West Ham disallowed goal today

[Lester Burnham]

I'm trying not to read between the lines of your post Alan, but are you making the point of 'common sense' vs VAR?

I'm of the opinion the level of consistency being called for - be it by referees or VAR - isn't possible unless the laws are 'black and white'. This is possible in some instances, such as the incident involving Raya - for which any and all contact with the goalkeeper could be deemed foul play - but not in every situation: how, for example, can contact between an attacker and a defender be covered by a 'black and white' law that unequivocally determines foul play one way or the other?; there are simply too many variables. And even if the law were unequivocal, this doesn't necessarily make it desirable or fair: do we want a law, for instance, that states a penalty be awarded whenever the ball hits a defender's hand – no matter what?
I think there needs to be more of an acceptance that some decisions carry a high degree of subjectivity - splitting opinion among supporters - and, in so doing, whichever way the referee calls it is correct (in the same way 'umpire's call' works in cricket.)
For a different reason, I'll send you a P.M. in the next couple of days.

I'll be more than happy to receive that PM; my old friend.

[Logicalman]

To my mind, the only way to get 100% consistency in decision making is to go to the extreme. For example, the interpretation of the law would have to be that any contact with the goalkeeper is a foul. Then you can have consistency. Then the decision becomes a matter of fact: 'Was there contact with the goalkeeper?' rather than one of opinion: 'Was the contact with the goalkeeper a foul?'

Do those calling for consistency not recall the last time the P.L. attempted, in the Covid-affected season, to interpret the handball law in a wholly consistent way? Back then, for a time, the guidance to referees was to award a penalty for any contact between hand and ball. Referees had only to see contact to point to the spot - a straightforward, consistent decision. Yet supporters, managers, and pundits alike were up in arms (if you'll pardon the pun). Penalties were being awarded in situations in which the ball was being played from close range against a player's hand in a perfectly natural position. Up went the cry: 'Let the referee use common sense'.

The argument for common sense, however, is also an argument for inconsistency. For while we may all agree to apply common sense, not everyone's opinion of 'a common sense decision' is the same. When the ball hits a hand in the penalty area, you and I may disagree as to whether the hand was too far away from the body; or the ball was kicked from too near the player; or the player's movement of his arm was natural or deliberate, etc.

And so it is with West Ham's disallowed goal. If the law allows for a degree of physical contact, it is inevitable there will have been similar situations to Raya's where no foul was awarded. How many grains of sand make a pile? If I say a thousand, one can legitimately argue that removing a single grain of sand can't make enough of a difference for it to no longer be a pile. But I must make the division at some number, otherwise we can carry on removing single grains of sand until the number in the 'pile' is just one.

Likewise, one can find an picture such as that below, where the attacker's arm, if not across the keeper's throat and holding onto his arm (as was the case with Raya), is still across the chest and making contact with the arm, and claim this, too, should be a foul.



The fact is, however, the 'line in the sand' between foul and no foul is not an unambiguous, clear and definite one - for the simple reason not all physical contact with the goalkeeper is a foul. To have such a line, in my opinion, we must forego the notion of 'common sense refereeing'. It would facilitate consistent decision making, for sure, but not better decision making.

Excellent post Arthur, thank you.

You make a very salient point when questioning the difference between common sense and the rules of the game.
Likewise, to the subject of this particular thread, are two additional (and just to name 2 of the multitude) issues that occur every match, where referees, commentators and fans all appear to disagree.

Firstly, the offside rule. Law 11 is quite explicit as to what it means, and it's all quite simple really, "any part of the head, body or feet ....hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit."
The problems occur in that officials are not capable of determining when a player is 1 or 2 inches offside, due to the speed of movement whilst determining the exact point at which the ball was played, thus VAR was brought in. Unfortunately, by their own admission (incl other European leagues) even VAR is not capable of being an exact science, and so the '5cm rule' was brought in for season 2021, though even then it has proven to be somewhat subjective. As such, there are calls from many sides that they should use apply the term "Clear Daylight". Sounds great eh? Unfortunately this is moving the goalposts (excuse the pun) and the manner in which it is accounted, as the current and proposed changes both rely on measurements.

Secondly is pushing. Law 12 deals with this ... "A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force: .... pushes .... ". It has become the norm for defenders to deliberately push at an opponent who has gotten clear of them and is taking a shot. More so pushing opponents off the pitch which, especially relevant to the Cottage, can cause injury to the player due to the proximity of the hoardings, etc. and a lack of run off area. This offence is routinely ignored by referees.

As to your point, when rules either explicitly or otherwise provide guidance to officials , it is still up to the officials to interpret the same as they see fit, and until there is a consistency with that level of duty, then VAR will never be able to achieve it's intended use as fully as the FA might wish.

[AJW48361]

How come that goal gets disallowed and Castagne's goal vs Villa gets disallowed, but e.g. Everton's goal against us for a similar "foul" doesn't get disallowed. I'm sick and tired of the PL referees.

At the end of day the decision to disallow Hammers goal was absolutely correct, end of.I would've gone for a penalty to WH Arsenal 19 committed a foul before the Reya incident.

[Colinwhite]

Holding people or using your arms or pushing / holding  was always a foul in my day playing the game. I think making all this cheating illegal would simplify things and be a lot fairer. There are no degrees of holding pushing or pulling .That should always be a foul .Its the referees themselves that have changed the rules and how they should be interpreted and sadly many of them seem to have little feeling or experience of playing football.

[alfie]

Holding people or using your arms or pushing / holding  was always a foul in my day playing the game. I think making all this cheating illegal would simplify things and be a lot fairer. There are no degrees of holding pushing or pulling .That should always be a foul .Its the referees themselves that have changed the rules and how they should be interpreted and sadly may of them seem to have little feeling or experience of playing football.

I remember an incident not too long ago, a shirt pulling, The guest co-commentator not sure who it was said, "yes the shirt was being pulled but not enough to warrant a foul", what constitutes "enough" to make it a foul.