I was wondering about thoughts on the overturning of Wolves goal in the Wolves v Leicester game. As for application if the laws, it was spot on. The ball came off the arm and was volleyed into the net. But, here's the thing... In the run of play, there was no foul called for handling, and it seems to me that the only way that call is made is by VAR. In essence, this is only a foul in top leagues that use VAR. Is this a reasonable view of that call? Is this what the game wants? Is this what we want of the game?
"As for application if the laws, it was spot on." That's what i want for the game, I think a question about whether or not we're going to get that can be found in a lot of other more questionable calls than this specific one. Perhaps this post would go better here https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/var-in-review.2078343/page-35
How amazing would it have been if the ref then scowled, did the thumb down, and then issued a red? (I’m not saying he should have done that. The reaction was wholly appropriate. But damn, that turn of events would have been funny.)
I was away this weekend but just catching up and was going to post on this for a couple reasons. First, the incident is here at 6:52 or so: It's a question of combining the new law change with VAR. So, three things: First, absolutely fascinating that no one appeals for handball. Leicester players just accept it's a good goal. Regardless of whether or not this is or is not an offence (more or that in a second) or should or should not be something VAR intervenes on (again, more in a second), it's pretty amazing that IFAB changed the rules to make a non-controversial goal controversial. Second, this is called an offence because the handball created a goal-scoring opportunity. But did it? I mean, the goal-scoring opportunity was already there. Also, the text of the Law says "gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm." Not to beat a dead horse from another thread, but IFAB really didn't put a lot of thought into copy editing and/or scenarios outside their narrow brainstorming. In this case, the goal scorer gains control/possession after a teammate has the ball touch their hand. From a literal reading of the Laws, it's actually not clear this is an offence. In fact, the other section of the Law here talks about it "not usually" being an offence if it touches an arm directly from the head of another player who is close, which is what happened here. A plain reading of the new Law changes means this shouldn't be called. But a plain reading would ignore the intent of the Law changes, spelled out repeatedly in other documents, where it's "not fair" (or whatever language is used) for a team to score off ball-hand contact. So this gets called. Bottom line is that we have a Week 1 example from the EPL showing this to be a total mess. Third and finally, the VAR intervention is interesting in its own right. Let's stipulate, notwithstanding my paragraph above, that this is 100% an offence. Yes, VAR has to intervene then. It's black and white and not subjective and occurs in the APP. The real interesting aspect is that because it's now considered black and white, there is no OFR. This may not be just an EPL thing. The ball touching the hand can be considered an objective decision (like whether or not a foul is inside the penalty area) so in theory referees do not have to conduct an OFR for that. It will be interesting to see which leagues go that route and which leagues don't.
Saturday 17 August 12.30 Arsenal v Burnley Referee: Mike Dean Assistants: Darren Cann, Dan Robathan Fourth official: Peter Bankes VAR: Chris Kavanagh Assistant VAR: Andy Halliday Aston Villa v AFC Bournemouth Referee: Martin Atkinson Assistants: Lee Betts, Nick Hopton Fourth official: James Linington VAR: Jon Moss Assistant VAR: Eddie Smart Brighton & Hove Albion v West Ham United Referee: Anthony Taylor Assistants: Gary Beswick, Adam Nunn Fourth official: Keith Stroud VAR: Darren Bond Assistant VAR: Ian Hussin Everton v Watford Referee: Lee Mason Assistants: Matthew Wilkes, Mark Scholes Fourth official: Scott Oldham VAR: Kevin Friend Assistant VAR: Marc Perry Norwich City v Newcastle United Referee: Stuart Attwell Assistants: Constantine Hatzidakis, Derek Eaton Fourth official: Tom Nield VAR: Simon Hooper Assistant VAR: Neil Davies Southampton v Liverpool Referee: Andre Marriner Assistants: Scott Ledger, Simon Long Fourth official: John Brooks VAR: Craig Pawson Assistant VAR: Richard West 17.30 Manchester City v Tottenham Hotspur Referee: Michael Oliver Assistants: Stuart Burt, Steve Bennett Fourth official: Paul Tierney VAR: Graham Scott Assistant VAR: Andy Halliday Sunday 18 August 14.00 Sheffield United v Crystal Palace Referee: David Coote Assistants: Daniel Cook, Harry Lennard Fourth official: John Brooks VAR: Martin Atkinson Assistant VAR: Stephen Child 16.30 Chelsea v Leicester City Referee: Graham Scott Assistants: Ian Hussin, Richard West Fourth official: Oliver Langford VAR: Mike Dean Assistant VAR: Dan Robathan Monday 19 August 20.00 Wolverhampton Wanderers v Manchester United Referee: Jon Moss Assistants: Marc Perry, Eddie Smart Fourth official: Andy Madley VAR: Paul Tierney Assistant VAR: Stephen Child Oliver with the big one - he also handled this match towards the end of last season. Dean at the Emirates, Marriner and Moss with interesting away games for top 6 teams.
They just set a fairly high bar for VAR review on a PK shout non-call in MC:TOT. Announcers are talking about "clear and obvious error" and that Oliver would have been saying "I saw it and judged it not a foul," and that's not a clear and obvious error. Be that as it may, the replay indicated to me that Oliver was actually looking elsewhere and simply didn't see it. Thus my question: Does "clear and obvious error" include "clear and obvious miss?" And is VAR up in this match, or are they speculating prospectively?
OK, that answers that question. Here we go ... wow. There's the new "set up a goal with arm contact" rule. Is this "what soccer expects?" EDIT: Scrolling upthread I see there was a similar situation previously in Leicester:Wolves which I had missed, and in which @MassachusettsRef called attention to something I had mentioned in another thread -- i.e., that the new Law says this particular debacle applies when the player whose arm the ball touched gains possession and a goal follows. That didn't happen in either case here.
Law 18 has now been renamed to Law of Unintended Consequences. Literally no one wanted it called, it had no impact at all on the play and it took a microscope to see it touch Laporte's arm. And yet the takedown in the 1H got ignored.
Well, it clearly had an impact on the play, but I agree with everything else you said. Not being able to score with an accidental handball is one thing...but this is just a step too far.
Ha -- no, I get to say "told you so." (See my edit in the previous post.) OK, we can both say it. Ready? On three ...
I love the pundits who either need to say the rule change is bad or VAR is bad. It’s not either, per se (though I’ve expressed problems with both). It’s the combination. The rule change would be something people could stomach without VAR because no referee would ever call this unless they were absolutely certain in real time. And if a referee were certain, it would be rather blatant. And VAR works very well in certain situations. But combine the two and subject VAR to a rule that would be VERY infrequently applied otherwise and you have a disaster. And an easily foreseeable disaster. A ton of goals that no one would otherwise blink an eye at are going to be annulled. That cannot possibly be what anyone wants.
"A goal scored directly from the hand/arm (even if accidental) and a player scoring or creating a goal-scoring opportunity after having gained possession/control of the ball from their hand/arm (even if accidental) will no longer be allowed," IFAB said in a statement.
Well, yes. There’s also the question of if this is literally a violation. But the best referees in the world are calling it that way and they’ve had the requisite instruction, so I think we need to accept that this is the spirit of the law change even if the text doesn’t quite get us there. Pin that one on IFAB.
Not to beat this dead horse because the application of the law makes clear how authorities want it to be called, but... The goal scorer gained possession from someone else’s arm—not their own. And the player who had the ball hit his arm never gained possession. So, literally, this isn’t a violation. But it’s abundantly clear that it’s interpreted as such, despite the actual text. This is a case of sloppy writing instead of poor application.
Who is going to care? If it’s taught that way at the pro level and applied that way consistently, it’s the end of the story. Might make some lower level recert clinics fun for a few minutes. But if unilaterally everyone decides from the top down what was intended, it’s not going to be a problem. A problem only arises if some governing body relents or applies it differently.
Here's another peevish nit: Did the scoring team even "gain possession" off the arm in either of these cases? Didn't the scoring team team already have possession in both? The text says "gains possession" (speaking of the armed player, but we're ignoring that aren't we), not "gains or retains possession."