Scott seemed to accept that it was the right decision under the current rules, ok he questions the rules and so do we, so why are we questioning that we have been cheated?
Quote from: davew on March 04, 2021, 09:30:15 PM
Scott seemed to accept that it was the right decision under the current rules, ok he questions the rules and so do we, so why are we questioning that we have been cheated?
Sadly +1
we were not cheated I am afraid. the rule was applied correctly
the rule is wrong and was not really constructed for a situation like that because the law makers were to thick to understand that what they were protecting against were players with arms and hands out, it is stupisd like the offside rule is stupid.
the game is so much worse for this nonsense.
but cheated we were not according to the rules.
Have to disagree. The rule states that it is handball IF it leads to a goalscoring opportunity which in this situation wasn't the case. When the ball fell to Maja, he himself created the scoring opportunity, not Lemina, so technically nothing wrong
Quote from: MaidenheadMick on March 04, 2021, 09:58:11 PM
Have to disagree. The rule states that it is handball IF it leads to a goalscoring opportunity which in this situation wasn't the case. When the ball fell to Maja, he himself created the scoring opportunity, not Lemina, so technically nothing wrong
I think you wioll find that this has been advised to mean if the last touch is a hand or arm of the attacking team befiore the ball is put in the net then the goal has to be disallowed. This is accpeted and understood by everybody do the rule was correctly implemented because it was clarified over and over so the ref was correct.
Quote from: MaidenheadMick on March 04, 2021, 09:58:11 PM
Have to disagree. The rule states that it is handball IF it leads to a goalscoring opportunity which in this situation wasn't the case. When the ball fell to Maja, he himself created the scoring opportunity, not Lemina, so technically nothing wrong
You're right!
The ref definitely didn't have to give this, there several arguments he could have made for allowing the goal to stand under the stated rules, if anyone had challenged him , which I doubt they would have.
I mean, what did he, the ref think?
Did he really think the goal shouldn't have stood? he's not a robot is he?.
Quote from: ALG01 on March 04, 2021, 10:01:18 PM
Quote from: MaidenheadMick on March 04, 2021, 09:58:11 PM
Have to disagree. The rule states that it is handball IF it leads to a goalscoring opportunity which in this situation wasn't the case. When the ball fell to Maja, he himself created the scoring opportunity, not Lemina, so technically nothing wrong
I think you wioll find that this has been advised to mean if the last touch is a hand or arm of the attacking team befiore the ball is put in the net then the goal has to be disallowed. This is accpeted and understood by everybody do the rule was correctly implemented because it was clarified over and over so the ref was correct.
But it wasn't the last touch. Maja had more than one touch. And as such there is at least room for discussion (as stated by the FA for example). What if Maja had 5 touches instead? Or passed the ball back to Lemina who scored? It has as far as I know never been clarified publicly at least, and as such it is open to at least some degree of interpretation.
Quote from: Sting of the North on March 04, 2021, 10:10:49 PM
Quote from: ALG01 on March 04, 2021, 10:01:18 PM
Quote from: MaidenheadMick on March 04, 2021, 09:58:11 PM
Have to disagree. The rule states that it is handball IF it leads to a goalscoring opportunity which in this situation wasn't the case. When the ball fell to Maja, he himself created the scoring opportunity, not Lemina, so technically nothing wrong
I think you wioll find that this has been advised to mean if the last touch is a hand or arm of the attacking team befiore the ball is put in the net then the goal has to be disallowed. This is accpeted and understood by everybody do the rule was correctly implemented because it was clarified over and over so the ref was correct.
But it wasn't the last touch. Maja had more than one touch. And as such there is at least room for discussion (as stated by the FA for example). What if Maja had 5 touches instead? Or passed the ball back to Lemina who scored? It has as far as I know never been clarified publicly at least, and as such it is open to at least some degree of interpretation.
Unfortunately you are not corrct, i wish you were.In his respect it was the touch before the goal scoring oppotunity or if you prefer the touch that lead to the goalscoring opportunity. And that is what count ed, whether maja took one touch or twenty doesn't matter. They wayt he refs are told to interperet that rule is not open to interpretation, it is abolutely clear and applied to all the same. for it not to have been give would have needed a good few more touches possibly going out of the penalty area. But this one is water tight, sorry.
Is anyone else thinking about aston villa defender???? Maja DID create the chance for himself today, that Aston villa defender chested the ball and the attacker coming back from an offside position took the ball from him, that one touch started a 'new phase of play'
Maja today took control of a loose ball, starting a new phase of play and opened himself up for a goal. Lemina did not create a chance via handball, a new phase of play started when maja CONTROLLED the loose ball.
That is a referees directive
Robbed by the rules.....
If he, maja, had taken the shot first time then the rules would be correct but as soon as he controlled the loose ball it becomes a new phase.
That is the reason we've been robbed today.
I say we practice this defensive option: When they are pressured, just kick the ball into the offensive players arm and they can never score from it...
I remember one going our way against Brighton at the Cottage when Welbeck (I think?) accidentally handballed before the ball was lashed across to Maupay for a goal.
How can it be right for the ball hitting an attacker & leading to a goal is ruled out but if a ball hits a defender no penalty is given. Anyway the phase finished when Maja created a new phase by controlling the ball & then scoring. 100% robbed of a legal goal. I am still shaking with rage. The ref is supposed to be the sole arbiter so why did he not use his common sense & over rule the prats in the VAR office looking at a TV screen.
All laws are interpreted at the time a potential offence is committed and the referee has to apply the spirit of the law and not just the letter of the law. There have been similar incidents this season where goals have been allowed to stand even when contact by the ball with the illegal part of the arm by an attacker has been observed in the penalty area. Just because someone staggers out of a pub and collapses in a heap doesn't mean they are drunk ...
I know Scott has accepted the decision but it changes week to week last week there was an appeal ( forgot who now) for a handball in the pen area and looked at by var not given as handball . There's no consistency .
Quote from: FFC In Oz on March 05, 2021, 08:29:03 AM
I remember one going our way against Brighton at the Cottage when Welbeck (I think?) accidentally handballed before the ball was lashed across to Maupay for a goal.
Not totally true...goal was disallowed for off side, Welbeck's handball was spotted in the VAR decision re the off side. So disallowed for 2 reasons.
Quote from: MaidenheadMick on March 04, 2021, 09:58:11 PM
Have to disagree. The rule states that it is handball IF it leads to a goalscoring opportunity which in this situation wasn't the case. When the ball fell to Maja, he himself created the scoring opportunity, not Lemina, so technically nothing wrong
Quite right. The goal scoring opportunity was not immediate as required by the law.
Just watched replays of the "incident". The phase after Lemina had the ball hit at him ended as soon as Maja controlled the ball moved & then scored a super goal. Ref & the VAR prats should have seen this.
From the FA website:
The current handball laws deem any deliberate touch with the hand or arm should be penalised while accidental contact could also lead to an infraction if "the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger" or "the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm."
None of the above apply to Lemina. Shocking decision
Quote from: MisfitKid on March 04, 2021, 11:41:35 PM
I say we practice this defensive option: When they are pressured, just kick the ball into the offensive players arm and they can never score from it...
That would require a high level of accuracy !
Quote from: Fulham1959 on March 05, 2021, 10:00:54 AM
Quote from: MisfitKid on March 04, 2021, 11:41:35 PM
I say we practice this defensive option: When they are pressured, just kick the ball into the offensive players arm and they can never score from it...
That would require a high level of accuracy !
What about,
Kick the ball at your opponents arm, then lash the ball into your own net.
Quote from: grandad on March 05, 2021, 09:08:24 AM
Just watched replays of the "incident". The phase after Lemina had the ball hit at him ended as soon as Maja controlled the ball moved & then scored a super goal. Ref & the VAR prats should have seen this.
+1
Quote from: MaidenheadMick on March 05, 2021, 09:14:34 AM
From the FA website:
The current handball laws deem any deliberate touch with the hand or arm should be penalised while accidental contact could also lead to an infraction if "the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger" or "the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm."
None of the above apply to Lemina. Shocking decision
Unfortunately doesn't apply to situations leading to a goal/goal scoring opportunity. In those cases it is a handball if the ball hits the arm in whatever way.
Quote from: Sting of the North on March 05, 2021, 06:02:06 PM
Quote from: MaidenheadMick on March 05, 2021, 09:14:34 AM
From the FA website:
The current handball laws deem any deliberate touch with the hand or arm should be penalised while accidental contact could also lead to an infraction if "the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger" or "the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm."
None of the above apply to Lemina. Shocking decision
Unfortunately doesn't apply to situations leading to a goal/goal scoring opportunity. In those cases it is a handball if the ball hits the arm in whatever way.
It wasn't a goal scoring opportunity.
Maja still had two defenders and a goalkeeper in front of him.
He created the goal scoring opportunity with his skill, control and speed of thought.
That decision was a travesty, and could be so crucial for us.
But noone will be held responsible, and will get away with it.
Quote from: RaySmith on March 20, 2021, 05:59:28 AM
That decision was a travesty, and could be so crucial for us.
But noone will be held responsible, and will get away with it.
Like Wilson diving up at Newcastle, Andersen sent off, they equalise with the pen and sneak a point but the sending off is rescinded the following week. Why didn't they spot this dive on the VAR at the time? :031:
092.gif
Quote from: bog on March 20, 2021, 09:03:12 AM
Quote from: RaySmith on March 20, 2021, 05:59:28 AM
That decision was a travesty, and could be so crucial for us.
But noone will be held responsible, and will get away with it.
Like Wilson diving up at Newcastle, Andersen sent off, they equalise with the pen and sneak a point but the sending off is rescinded the following week. Why didn't they spot this dive on the VAR at the time? :031:
092.gif
If the VAR and referee had done their job properly Andersen would have been sent off for a second yellow card but crucially it would have been a free kick and not a penalty. Andersen would then have missed the draw against Southampton serving a one game suspension.
This topic has been done to death.
Stupid rule, probably sounded ok on paper
but ridiculous in actual play.
The ref saw nothing wrong neither did the Spurs players.
VAR is ruining the game, let's just hope it works in our favour more times than not.
Quote from: sarnian on March 20, 2021, 09:46:41 AM
Quote from: bog on March 20, 2021, 09:03:12 AM
Quote from: RaySmith on March 20, 2021, 05:59:28 AM
That decision was a travesty, and could be so crucial for us.
But noone will be held responsible, and will get away with it.
Like Wilson diving up at Newcastle, Andersen sent off, they equalise with the pen and sneak a point but the sending off is rescinded the following week. Why didn't they spot this dive on the VAR at the time? :031:
092.gif
If the VAR and referee had done their job properly Andersen would have been sent off for a second yellow card but crucially it would have been a free kick and not a penalty. Andersen would then have missed the draw against Southampton serving a one game suspension.
I don't agree. If the sending off was rescinded thenit was not a bookng.
Quote from: bog on March 20, 2021, 11:47:59 AM
Quote from: sarnian on March 20, 2021, 09:46:41 AM
Quote from: bog on March 20, 2021, 09:03:12 AM
Quote from: RaySmith on March 20, 2021, 05:59:28 AM
That decision was a travesty, and could be so crucial for us.
But noone will be held responsible, and will get away with it.
Like Wilson diving up at Newcastle, Andersen sent off, they equalise with the pen and sneak a point but the sending off is rescinded the following week. Why didn't they spot this dive on the VAR at the time? :031:
092.gif
If the VAR and referee had done their job properly Andersen would have been sent off for a second yellow card but crucially it would have been a free kick and not a penalty. Andersen would then have missed the draw against Southampton serving a one game suspension.
I don't agree. If the sending off was rescinded thenit was not a bookng.
Incorrect. It was a foul and a yellow card which being his second booking should have been followed by a red card. The ref incorrectly produced a straight red card which was then overturned by the review panel. The panel only have the power to overturn red cards, they cannot substitute that red card for a yellow.
