I think we are going to see 'natural position' defined as having the arms very close to the sides at all times, and anything else considered unnatural and therefore part of an attempt to increase the blocking space of the ball.
The word "silhouette" is now part of instructions to refs: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47471380
The word "deliberate" meanwhile, seems to have basically no meaning anymore.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
I think we are going to see 'natural position' defined as having the arms very close to the sides at all times, and anything else considered unnatural and therefore part of an attempt to increase the blocking space of the ball.
UEFA backs up the official: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47495707
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
Dermot Gallagher's view is bizarre I think.
The defender jumps to block the shot. How on earth can that be interpreted as trying to get out of the way of the ball?I didn't think it was a penalty. I would be pretty annoyed if I was a defender and that was given against me.
If you look at it, it's struck the defender on the arm, there's no doubt about that but his arm is so close to his body, he's turning away, I don't think he had any intention whatsoever of doing anything but getting out the way of the ball.
For me, I'm very surprised it was given.
I don't know why he was so surprised to see it given either. On the evidence of the WC, it was pretty obvious those kind of ones are being given - rightly or wrongly.
What bothers me about it is that there seems to be this idea that a player's arm is either 'naturally' positioned or else it is 'away from the body' - one or the other.
But there is a huge overlap in those two things. Where the arm naturally goes is often away from the body. It would be completely unnatural for Kimpembe to have run, jumped, and twisted the way he did while having his arms close to his sides - they are naturally used for extra leverage.
We have all seen penalty claims when a player cuts the ball back from near the endline, and the ball hits the trailing arm of the defender making a sliding tackle to block the cross. That is the most natural position for a defender's arm to be in when making that kind of tackle, and it's well away from the body and making the blocking area bigger.
So I think it's too simplistic to say that 'natural' means 'not away from the body', because it often does. Maybe there will be something about a duty of care to keep the arms close to the body when a shot is expected, or something like that....just stay away from the word 'natural'.
Is your view on it changing in light of how it's being used (as opposed to how it could be used)?
No, I don't think so. I'm still generally in favour of it. I always knew that it would cause problems when it came to subjective decisions. My issue in this case is with the guidelines for handball, not with VAR itself. All VAR does is shine a light on the laws of the game, and in many cases, highlight how much or how little the fan (or supposed expert) knows about the laws.
And it causes the laws to be examined more forensically than before.
What do you mean by 'how it could be used'?
Just want to allow for differentiation between how it could be used ("clear" cases) and the actuality of it, where some of the cases are far from clear cut
But maybe, as you suggest, it's our understanding of the game that's wrong.
And that should have been the end of the discussion.Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter
Instead, it raged on. I just needed one replay to decide that it was a clear-cut handball offence. That has been given in many VAR games in the past, and many in the future. Since the year dot, you can't handle the ball in the box, and if the ref doesn't spot it nowadays, the VAR will.
Yup: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/47672436
I don't know if this is the first case of a player being cited for criticising VAR, but certainly it's the most high profile.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
Banned for three European games: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/48071175
I thought VAR had been banned there for a sec!
This doesn't really have anything to do with VAR as such; a tirade like that deserves a ban
Quite right, I note it here because I think it might be the first punishment for criticising VAR specifically. I think.
I have a question about VAR and offside that I'm wondering about while watching the Australia Italy WWC game. A couple of times, there has been a pretty clear offside, but they let play go on until that attack is over. I understand this, good to let things pan out, then if there is a goal you go back and check VAR for offside.
What I don't get is that when the attack comes to nothing, the referee blows up for offside pretty much immediately, without any apparent check of VAR at all.
If it is so clearly offside that the ref/lino can give it without VAR once the attack ends, why can they not do it before that?
Interesting VAR controversy at the end of Argentina/Scotland, not so much with the system and the decisions it led to (an injury time penalty, then retaken for the keeper being off the line) but for the ref seemingly not adding on the time at the end of the match. She played maybe five minutes when there could have been eight easy. What a weird decision to make.
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
Have been watching a bit of the Women's World Cup, and the VAR has been an absolute disaster. Even just now, England have scored against Sweden, and about 90 seconds later, the game is called back for a review, and the goal is ruled out for a fairly marginal decision. It just ruins the whole emotion of the game that way. Far from the first time it's happened either.
The WWC has shown a lot of VAR problems. It's clear that VAR still has to improve if it's there to stay.
I would suggest something like a "clear and obvious" rule. If the refs are still not sure after say 3 replays or 30 seconds of deliberation, the original decision should stand.
Maybe "clear and obvious" is something you can spot at normal speed?
I agree that a lot of what's being picked up is not clear and obvious. England's disallowed goal in the semis for example - I think it was offside, but it was very marginal, and far from "clear and obvious"
Bookmarks