Man City 1-0 Wolves: Verdict Thread

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Well you are selectively quoting, so yes

You made 2 points, i was responding to the second of them.

 

[Carsy]

Whether the ball hits the arm or not is not subjective, it is binary.

The ball DID NOT hit his arm, there are 2 different angles that prove that, it's not about clear and obvious error, it's about something not happening that the ref thought did.

But surely if it’s 100% it’s not hit any part of his harm, it’s then a clear and obvious error and overturned? There’s clearly enough doubt if we take the wolves tinted glasses off?

Again I need to re watch as at the time I didn’t think it was. But if it’s gone to VAR and they haven’t overruled there must be some doubt

 

[t3ch]

Raul’s been doing that annoying shit all year. Standing right in front of the taker, kicking balls as they’re set, etc. It’s so childish and pointless. And right after a yellow. Just… Christ almighty. I wish he’d just knock it the fuck off altogether.

VAR was a disappointment, obviously. Being used a shooting gallery by one of the best teams in the world is a bit frantic but the team gave a good account of themselves.

 

[Johnny75]

You usually are.

Got a nice like from non-Wolves fan Mark, congrats.

 

[The Saturday Boy]

For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. (The rule)

if the ball hit his armpit then the size of a football would suggest it must also have hit his arm above “in line with the bottom of the armpit”.

The ball hitting the arm is not the offence itself but it is when the player

• touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised

To award the penalty, the ref has to believe that the ball touched the arm above the line of the bottom of the armpit and that the position of the arm made the body unnaturally bigger. It is impossible for a ball to hit the underneath of the armpit unless the arm is away from the body.

More often than not that is never given as a penalty by the ref and would not be overturned by VAR but once given, I don’t think it’s overturned either.

Fantastic defensive performance but I would never want to watch that game again.

 

[Carsy]

For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. (The rule)

if the ball hit his armpit then the size of a football would suggest it must also have hit his arm above “in line with the bottom of the armpit”.

The ball hitting the arm is not the offence itself but it is when the player

• touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised

To award the penalty, the ref has to believe that the ball touched the arm above the line of the bottom of the armpit and that the position of the arm made the body unnaturally bigger. It is impossible for a ball to hit the underneath of the armpit unless the arm is away from the body.

More often than not that is never given as a penalty by the ref and would not be overturned by VAR but once given, I don’t think it’s overturned either.

Fantastic defensive performance but I would never want to watch that game again.

So, from that a penalty is the correct decision?

 

[Tony Towner]

You made 2 points, i was responding to the second of them.

If his hand isn't up and it shouldn't have been, then it's not a penalty. It's a bollocks decision, but there was no need to invite it

 

[Johnny75]

So, from that a penalty is the correct decision?

Not sure on the age of that rule as the shirt line is the boundary for hand ball and a not the armpit which is naturally in the shirt line.

 

[Tony Towner]

So, from that a penalty is the correct decision?

No, because the ball hits him directly below his arm and if it hit it after that, which is inclusive, it's not a penalty from a deflection. That's the current interpretation of the law

 

[Parkins left foot]

Always keep off these threads for a bit to let it calm down (or enough go off and do something else).

Raul - what can you say. The first yellow was a foul, but a yellow as well! - whether he thought it was deserved or not he did get it so really don't play silly buggers right in front of the Ref 45 seconds later. ( some have spoken re brain injuries & yes personality can change - my ex DiL was not the same character after her aneurysym)

Penalty is dubious though Moss gave it in real time & as far as I am aware VAR can only rule against if it's obvious & clear which from what I've seen so far it isn't (though don't think is was one personally). Moss should have been told to review it on the pitchside monitor to confirm his decision. Moutinho gave him the opportunity to give it with his arm raised that high.

The bright spots out of that (and in other games) has been the form of Kilman & Ait Nouri both of whom have grown in stature and capability.

 

[SSB]

Quick question. Does the media/broadcasters get to listen in to the communications between the officials and VAR team? Or is it a closed shop?

 

[The Saturday Boy]

Not sure on the age of that rule as the shirt line is the boundary for hand ball and a not the armpit which is naturally in the shirt line.

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct

IFAB Laws of the Game

www.thefa.com

 

[Carsy]

No, because the ball hits him directly below his arm and if it hit it after that, which is inclusive, it's not a penalty from a deflection. That's the current interpretation of the law

I’m just playing devils advocate. Surely VAR wouldn’t of given it then?

 

[Tony Towner]

I’m just playing devils advocate. Surely VAR wouldn’t of given it then?

I'd say that's a significant leap of faith in your confidence of VAR/protection of referees

 

[BeaverWolf]

Got a nice like from non-Wolves fan Mark, congrats.

Wow - even more knowledge!

 

[Johnny75]

Wow - even more knowledge!

Your boring me now, onto ignore you go.

 

[BeaverWolf]

But surely if it’s 100% it’s not hit any part of his harm, it’s then a clear and obvious error and overturned? There’s clearly enough doubt if we take the wolves tinted glasses off?

Again I need to re watch as at the time I didn’t think it was. But if it’s gone to VAR and they haven’t overruled there must be some doubt

Depends on whether you are in the big 6 or not judging by today’s decisions in the PL.

 

[BeaverWolf]

Your boring me now, onto ignore you go.

You really are very touchy. Just a bit of humour. I actually agree with some of your points today.

 

[Johnny75]

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct

IFAB Laws of the Game

www.thefa.com

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1820123

 

[Aikiwolf]

Raúl has always stood over free kicks and always been at keepers taking their time over kick outs. Today was nothing to do with any brain injury, its just a stupid decision from a senior player during one of the toughest away games of the season.

Good job we don't have a really winnable fixture next where we could do with our star striker....