Leicester 0-0 Wolves We've been roobbed Verdict thread:

[Deleted Cyber]

From Law 12; Fouls and Misconduct are penalized as follows

If the ball is still in play, and a goalkeeper who is in his own penalty area deliberately throws the ball at an opponent who is standing outside of the penalty area, then you must award a penalty to the opponent's team. The offence of throwing the ball commenced inside the goalkeeper's penalty area, and is a penal offence, hence the award of the penalty kick against the goalkeeper. It does not matter where the opponent is standing (inside or outside of the goalkeeper's penalty area) or whether the ball hits the opponent or not. Caution or send-off the goalkeeper depending on the severity of the throw.

thanks

 

[Penk Wolf]

The one touch thing is something someone has made up and then everyone is going along with it.

It’s simply if it leads to a chance. Where they draw the line is subjective (until there is further clarification).

The rule hasn’t been created for moments like Sunday. But now it’s been used for that it’s causing confusion.

Our goal at Bristol City would have been chalked off under the new rule. Ricocheted off Docs hand into his path and then he cut it back to Cav. Wasn’t deliberate but it hit his hand and he gained an advantage. Even if Cav had passed that to someone else or a defender got a toe on it and then we put it in I imagine it would still be disallowed.

Well, if it touches someones arm and then someone touches it before the shot then the handball doesn't lead to a chance, so not really subjective.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Bloody hell I was right! On the laws of the game, this is most certainly not always the case, as people like DW and Darlo could probably recount multiple occurrences of my poor understanding!

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Bloody hell I was right! On the laws of the game, this is most certainly not always the case, as people like DW and Darlo could probably recount multiple occurrences of my poor understanding!

to quote someone.......

Even a blind pig sometimes finds a truffle

Cant think who said it though! :nod:

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Well, if it touches someones arm and then someone touches it before the shot then the handball doesn't lead to a chance, so not really subjective.

This is my point

AS WRITTEN, the current guidelines seem to imply the handball needs to either result in a chance for the player who has committed the accidental handball or directly assist by creating a chance for another player. Those definitions really need to be tightened up for me, especially what counts as directly assisting. For instance, imagine a player has the ball deflect into his arm just outside his own area, clearly completely accidentally, and is able to regain the ball and control it fairly as it pops into space. He then goes on a monster mazey run through the opposition a la Messi prime, before laying off for a forward to score a tap in. Under the current ruling, that is effectively the same as the Boly incident as far as I can see, but you would be having to check a pretty long way back to find the handball that the on-field officials had missed.

But then, in the same position, the player still goes on the mazey run, lays the ball off to another player, who is tackled but the ball runs free off the defender. The tackled player recovers and squares the ball for the original perpetrator of the handball to nod in. Is the handball still then a direct assist?

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

to quote someone.......

Even a blind pig sometimes finds a truffle

Cant think who said it though! :nod:

acorn

It is actually a quote from Bill Clinton when in front of the TV cameras at a golf day he actually managed to drive the ball straight and true. Clinton was notoriously a fairly shit golfer.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

acorn

It is actually a quote from Bill Clinton when in front of the TV cameras at a golf day he actually managed to drive the ball straight and true. Clinton was notoriously a fairly shit golfer.

I know

You quoted it to me on another thread. Several times I think.

:nod:

 

[Penk Wolf]

This is my point

AS WRITTEN, the current guidelines seem to imply the handball needs to either result in a chance for the player who has committed the accidental handball or directly assist by creating a chance for another player. Those definitions really need to be tightened up for me, especially what counts as directly assisting. For instance, imagine a player has the ball deflect into his arm just outside his own area, clearly completely accidentally, and is able to regain the ball and control it fairly as it pops into space. He then goes on a monster mazey run through the opposition a la Messi prime, before laying off for a forward to score a tap in. Under the current ruling, that is effectively the same as the Boly incident as far as I can see, but you would be having to check a pretty long way back to find the handball that the on-field officials had missed.

But then, in the same position, the player still goes on the mazey run, lays the ball off to another player, who is tackled but the ball runs free off the defender. The tackled player recovers and squares the ball for the original perpetrator of the handball to nod in. Is the handball still then a direct assist?

Oh ar, that would be interesting. I guess by the letter of the law the goal should be disallowed in the first scenario.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Once or twice, once or twice.

It is one of those sayings I really rather like. Beats the broken clock is right twice a day one, for me anyway.

 

[PuntsWolf]

Well, if it touches someones arm and then someone touches it before the shot then the handball doesn't lead to a chance, so not really subjective.

Lol what?

Define “Lead to a chance”. In my mind (the common sense approach), I wouldn’t be considering a single touch as being something that “leads to a chance”. The game is far more fluid and complex than that...

This is my point

AS WRITTEN, the current guidelines seem to imply the handball needs to either result in a chance for the player who has committed the accidental handball or directly assist by creating a chance for another player. Those definitions really need to be tightened up for me, especially what counts as directly assisting. For instance, imagine a player has the ball deflect into his arm just outside his own area, clearly completely accidentally, and is able to regain the ball and control it fairly as it pops into space. He then goes on a monster mazey run through the opposition a la Messi prime, before laying off for a forward to score a tap in. Under the current ruling, that is effectively the same as the Boly incident as far as I can see, but you would be having to check a pretty long way back to find the handball that the on-field officials had missed.

But then, in the same position, the player still goes on the mazey run, lays the ball off to another player, who is tackled but the ball runs free off the defender. The tackled player recovers and squares the ball for the original perpetrator of the handball to nod in. Is the handball still then a direct assist?

Well you’ve pretty much summed up here why suggesting it’s the last touch (or anything like that) is bloody stupid

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Precisely Punts. It sort of leads me back to my previous joyful career and setting up wording of contracts. Think through every bloody scenario, no matter how stupid or possibly far-fetched, and write the wording accordingly to cover that off.

The guidance at the moment is ambiguous at best. For instance, I'm not sure you actually even need the touch from a defender to open up the scenario in my second point. It could be the mazey run gets the ball upfield, and is then followed by a sequence of passing where the opponent doesn't touch the ball at all, and then the original transgressor is still the one to score.

The goal doesn't occur without the handball. There is no break in the chain of causation as the opponent hasn't touched the ball at all to do so. But it isn't a "direct assist".

 

[Dinowolf]

It would be interesting to know if VAR picked up on the shirt pulling on Boly and if it did, was it Mariner who refused it. If it didn't pick it up then there is a fault with the system as it clearly fits the stated criteria for VAR.

The audio recording between the two refs. would be interesting to hear. Is it available to listen to?

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

No the audio won't ever be available. It would potentially undermine the system realistically so I am sure it is hidden away never to be seen.

 

[Lichens]

acorn

It is actually a quote from Bill Clinton when in front of the TV cameras at a golf day he actually managed to drive the ball straight and true. Clinton was notoriously a fairly shit golfer.

Not sure if you’re being serious, but it far outdates Bill Clinton. Comes from Ancient Rome.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

He famously said it. I am sure it goes back way before him. WAY before.

Any idea which Roman philosopher or historical figure gets the original credit? Big area of interest to me, and I wouldn't mind finding the original use in context?

 

[Paul]

Not my words
"This encouraging idiom actually comes from ancient Rome, where the concept of a blind animal turning something up lent itself to the Latin saying that a blind dove sometimes finds a pea. An 18th-century Friedrich Schiller play employed the blind-pig-and-acorn version, and the play’s translation into English and French may have brought it into modern English speech "

 

[Dinowolf]

No the audio won't ever be available. It would potentially undermine the system realistically so I am sure it is hidden away never to be seen.

So that would make VAR unaccountable. Even a ref. has an assessor and so should VAR and its' ref., IMO.

I would expect that the Club should be able to ask whether the shirt-pull was investigated by VAR if only to show the system's competency, and to find where the fault lies if a decision was made incorrectly, or it was missed/ignored.

If the on-field ref. is at fault then that can be accounted for in the club's report on his performance and could affect the mark he is given.

 

[Parkins left foot]

So much discussion on the VAR decision - given how the rules are worded then have no problem with it (even if it is stupid & badly worded), but just want consistency throughout the whole season.

Suspect that will not be the case as this will get refined which will be a bigger issue as goals will possibly be given later which would have been chalked off in the first few weeks.

 

[b3h]

Wouldn't a truffle pig be using his big ol snout rather than his eyes to find truffles?

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

I think the original may even be squirrel and nut to cloud the issue even further! I can find the reference to Schiller and in that to Roman idiom but no inference about whether it was simply common Roman parlance or from one of the big names. Nice little research project for me to find out. Pretty sure it isn’t Caesar as it doesn’t sound his style. Could be Cicero or maybe Sallust I suppose.