West Ham v Sheffield Utd (A) 10:01:2020 KO 20:00 - Match Thread
This discussion has been closed.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 1.5K All Categories
- 1 Site Stuff
- 31 Admin (FAQs, rules, queries etc.)
- The Boleyn Arms
- 34 General Chatter
- 7 Member info & Family Album
- 3 Radio Llama (music videos)
- 405 Fun & Games
- 107 BA Predictor Threads
- 33 Word Games
- 4 Quizzes
- 2 Pun Threads
- 294 Magic Minutes
- 3 Other Fun & Games
- 113 Current West Ham
- 199 Men's First Team
- 3 Women's Team
- 11 PL2 & Academy
- 31 Management & Board
- 15 Stadium & Training Ground
- 26 West Ham Miscellaneous
- West Ham Matches
- 396 Match Threads
- 66 MOTM
- 8 West Ham Nostalgia
- 34 Former Players and Staff
- 4 Past Games & Glories
- 37 Transfers
- 46 Transfer Speculation
- 87 Completed Transfers
- 55 Internationals
- 48 Men's Internationals
- 5 Women's Internationals
- 2 Youth Internationals
- 118 Football Chatter
- 43 Football Chatter
- 268 Other Teams & Matches
- 25 Other Players & Staff
Comments
:thumbsup:
Just that if it hits the hand, it’s disallowed regardless?
You are right.
The 'deflection' interpretation posted by others is solely for potential penalties. Any goal that involves handball by an attacker is to be disallowed, with no reference to intention.
As you were. Correct decision under current rules.
Given the current rules, I can see why VAR struck off the goal.
Let’s hope that some latitude is introduced regarding the use of VAR - at the end of the day I want to see it used to capture clear and obvious errors on behalf of the officials.
Offsides where it is clear on review that the attacker is offside, not by millimeters but where it is considered clear enough that the officials should have seen it.
handballs where intent is clear, not when it simply brushes the arm or strikes the arm from short range, VAR can still give a handball despite lack of intent if the arms are extended and the ball makes contact, once again correcting decisions where it is considered clear enough that the officials should have seen it.
This is probably going to be unpopular, but on balance I am not sure that I would use VAR for straight reds, it happens rarely and the officials will only give a straight red if they have seen an offense that they feel warrants it -
cressers is good example of this, the VAR showed that he got the ball and many do not think it was even a foul, however, in real time he came in hard and IMO, the Ref can be forgiven in believing he was reckless and endangering a player.
I get that VAR stopped a game changing decision which many will consider a win for VAR, but was the decision of the Ref a true clear and obvious error? I know that I winced when I saw it.
if a Red card had been issued then an appeal could have been made and presumably won, I worry slightly that the position of the ref is somewhat undermined when VAR corrects a decision like that, on an incident that was seen and action taken upon.
Cannot VAR be helpful in heated incidents when players are swarming around and the official cannot possibly be sure of who pushed, squared up to or even head butted who etc, there are times when stuff is going on behind their back that cannot possibly be seen, so VAR Would be truly assisting the officials there.
In many such occasions the officials simply brandish a yellow for the original sin and almost randomly show a yellow to one of the protesting team - the officials reviewing VAR could identify All the offenders and inform the ref of the appropriate response, and if that means four or five yellows then so be it.
Just my tuppence worth
Ho hum
I would personally like to see the use of a sin-bin introduced for red cards, so that the player is sent to it and the game can resume immediately. VAR can check whether the card is warranted while play continues. If it is warranted, then he is dismissed from the game but if VAR reduces it to yellow then he spends 10-15 minutes in the sin-bin and if VAR thinks there was no offence he returns to the game immediately.
I think this would take some of the tension and protests out of the situation if the offending team know that the player may well return to the game.
While your sin-bin idea looks like it might solve the problem, it actually doesn't address the fundamental issue and which VAR does, imo. Because yes, the player can come back into the game (the actual game, not the one after like when a card is rescinded) if the VAR says so, but the team is still playing at a disadvantage as a result of a wrong game-changing decision (albeit or a shorter period... assuming the event takes place before the final stages of the game - but if it's with the last 10 mins, then what?)
So the sin bin idea avoids a VAR-related delay, but the fundamental problem (that VAR was supposed to solve) still exists.
imo it's another measure that was introduced to stop a problem but all it has done is create a new problem. Whereas leaving the rule as it was (ref has to judge whether it was deliberate or accidental wherever on the pitch it occurs) but now having VAR to give him a chance for another look and a bit more time to reach a decision would, imo, have been the best option.
Otherwise, I agree. Nonsense.
I get your point about if the opposition score or it's the goalkeeper and the player is allowed to come back after VAR says there was no offence at all. But how often would that happen, the best that would most likely happen is that the red is reduced to yellow. Or perhaps there could be a special circumstance if the GK is the perceived offender.
I think also that the punishment for a yellow should just be the sin-bin, although with 2nd yellow in the same game the player is sin-binned again (or perhaps sent off) and misses next game. No accumulation of single yellow cards; straight red (verified by VAR) same punishment as now.
It's not easy is it, but something needs doing.
The same would apply for any red card offence in the penalty area, by the time VAR had been used the penalty would have been taken and most likely a goal could have been scored. Clearly that would mean that any offence inside the penalty area would have to wait for VAR before the penalty could be taken.
However if the red card offence was judged by the referee to be inches outside the box the player could go to your "sin bin" and a free kick taken without delay while VAR did its stuff.
Somehow I suspect a sin bin would create its own problems.
"a free kick close to the penalty area so highly likely that a goal would have been scored"
Obviously no danger if we're the opposition. :biggrin:
Also, I said "perhaps there could be a special circumstance if the GK is the perceived offender"
Because less people dislike Sheffield United to Leeds. :biggrin:
If the ball had ricocheted to Rice’s hand in our penalty area but not picked up by the ref and he’d run the length of the field, passed to Snodders who scored VAR would have gone right back to the initial incident and disallowed the goal. However VAR would also have looked at the possible penalty but said no because there was no intent.
The pundit, apart from saying how daft it was, asked what would be the decision as to who got the ball to restart. The ref thought it would be the team conceding the “non goal” as the handball was the offence and it would be a free kick BUT where from?