NIR-SUI (R)

Discussion in 'Referee' started by JasonMa, Nov 9, 2017.

  1. JasonMa

    JasonMa Member+

    Mar 20, 2000
    Arvada, CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    shawn12011 repped this.
  2. GroveWanderer

    GroveWanderer Member

    Nov 18, 2016
    No way on God's green earth (pun intended) that I would judge that to be a deliberate handling offence.

    Firstly, I would say it's debatable whether the contact is with the shoulder or the arm but even if we accept that it hit the arm, I see no "movement of the hand towards the ball" only of "the ball towards the hand" and the ball is hit at him with such force and from such short range that I think it falls within the parameters of an "unexpected ball."
     
    shawn12011 repped this.
  3. Ghastly Officiating

    Tottenham Hotspur
    United States
    Oct 12, 2017
    I can understand from the referees angle how he thought it hit the defenders arm. I think the referee thought the defenders arm was in more of a chicken wing sticking out rather than how tucked in it actually was. If the referee thought he had the arm stuck out in a chicken wing, I could understand the referee deciding that he was making himself bigger to stop the shot. Now we can debate how "deliberate" it would be if his arm actually was sticking out. As it stands, it was an unfortunate call but it is a good reminder of how important having the proper angle to make the call is.
     
  4. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    More angles and better video:

    https://streamable.com/87wqv

    Shouldn’t be a penalty. Not an all-time terrible call for the ages, but also not the call that the UEFA referee who is firmly on the bubble for WC selection wants as the capstone to his portfolio. You see why it’s made, as referenced above—there are some components that lead to a handling conclusion. But there are too many mitigating considerations and too much doubt.

    An interesting thought exercise would be to question whether or not this would be clearly and obviously wrong with VAR. It certainly would meet the “I wish I made the other call” threshold. But the ball does hit the upper arm and the arm was raised in a deliberate manner, so could a referee really say that a decision to award a penalty was clearly and obviously wrong? Tune in next summer to find out.
     
  5. ManiacalClown

    ManiacalClown Member+

    Jun 27, 2003
    South Jersey
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Basically this. He does poke his elbow out a bit, and if that's where the ball made contact, then fine, but I think it probably makes contact closer to the shoulder, while the player is turning away from the shot to avoid being stuck by the ball in any unfortunate areas. That's not deliberate handling IMO.
     
  6. ManiacalClown

    ManiacalClown Member+

    Jun 27, 2003
    South Jersey
    Club:
    Chicago Fire
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Thanks for the additional angle. I'm not 100% convinced it was actually handled. Ball just may have come off the shoulder blade. If that was the case, no question it would be considered a clear and obvious error.

    If there is handling, albeit non-deliberate, I agree that whether to judge this to be a clear and obvious error is not so clear and obvious.
     
    MassachusettsRef repped this.
  7. Skandal!!!

    Skandal!!! Member

    Legia Warszawa
    Poland
    Apr 26, 2017
    Where was VAR? Really, having WC Play-off without VAR?

    On the other hand, Greek GK escaped with a yellow v Croatia, where he should have most certainly gotten red...
     
  8. Ismitje

    Ismitje Super Moderator

    Dec 30, 2000
    The Palouse
    Club:
    Real Salt Lake
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    National teams from the island of Ireland really don't fare well on handball calls/non-calls in World Cup playoff games against French-speaking countries.
     
  9. code1390

    code1390 Moderator
    Staff Member

    Nov 25, 2007
    Club:
    Tottenham Hotspur FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No world cup qualifier has had VAR. Why would this one?
     
  10. sulfur

    sulfur Member+

    Oct 22, 2007
    Ontario, Canada
    Pray tell, why do you think that should that have been red?

    If it was deemed DOGSO (which is most likely), it was a genuine attempt to play the ball, though late, so... YC.

    It could've been considered SPA (which would've meant no caution, because it was a genuine attempt to play the ball, though late...), so... NC.

    Having said that, this tackle, for me, might even be considered reckless, which would be a YC.

    But a dismissal? Not even convinced in the slightest...
     
    MassachusettsRef repped this.
  11. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Video: https://streamable.com/vbn6y

    100% agree. It's either DOGSO-YC or it's reckless. Either way it's a yellow card. There's pretty much zero argument for a red card here under the LOTG. Any argument for SFP seems fanciful and DOGSO-RC is a complete nonstarter.
     
    allan_park repped this.
  12. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    Question about the caution against the No. Ireland handling.

    USB provision states (in part)

    There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player:
    • handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising attack
    • commits a foul which interferes with or stops a promising attack except where the referee awards a penalty kick for an offence which was an attempt to play the ball
    The first bullet indicates that normally, since ITOOTR, there was handling to interfere, a caution would result. But doesn't the second bullet indicate that because it resulted in a PK, the caution should not have been given?

    Certainly, ITOOTR, it's an "attempt to play the ball" - or else it's not handling.
     
  13. MassachusettsRef

    MassachusettsRef Moderator
    Staff Member

    Apr 30, 2001
    Washington, DC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    At the FIFA level and certainly within UEFA, instructions are to caution deliberate handling for shots on net if the shot on net is not going to result in an obvious goal.

    The first UB bullet you cite is really only applicable to the extent you're willing to accept the above instruction stems from the theory that any shot on net is a "promising attack." The second bullet doesn't have to do with handling, because how to address handling is already spelled out in the first bullet--the second bullet is talking about other fouls. If the Laws were to be read the way you are reading them in your post, the first bullet would ALSO have the exception for penalties OR they would just be combined into one bullet. The IFAB has divided the fouls between handling and every else and then carved out an exception only for "everything else."

    EDIT to add: "attempts to play the ball" means legally play the ball. I think we've had this discussion before, but there is no real evidence to suggest the IFAB would classify handling (other than by the goalkeeper within his own penalty area) as an "attempt to play the ball."
     
  14. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    In this context, I completely agree. But this is another area of the Laws where we use the same words to mean different things: A defender who handles the ball has played the ball for purposes of Law to reset OS.
     
    Sport Billy and MassachusettsRef repped this.
  15. Bio-Hazard

    Bio-Hazard Member

    Jun 15, 2015
    Seattle, WA
    Club:
    Portland Timbers
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    For me, in a match deciding who goes to the World Cup? Nope. Noooooooope.

     
    code1390 repped this.
  16. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    I'm thinking of cross posting this into the pet peeve chain . . .

    IMO, the fact it was an important WC game is totally and entirely irrelevant. If this was a PK in the first qualifier a year ago, it should be a PK in this game. Or, perhaps more appropriate in this context, if it's not a PK in this game, it's not a PK at this level. The idea that referees should not call fouls because it is a big game or toward the end of the game is a pet peeve.
     
  17. shawn12011

    shawn12011 Member+

    Jun 15, 2001
    Reisterstown, MD
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    The importance of the game should have nothing to do with this call. It was not a PK. It was a missed call plain and simple. It is understandable why the call was missed based upon angles, the flight of the ball and position of the arm.
     
    uniqueconstraint repped this.
  18. Thezzaruz

    Thezzaruz Member+

    Jun 20, 2011
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Sweden
    #18 Thezzaruz, Nov 10, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2017
    Guess I'll have to be the dissenting voice then since I think it was the correct call.
    Firstly I think it is pretty clear from the replays that the ball actually hits the arm. Sure it's high up on the sleeve but that's still the arm.
    Secondly the arm isn't really tight to the body. Not far out perhaps (slightly less than 45 degrees) but certainly not tucked in.
    And lastly, the reason the arm is in the way and that the distance is so short is that he intentionally moves to block the shot. He can hardly claim that he suddenly got hit by a ball he didn't/couldn't expect to be there when the only reason he was there was to intercept the ball.

    I could see excusing one or two of these but not all of them.
     
  19. threeputzzz

    threeputzzz Member+

    May 27, 2009
    Minnesota
    Before the shot his arm, the elbow in particular, is away from the body. By the time the ball hits him in the upper arm the arm is flush against the body. BUT...after the ball hits him his arm once again comes away from the body, and I think this is what makes it look like he deliberately played the ball with his arm. I have the benefit of multiple views in slow motion replay to determine all this.

    I think it's the wrong call. If I had been in the position that referee was, with one look at it in real time, I think I probably would have made the same wrong call.
     
  20. sulfur

    sulfur Member+

    Oct 22, 2007
    Ontario, Canada
    They have "deliberately played the ball" (for the context of offside offences), but there's also language stating that deliberate handling by a someone who isn't a GK in their own PA cannot result in a save. So, by extension, that also suggests that deliberate handling cannot be a "genuine attempt to play the ball".
     
    socal lurker and MassachusettsRef repped this.
  21. Sport Billy

    Sport Billy Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 25, 2006
    i think it's interesting no one looked for the call
     
  22. socal lurker

    socal lurker Member+

    May 30, 2009
    Agree. (You may recall the language about handling and saves was added--there was debate when the pla/save language was first added.) I'm not suggesting a lack of logic here, just that the language of the Lotg is not always precise and means that people who read the laws can end up with a wrong conclusion.

    "Directly" is another word that has different meanings.
     

Share This Page