[For the sake of my comment, let’s focus only on the “unnaturally bigger” bullet point of the handball law and ignore handballs that are deliberate or lead to a goal. ] I’m not doubting you here, cuz I know PRO has used that language in their explanations recently. But I am confused as to how this consideration interacts with the consideration of natural/unnatural position of the arm for the given action. Like, if a player’s arm is not making him unnaturally bigger (in other words, the position of the arm is a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that situation), then by law it simply isn’t handling under this bullet point. My understanding, as I read the law, is that an arm is perfectly allowed to act as a barrier (in other words, to make the body bigger), as long as that arm’s position is justifiable by the player’s movement for that situation. My understanding is that an arm that makes a player bigger is not in itself at risk of causing a handball; it must not only make the body bigger, but do so unnaturally. Both criteria are needed. No one is questioning that Zimmerman’s arm created a barrier and made himself bigger. However, my stated opinion was that the other criterion, that this arm position was unnatural, is dubious here.
Under that logic, the PK called on Colorado's Keegan Rosenberry last week, where his arm was extended above his head, would have been incorrect. He was knocked off balance while in the air which caused him to flail his arm above his head to try to control his fall. Yet I don't think anyone would accept that as justification for blocking a shot in the box with his hand.
I’m making an assumption but it kind of sounds like you’re looking for every consideration to be met before penalty (I.e unnatural + bigger + deliberate ). We do not require all to be satisfied just like we don’t say every straight leg challenge is a red (you’ve heard the term glancing probably). If the arm was tucked into body perfectly then we’d say he’s not bigger but if he catches the ball then it’s REALLY deliberate. So these things have to all work on a spectrum. My earlier point is we can’t just say “not unnatural” so no handball if the other factors are swayed heavily in the other direction.
The only “other” factor (for a defender) is deliberate. Those are the only two ways for a non-scorer to commit a HB offense. It the reality is that “unnatural” doesn’t actually mean “unnatural” in application. It means something more like “a place away from the body that we don’t like.”
Kind of hypothetical question - if there's an obvious foul throw that leads to a goal (as in its a long throw, knocked on and then a shot ends up with a goal) - would VAR look at that? Cos that just happened for Orlando's goal tonight
No. The restart isn’t reviewable. But I just watched the goal on the MLS site. There doesn’t seem to be anything obviously wrong on the one replay, though that’s admittedly viewed from distance. What was the issue? Lot going on tonight. Lot of reviews. Lot of pens generally. And a few reds. The Freemon DOGSO red via VAR in Dallas is interesting but I haven’t seen the full sequence yet.
From replay I saw right foot looked off the ground and if not then fully on pitch. Of course the replay i saw may have been bad because im still waiting to see the disallowed Carranza goal. Was just wondering if it was reviewable. For other incidents in game with poor replays shown, possible headbutt (think it wasn't head to head contact) and the penalty was reviewed by VAR (I agree 100% that it was a penalty)
On the topic of Freemon, he’s quickly become one of my favorite refs to watch in MLS this season. I can’t exactly put my finger on why but he’s looked like a really experienced natural in some really difficult games this year, not like someone in his first full year in the league. Him and Joe Dickerson have been the two who have really stood out to me this year.
He is a very calming, yet authoritative presence; has a good rapport with most of the players, as if he is a league veteran. Also uses VAR very well. He's a top performer for me, too. Hope he gets a playoff game. If he doesn't, seems a lock next year.
There's a lot I like about him, but how on earth did he go YC instead of RC on that foul in 11'? (The DOGSO that VAR corrected). It just seems incredibly obvious.
I haven't watched many games lately, and I'd like to ask who you guys think have been the top performers this season/locks for the playoffs. I figure we can expect to see Elfath, Villarreal, Chapman, Penso, and Unkel, but after that I think a lot of guys have a shot.
Also great officiating by Freemon to let FCD take that quick free kick on their first goal. A lot of officials would have blown their whistle too quickly and rewarded LAFC for their petulance.
Saghafi not sending down Colorado’s penalty for being outside the area caught eye. But admittedly I’m only seeing a couple angles right now. Hopefully he had something confirming it as inside.
The only real question is if it was even a foul. It’s absolutely a DOGSO if it’s a foul. For me, it’s a clear foul on Holingshed. Even for the “but he got the ball” crowd, a player coming through the back of an attacker and getting a lot of leg as he nicks the ball is a foul. But for me, contact occurs before Holingshed gets the ball anyway. This is the type of play VAR needs to correct, and it worked here.
Right, I agree the question is whether it's a foul or not (I think it is). But you can't call foul + YC here, which is what he did. There's just no way. Glad VAR fixed it.
One article out of B.C. is complaining about the lack of VAR on this. Watching it last night I certainly raised an eyebrow about the possible location. But the Rapids got hosed a couple of times this season (non-handball call against SJ(?), the free kick location against Seattle) so I'll take one going our way.
I know it's just 1 game so wondering if Villareal often let's teams get a bit more physical than maybe should? At times last night he watched as tempers started to build, Martinez looked like he may have headbutted someone (no replay) but may have just went chest to chest very forcefully (Union journos think he will be banned retrospectively) and no Yellow even. 2nd half there was afters a few times, really didn't control things at the PK VAR decision (players at that point seemed to not respect him) and there was even apparently afters in the tunnel (rumor I know). All told it was very physical with only 2 yellow cards given (not that I want lots of yellows but sometimes it's needed)
Agree it pretty much has to be red per what we are instructed. But here’s an interesting angle… Arriola isn’t dribbling there. He’s shooting. Somewhat off-balance, too. How obvious of a goal-scoring chance is it? Like, what’s the xG for that shot in that circumstance from 20 yards out? I’m not actually arguing yellow is the correct answer per instructions and considerations. But practically, I’m not sure how O that GSO is, so to speak.
Restarts not reviewable. His foot is also on the touch line which is permitted. Don’t listen to announcers. They don’t know the laws of the game as well as they think they do
I believe the CBA prevents this until he completes a full season as referee. He of course would be eligible again as a var
Now that you posted that and I have gone back to the replay, you do have a point. I'm not sure that DOGSO still isn't the preferred call, but I am open to the idea that a somewhat off-balance player starting to shoot from 21 yards out isn't a clear error for NOT awarding DOGSO (man, how many negatives can I put into one sentence??) In other words, had this stayed yellow in a "call stands" type of situation, I can see why that could have happened after you explained it.
I'm not sure what LAFC was arguing about here. The ball was not moving. It was taken in the location of the foul. There was no ceremonial free kick needed. The majority of the players that mob Freemon after the play I notice are the ones who are the farthest from the play. Bale should know better that this was a legit goal.
I’m pretty sure he knew that it was good; these guys do it for effect, very much like Porter and Noonan have. I’m not sure it’s even about playing referees for that call or the next one; when fans/media are talking about referees, they aren’t talking about defensive collapse or a careless play.
I thought that it was 2 seasons in the league at all, not necessarily a full season as referee. For example, Robert Sibiga whistled his first 3 MLS games in 2015 (having previously appeared as fourth official), then had a full season in 2016 which culminated in a playoff whistle. Freemon had games in 2020 and 2021 before getting a full slate this year, so unless something has changed he should be eligible.
Are you saying the Portland goal in the 2015 MLS Cup game at Columbus would not be reviewable ? To remind everyone, the ball was clearly out of bounds, but this was not called. A Portland payer played it downfield, and a goal was scored. Would this not be reviewable under VAR under today's rules?