That's a ridiculous extension of what-if reality, which demonstrates to me that you have no meaningful response.
I will say of all the PKs called via VAR this World Cup, there probably only have been two that really NEEDED to be called where it would be outright scandalous if they weren't called. The Peru vs. Denmark one and the Korea vs. Sweden one. The others would fall more into the lines of "seen them given." You can maybe make a case for the Harry Kane takedown to also fall into lines of it has to be called.
What are you talking about? He asked if the Australian arm in the air would constitute deliberate handling. I answered the question. I directly responded to the question and then asked what he would do if the ball hit the outstretched hand.
For those that missed the first half, this was the replay given to Lahoz. He looked at it once and spent about five seconds in the RRA.
Which is exactly what most defenders do. You see then put their hands behind their back when defending one on one in the box, or keeping their hands on their sides when jumping, because they know that if a ball hits your hand when your arm is over your head or far away from your body it’s going to be a penalty.
You have to use your arms for leverage--I get that. You don't have to have your hand up even with your face or above your head. It's pretty simple. As there are other things happening in this game, it's worth noting that Mateu Lahoz's unique management style seems to be working quite well this match. While we argue about a penalty that I don't think FIFA will blink twice about, he's putting on a very solid performance overall.
I was just about to ask if anything else meaningful happened since there isn’t any other discussion about it.
Lahoz is the best. I've never seen a referee able to manage so many fouls in a game. Let's face it, he chooses to ignore a lot of clear fouls in midfield, but the players accept it and move on. It's really unique.
In order to bolster your opinion about what really happened, you bring up a fantasy about what might happen.
It's funny that when Cuhna was being really animated yesterday that Fox praised it as "strong management" but when Lahoz does it he's "eccentric". It's almost like Warren Barton has negative views of him from their Champions League coverage.
But those are not opposing decisions. If the ref feels they should use the LOTG to minimize pachinko goals and maximize "skill" (keeping in mind that a lot of goals bounce around a lot without handling) then the two decisions are consistent. Pings off an attacker's arm - call it handing and avoid the goal. Pings off a defenders arm don't call it and avoid the PK goal. This play is a situation that has always been on the bleeding edge of soccer officiatiing and highlights the crudeness of available remediation - give .3/4 of a goal or don't. VAR doesn't change that, but as you say keeps one from ignoring it. That said, he did have his arm up pretty high
These are the types of plays that clearly demonstrate that "deliberate" is a term of art, and that the dictionary is of little help. (Indeed,I don't even think the bullets in the LOTG really help that much--taken by themselves they would seem to suggest this play should not have been considered deliberate.) But I agree that this play is an expected handling call under current expectations--especially at the professional level. The defender (offender ) is aggressively challenging the attacker on the play. On these plays, we hold players accountable for where they choose to put their arms--and we hold the pros more accountable than low skilled players. (I would likely not call this in a 12U game where there is far less arm control; I hope I would in 19U game.)
Well, in the 74th minute, Nabbout got hurt and stepped off the field of play, and then it looks like the Australian bench had him return to the field to be attended to there.
This probably isn't the best place to discuss it, but since it's been brought up... I think PKs will inevitably have to be tied more to goal scoring chances than random direct free kick fouls in a certain location on the field. There is a certain unfairness in my mind with the penalty kick and it makes refereeing a lot more difficult in trying to balance what is deserving of a PK by the spirit vs the letter of the law. An alternative to the PK should be created and a PK reserved for DOGSO offenses.
This seems to fit pretty squarely into an expected penalty and the “taking a risk” concept we’ve been instructed to follow. An argument against this PK is a philosophical one. Under all the instruction recently and enough of the prior language as well (bigger, unnatural etc). This is a PK. If you think we should dial back how it is being taught that is one thing. But to argue this isn’t handling under the current instruction is wrong.
I am just saying that in some cases PKs are too extreme for the offense. They're appropriate in other cases. It's not an easy answer, but VAR is going to force the issue. Either players adjust or the game is less enjoyable. I am also not saying that whatever punishment is created to deal with the types of fouls I am describing can't be more than just a Dfk. I have ideas, but the best thing would be that players adjust. Of course that does nothing for the game at the lower levels and the disparity between the top and middle levels of soccer will become even more disparate than they already are.
This is probably a case where hearing the referee audio would make it clearer. I'm guessing Lahoz probably communicated that he thought the hand was in a natural position. Geiger is able to see that the contact is against an extended out hand that is above shoulder height which makes it very easy to justify as a clear and obvious error.
Still not convinced this is deliberate. When the arm starts up, the ball is traveling parallel to the arm. The two are not in the same plane. They are not going to make contact. There is no deliberate attempt to make himself bigger. It is a natural motion from the way his body is moving. When the ball changes direction and becomes on the same plane as the ball, there simply isn’t time to react and pull away the hand. This was not deliberate handling. He was trying to head the ball himself.
Yes, with his raised right hand he indicated “no” to the protesting Australian players. Editing to add video. Australian corner starts at 0:49.
We can debate what deliberate is until we're blue in the face, but at some point you have to accept that when two highly rated FIFA refs have absolutely no doubt that this should be considered deliberate, then we should as well. Again, as others have pointed out...what's deliberate at a WC level might not be deliberate at the games we ref.
Fair point. But don't put it past Mateu Lahoz to have a regular mechanic like that which is "no way, not calling it" regardless of whether he saw hand-ball contact or not when an appeal from the attack occurs. It makes a little less sense in the VAR era, but habits die hard. To me, the raised mechanic is an acknowledgement of the appeals and not necessarily an acknowledgement that he saw something.