UEFA Competitions 2023-2024 Referee Discussions [Rs]

Regular reminder that these were recommendations by the UEFA Football Board of former players and coaches.

1) Deflections off the body not implemented.

2) Implemented.

3) Raised in today's IFAB meeting.

4) In recommendations at the IFAB meeting for law for next season. pic.twitter.com/y4N6z2cnDr

— Dale Johnson (@DaleJohnsonESPN) November 28, 2023

 

Penal

 

It's not irrelevant - it's simply that a deflection doesn't create an automatic exemption.

Arm position remains key, relative to the player's body position and movement. https://t.co/lW35kcpZFR

— Dale Johnson (@DaleJohnsonESPN) November 28, 2023

 

"It IS a penalty."

Our rules expert @ChristinaUnkel explains why PSG were awarded a penalty against Newcastle. 🍿 pic.twitter.com/rt3utebW4z

— CBS Sports Golazo ⚽️ (@CBSSportsGolazo) November 28, 2023

 

I understand that under the rules as currently interpreted, that's the correct call. I cannot understand why anybody thinks that this version of plinko is good for the game, or that the only alternative is this or the bad old days of 0-0 draws.

 

They will keep tinkering until it goes back to what it was originally (plus no accidental goal from the hand).

 

I worded it badly and look like an idiot But this is what I mean. If the ball is coming off somewhere else on the body and then hitting the arm, whether off themselves or off an opponent, are we penalizing it as a handball or not? And is it changing depending on what league we’re watching? Someone above said that this would never be called in EPL but is in UEFA. And I forget how MLS does it, I saw barkey say something about it in an inside video review but forgot. How do we know which standard to use?

The best referee in the world right now just called this a penalty, so I would be calling this a penalty in my games as a result.

 

I’m really surprised that the 72’ handball incident wasn’t given. To me it looks more like a handball than the stoppage time incident, and I don’t think most anyone would have any complaints about it.

I’m torn on the stoppage time incident. First, let me say I think it is a penalty under UEFA’s instructions. Watching the slow-no replay of it, it makes it look really harsh. The arm is in a fairly natural position for running and it comes to him off his chest first. But then I watched it in real speed and my gut reaction was “clear penalty”, mainly because the chest touch isn’t as easily perceptible. I always think that these things are best judged watching in real speed, so I’ll say I prefer penalty here.

But twos thing that have been lost are that 1) Marciniak never views the replay at real speed, and 2) it seems like the notion of “clear and obvious” is out the window with respect to handballs. Then again, maybe not, because I don’t know how you explain the 72’ one.

 

I don’t think the concept is complicated at all. We have two questions. Was the handling deliberate? Was the player unnaturally bigger? If either of those is true, then a deflection off the body doesn’t wipe out the HB offense. (It might, however, be relevant to what the R believes is natural position.)

 

The problem is that nobody agrees what "unnaturally bigger" or "deliberate" mean....

As I've said in other threads, under the normal use of the English language, for any action to be "deliberate" requires forethought and intent, which by definition CAN'T be present in any situation where the defender has zero reaction time.

 

VAR is just not fundamentally working and not giving palatable results to the general public/stakeholders involved.

It's just obvious that the game is just not better off as a result of this and no one involved in the governing of the game is willing to come out and even half-heartedly admit that maybe it's time to reevaluate.

Instead everyone just keeps doubling down and saying "we need better training, let's fast track ex players, etc."

Or better yet, what we need is even more VAR involvement.

It's just not working.

 

It's becoming exhausting. We are examining referee decisions even more than the pre-VAR era.

 

VAR is working fine.

It is correcting a significant number of clear and obvious errors. The stats are pretty plain to see. Mostly it just fixes mistakes at the expense of a review every other game and average time lost of 3 minutes.


Unless the idea was that 99% of all errors would be eliminated and that VAR would never create is own new kind of errors...
1. Failed send down (infrequent, but generates debate)
2. Correct decision reversed to incorrect (rare, but extremely noticable resulting in controversy)

If that was the standard then this is a failure.

Or if happiness and acceptance was the standard then this is a failure.

 

The purpose of VAR is to decrease the likelihood of an egregious mistake.

What happened in today's game was not an egregious mistake. It's a close call based on an interpretation that a lot of people don't like and would generate a lot of discussion whether VAR existed or not.

Which means it has absolutely nothing to do with whether VAR's goal is worthwhile and whether it's achieving that goal. For that, you have to look at the data cited above.

Or watch cricket or any other sport that does it right.

 

Well, because now it's not just the refereeing decision on the pitch that is being examined...it's whether or not the VAR chose to intervene or not that is also being examined as well as whether or not the decision of the VAR to intervene/not intervene was correct.

To me the problem starts with the "clear and obvious" language, which is far too broad and nebulous, and has led to huge amounts of conflict due to the fact that nobody can agree on what "clear" or "obvious" mean in a footballing context. The language specifying when a VAR should/should not intervene needs to be made a lot more specific.

And of course it certainly doesn't help that the handball law is a bloody mess, with the footballing meaning of the words "intentional" and "deliberate" having been twisted into such a pretzel that they defy common sense.

 

video review is great when the issue is objective. But it just isn’t for subjective calls, as they remain subjective. Soccer is challenge is that almost all of the calls that matter are subjective. Defining lines on subjective decisions is like squeezing water in your fist.

 

LBW!

 

Anyway....there was another situation besides the three PK/no-PK calls in the PSG-Newcastle match that I would like to get people's opinion on, and that's the no-call when Skrinar fell on the ball and handled towards the end of the 1st half, arguably denying Isak a goal-scoring opportunity.

Thoughts?

 

Well the plot, as they say, has thickened.

VAR from PSG/NEW has been replaced on his Wednesday assignment.

 

I think this is right... but the other part of my brain says this might just be an action to get this official out of the spotlight short-term. I guess time will tell on that.

I think this shouldn't be a penalty. I think it's the reason they put the whole "justifiable/consequence" language.

If Christina and Dale are correct (that this decision matches UEFA's current interpretation) then they will have nobody but themselves to blame for the confusion, but they will last it at the feet of these officials because of public backlash.

It only highlights the problem with having confederation and league specific considerations that aren't published outside of refereeing circles and that the public struggle to understand.

There could be a better way... common considerations agreed on by the main stakeholders, but that would require the 4 letter organizations to get together and cooperate, so nevermind...