this call as it is a professional example of something that gets called more (and complained about more) in youth games.
Probably true. At the same time, "it piqued the referee's interest" isn't exactly a satisfactory justification to the public in a world with a "clear and obvious error" standard.
Someone in another discussion noted the IFAB explanation in 2018 when "accidentally" was removed from the section:
Interesting SFP check in the 29th minute of Arsenal/Everton. Studs end up in the face/neck of the Arsenal player on the ground. Probably accidental, but....we send players off for "accidental" studs contact into the leg. https://streamwo.com/file/61ae7298b54ac Not sure how long it will be up.
I have a hard time with this one and I don't know what is the correct answer. Of course, this being England, Dean didn't even go to the screen and brandish a yellow... or even had a look at it. But I am genuinely interested in opinions here of how something like this should be adjudicated, because I do feel there is a strong case for him having really no idea that somebody's face is going to be there on the ground. Nevertheless, like code1390 says above... it's a stud to the face. Accidental or not, it's a stud in the face.
So we have the common example of the "follow through" red when the player accidently ends up having their studs go into the leg when trying to or after playing the ball. In this case, is the argument that the Everton player never really challenged the opponent and just happened to step in the spot where the opponent went to ground while looking the other way? I guess I can see the check complete especially in England. I'd love to know what Mike Dean thinks when he sees it. To be fair, Arsenal really didn't make a big deal out of it.
Nothing at the professional level is accidental. We have all heard it. I watched that clip and question just how accidental that was. It wasn’t totally accidental and it wasn’t totally purposeful.
Unfortunate offside VAR decision there. At first look, it appears close enough for the "benefit of the doubt change", but during the check we saw the ground level camera from behind the goal line showing the attackers foot above ground and actually closer to the goal line then the elevated camera makes it look.
The way VAR is having a detrimental effect on Everton today, I can understand Godfrey being sent off!
His foot is off the ground. It's creating an optical illusion that his foot is on the penalty area line. It's clear enough offside even with the "tie goes to the attacker" thing in the PL. Just really unfortunate in the scope of the game.