IIRC it was Ox that was offside when Salah headed it to him.
Damn.
Less than one day into the year and I’m wrong already.
The one by KDB looks worse.
Similar outcome from the bent ref though.
and yet on the blue Moon forum ref watch thread…
If Everton had hand picked a ref and gave him clear instruction in what to do to give them the best chance of a result, he wouldnt have done a better job.
Arsenal seem to get some lenient refereeing…
I struggled to identify the ref for a while but once I found out who it was I knew we would struggle
Anyone that doesn’t give them everything is 100% bent in their eyes.
They support a sportwashing vehicle, what else do you expect from them?
2 Likes
Probably shouldv’e been disallowed under the current ruling then again the current ruling is a piece of shit which is governed and protected by a bunch of corrupt hypocrites and what brings up so much subjectivity into the already messed up game.
Who in their wildest minds couldv’e ever come up with the law that “in attacking instances, even if down by the side and accidental, goal be disallowed thus attacking team penalised yet for defending teams it’s not given as a pen against them” if that happened in the other box it’s never a pen so it’s a stupid rule.
Handball rule very easy to correct. Down by the side, no problemo. Outstretched or head height/above you’re penalised. That’s it.
Trying to argue that goal should have been disallowed for handball is as clear an example as you can get of considering only whether it benefits us or not in determining if something should have been a foul.
1 Like
I see where you’re coming from, and maybe it’s just my lack of knowledge regarding the rules but if the roles were reversed, I’d also think it would be ruled out.
Other than some sort of Eeyore like “they’re all against us” argument, on what basis can you say that?
His hand was by his side and it clearly hit him without him knowing about it. If he knew the ball was coming over Fabs head dont you think he’d have tried to get something proper on it rather than hoping a solid deflection of his arm would test Alisson? Even those two sentences have given this argument more merit than it deserves.
I think I phrased it poorly. What I meant was that when I saw the replay, I thought it would have been ruled out, just as I would think the same if we had scored from that.
And this follows from what I said about my lack of knowledge regarding the rules, because to me it doesn’t matter whether the intent was there or not, the outstretched (to me) hand diverted the ball from the path it was on, creating that situation for the goal that would otherwise not exist. Obviously if you have a superior knowledge of the rules to me (and that’s not hard), and you think it’s fine then I’m wrong in my understanding.
The question that needs asking is if it hit a defenders hand like that would a penalty have been awarded… For is that not the reason defenders put their hands behind their back when facing the ball in their own box…
I thought it was handball at the time and posted as much in the match thread. As I understand the rules, any handball no matter how slight or marginal should not result in a goal.
But the problem I have with it, once again is the consistency. There were two cursory replays on VAR, and then England decided he couldn’t be arsed anymore and gave the goal. Had that been Salah or Nunez’s hand, it would have been the full five minute inquest, looking at multiple angles over and over again in a concerted effort to find the handball in it.
1 Like
The laws are incredibly subjective to the point that reading them tells you nothing about how to referee a game. As such the authorities also produce guidance for the refs designed to help develop a common understanding of how to interpret and apply them. For handball, intent is still central to the spirit of it, but the wording now focuses more on defining what refs should look for in determining if there was intent. It is now a lot more about presuming intent by applying a series of tests based on body position and distance from the ball. While there is a good amount that can go into determining that a hand ball should be given, when the hand is down by the side like that it is almost impossible to interpret as a handball.
Your understanding is incorrect. That black and white interpretation that ignores intent only applies to the goal scorer. That explains why VAR was able to wave away complaints so quickly without there being any need to involve the ref anything.
No, my understanding is fine - I just expressed it poorly. I would argue that as the last Brentford player to touch the ball, his touch is the pivotal one. He literally diverts it, with his hand, on to Konate’s knee.
I’ve seen us goals disallowed in similar circumstances.
2 Likes
I don’t know how to say this any clearer - your understanding of the rule is incorrect. It doesnt matter whether the touch is pivotal. It matters only if he is the goal scorer (see the Rashford disallowed goal against Wolves). He wasnt therefore for it to be handball it has to have met the various criteria for there being intent.
Another example of the hand ball rule took place on Boxing Day when Tim Ream scored a goal for Fulham. In the build up, the ball struck Mitrovic’s arm/hand, and made it’s way through to Tim Ream, who scored. As Mitrovic wasn’t the goal scorer, it stood.
I assume, if Mitrovic’s hand was moving towards the ball in an unnatural position, then it would have been disallowed, but in this instance, it was accidental and his arm was in a natural potion (when he donkey’ed his headed attempt)
1 Like
No, I totally understand what you are saying. I think it’s a problem with the rule.
Had Mee diverted it into the goal with his hand, the goal would have been ruled out (or maybe not, this is the Atwell/England dream team). So I think the fact that he was the last Brentford player to touch the ball, and he diverted it with his arm onto Konates knee, is a huge problem with the rule.
I am absolutely convinced that VAR would have found a way to rule that out had it been us on the attack.
2 Likes
He also headed it onto his own arm. That is treated by definition as accidental regardless of the arm position. He still wouldnt have been able to score from that play, but there was no issue with a different Fulham player scoring.
2 Likes
There are tons I don’t personally like about the way various rules are interpreted and applied, but I dont get to complain we’ve been hard done by when the refs apply them the way they are actually written.