2 in 2 "soft" handball decisions

I'm hoping that pawson the prat is reflecting on his poor decision yesterday but I doubt it . His original decision was correct but it was the doubt put into his mind by the idiot behind the VAR screen who changed his mind. Weak refereeing. The ball visibly came off Lermas knee before hitting his hand. A clear and obvious handball? Not a chance. Refs need to be stronger and stand up to VAR telling them they've got decisions wrong by sticking to their original decision.
Pawsons poor decision cost us 2 Pts yesterday.
 
Red_till_im_ded said:
I'm hoping that pawson the prat is reflecting on his poor decision yesterday but I doubt it . His original decision was correct but it was the doubt put into his mind by the idiot behind the VAR screen who changed his mind. Weak refereeing. The ball visibly came off Lermas knee before hitting his hand. A clear and obvious handball? Not a chance. Refs need to be stronger and stand up to VAR telling them they've got decisions wrong by sticking to their original decision.
Pawsons poor decision cost us 2 Pts yesterday.
Click to expand...
The ref in the Forest game stuck to his original decision. Resign yourself to the fact we are getting nothing but obvious VAR decisions in our favour
 
If the takeover goes through and if we spend a lot of money to put us into the "next level" in the eyes of Sky and the money makers, I wonder if that'll change any these 50\50 type decisions.
 
drd said:
The ref in the Forest game stuck to his original decision. Resign yourself to the fact we are getting nothing but obvious VAR decisions in our favour
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe Olivers's decision to stick to his original decision was the first by a ref asked to look at the monitor. Yet more inconsistency. For the record I don't think there is actually anything wrong with the concept of VAR but there are massive problems with the humans involved in using it
 
both correct decision, stop looking through red and black glasses, Pawson was told to look at it as no way could he see the handball ( correct ) then once he saw it gave the pen ( correct ) If the ball had come off his knee to this arm then no pen, but the arm move and deflected the ball.
 
corfe_red said:
both correct decision, stop looking through red and black glasses, Pawson was told to look at it as no way could he see the handball ( correct ) then once he saw it gave the pen ( correct ) If the ball had come off his knee to this arm then no pen, but the arm move and deflected the ball.
Click to expand...

Exact letter of the law

It is an offence if a player:

  • deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball
  • 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
Kelly/Lerma cannot be argued to have deliberately handled the ball otherwise they'd be the greatest goalkeepers to have ever lived.

So you're arguing that they've made an attempt to block the ball by positioning their hand in a way that is "not justifiable by" by their body movements which is total nonsense.
 
Think both were pens…we would be screaming for them if it was against us let’s be honest…Billing showed how to defend when he had a shot blasted at him yesterday.
 
drd said:
My point isn't that they weren't pens , just that
A. VAR ruins the game and
B. No way do we get both of those if we had been the attacking team
Click to expand...

Tend to agree. Knew moment the VAR pen stuff started for Forest and Newcastle there was only going to be 1 outcome. Not so sure both would have been given if it was for a small team away from home...
 
Kudos said:
Exact letter of the law

It is an offence if a player:

  • deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball
  • 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
Kelly/Lerma cannot be argued to have deliberately handled the ball otherwise they'd be the greatest goalkeepers to have ever lived.

So you're arguing that they've made an attempt to block the ball by positioning their hand in a way that is "not justifiable by" by their body movements which is total nonsense.
Click to expand...
So… this is the reason I don’t like VAR. Once again we have a decision where everyone including officials are looking at it differently. Too much subjectivity. We also can’t agree.

To me, if I put a neutral hat on, which I know is difficult then Kelly’s is not a penalty as he is turned away and it’s smashed at him. Lermas is as his hand at the last minute moves in the direction of the ball.

The other complication, and this is where it gets hilariously confusing though, is it’s supposed to be clear and obvious that the referee made a mistake. When you look at it that way to me the Forest decision remains the same (as the ref on the day decided). When it comes to the Newcastle decision though was it clear and obvious to anyone refereeing that game I’m not sure it was….

Again though, I wouldn’t die on a hill for any of these arguments as I’ve read other peoples analysis and nearly changed my mind… it’s too subjective and should be left to the refs on the day.
 
corfe_red said:
both correct decision, stop looking through red and black glasses, Pawson was told to look at it as no way could he see the handball ( correct ) then once he saw it gave the pen ( correct ) If the ball had come off his knee to this arm then no pen, but the arm move and deflected the ball.
Click to expand...
If the ref and the assistant couldnt see what was happening then their decision cant be a clear and obvious error.
Yet again manager, players and fans let down by not fit for purpose pgmol officials.
Did the var team check for encroachment as the penalty was taken?
 
worse var effects for me are 1) not being able to celebrate our goal yesterday for fear of it being chalked off and 2) enhanced & even more (boring) post-match whinging about refs decisions after games
 
It was nowhere near his knee on the MOTD close-up...however not obviously deliberate...but it was right in the area on a goalbound shot - they usually get given...
...if was against us we'd be screaming God's and Jesuses ffs!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;