Men's Soccer (Football) Thread [ARCHIVED] Soccer • Page 134

Another argument I have seen that I'd like your thoughts on: If a defender is jumping into the path of shot with the intent of blocking it, it doesn't matter if his hand is by his side, he deliberately attempted to block the shot and happened to do so with his hand by jumping in front of the flight/path of the shot. Therefore, it is a handball.

I kind of like this? It would still require the defender to keep their hands pinned to their body in some form (which did not happen with Kimpembe) but would not entirely take away their ability to jump/leap to block the shot. Defenders do this every time they are in a wall on a free kick so they should theoretically be able to still make an attempt to block the shot without flailing their arms in the air to get more height on their jump?

I also wouldn't say he turned away from the shot. You could make the argument that he turned his front side away from the shot but his back side has been turned toward the shot while the momentum of his entire body takes him into the path of the ball. He definitely attempted to block the shot and it makes no difference if he his facing the ball or faced away from it.

 

I've heard refs are being told something that's different from what's in the laws of the game booklet. That seems terrible if true.

 

You could make that a rule and indeed, in practice (and I think it may be about to become law actually) if an attacker blocks a clearance from a defender for example and they gain an attacking opportunity, even if there was absolutely no intent to handle it, referees usually pull it up because it's not considered within the spirit of the game to get a chance via your hand or arm even if you had no intention to do so.

It's possible you could make that argument for defensive situations in the penalty area - so if the ball hits your arm, intentionally or not, you give the foul. On paper that would clear up any confusion regarding intent. However, the chances are that a) this would encourage the team in possession to start intentionally striking the ball towards a players arm in certain situations, and b) is it really, again, within the spirit of the game to penalise a defender with an almost certain goal against because the ball happened to hit his arm when he went in for a challenge or to block a shot?

 

Manchester United fan has surgery after Paris stabbing

Scum

 

Yeah, definitely with you on this which is why I'm torn. Definitely needs to continue to be refined because I think most people perhaps just want some dang consistency (in MLS, at least). thanks for the thoughts.

 

The fact that the whole world is split between whether it was a penalty or not just proves that VAR should never have overturned the refs initial ruling. VAR is there to correct blatant mistakes, not to overturn decision that could go either way.

 

UEFA released statements for all the VAR decisions.

Paris Saint-Germain – Manchester United FC
Penalty award - 90'

The VAR, after checking various different angles available to him, recommended to the referee an on-field review following the penalty area incident.

Given that the referee did not recognise the incident clearly during live play (referred to as serious missed incident in the VAR protocol) an on-field review was conducted.

Following the on-field review, the referee confirmed that the distance that the ball travelled was not short and the impact could therefore not be unexpected. The defender’s arm was not close to the body, which made the defender’s body bigger thus resulting in the ball being stopped from travelling in the direction of the goal. The referee, therefore, awarded a penalty kick.


From that statement it was a case of the referee not seeing it, not VAR overturning his original decision. VAR used correctly to overturn a missed incident.

 

I guess, I still don't think it should have been a penalty. I can see why they gave it.

 

Spurs announced the first game in the new stadium will be either April 3 or April 6. The date depends on who wins the Brighton/Crystal Palace FA cup match. But either way, the first match at the stadium will be an EPL game and then the CL quarterfinal will also be played there.

 

I doubt it. But it would be peak him if he left before FIFA, UEFA, and the FA came down on City.

 

Exactly what I was thinking lol

 

everton newcastle has been a fiesty one

 

Everton

 

Spurs

They really are a filthy side, should have finished the game with 9 men.

 

They get away with it every week, absurd

Would be a little worried if i was a Spurs fan, still have to go to City and Liverpool. Not impossible they miss out on top 4

 

are we going to get another Saint Totteringham’s Day?!?!?!

 

Already having nightmares the Auba miss costs us top 4

 

Raheem Sterling is fun.

 

not that it bothers me cause I want City to win, but why was the first Sterling given? linesman correctly deemed sterling as offside, shouldn't matter that it hits the Watford player as Sterling is clearly challenging for the ball

 

Didn't see it. But if the Watford player deliberately played the ball, it's not an offside.

 

take a look at the goal when you have a chance, PGMOL came out after it and said it was the wrong call and should have been offside. one of those things where the Watford player has to make the challenge cause he doesn't know if the flag will go up or not, so sterling being offside forces him to play it.

 

We’re not finishing top 4

 

Yeah, it should’ve been offsides, but apparently a lot of people share Nick’s thought. The guys in the booth were talking a good while about it.

 

Yeah, it’s a bit of an odd one, apparently it’s similar to the Kane call or lack thereof last week where it deals with a player challenging for the ball.