Egan’s ‘goal’

[Millhousesblade1889]

I don’t really have too much of an issue with this being disallowed, it’s harsh yes but the rule is strict and he definitely handles it on route to scoring. During the game they showed several different angles.

 

[Jon Bon II]

What have you got against camaras in sport JB???

Sorry, can you say that again slowly. I couldn't quite lip read the first time...

I genuinely thought it went in off his thigh. Looked to me like it hit his thigh as he was moving his arm out of the way. I guess I'll be proved wrong later on MOTD but still hate VAR. This type of thing works well in cricket and gridiron but it's just not for soccerball in my opinion.

 

[Nick Jansky]

Was going in before it hit his hand imo.

Doesn’t matter. If it hits his hand its disallowed. The rule is shit, but the decision under that rule was correct.

 

[nicksufc]

You probably need an eye test

Clearly hit his hand. Law's are if the ball hits an attackers hand in the build up to a goal then it is handball whether deliberate or not.

As crappy as that may be, it went in off his hand - I'd have expected it to be possibly disallowed under the old rules. Umder the new rules there is no question.

I do not like how VAR is used within the ground but you cannot argue with it today in terms of the decisions.

He karate chopped it in.

The rule is any goal off a hand is overruled, and it was off his hand quite clearly, Egan needs to start thinking about where his hands are, second game in a row.

No - this is how the handball rule is being implemented: https://www.goal.com/en/news/how-do...ball-rules-explained/baj7pi2kk191qyeu9ay8wlrn

It's not how you describe at all. It isn't just any contact with the hand = infringement. That is wrong

 

[nicksufc]

According to the rules:

There will be no penalty/free kick if:

• the ball touches a player's hand/arm immediately from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player.

Which is literally what happened for Egan's goal. Yet they disallowed it. Right?

 

[bromtom]

No - this is how the handball rule is being implemented: https://www.goal.com/en/news/how-do...ball-rules-explained/baj7pi2kk191qyeu9ay8wlrn

It's not how you describe at all. It isn't just any contact with the hand = infringement. That is wrong

It's not wrong when it comes to attackers.

Any contact with the hand from the attacker that leads to a goal leads to the goal being ruled out (assuming they see it).

Antonio had one ruled out the other day for it.

Defensive handballs still have other things applied, like intent, position, defection, distance from kick etc.

Also those are IFAB rules, which are not universally followed by the Premier League I believe.

 

[Bladepicker]

No - this is how the handball rule is being implemented: https://www.goal.com/en/news/how-do...ball-rules-explained/baj7pi2kk191qyeu9ay8wlrn

It's not how you describe at all. It isn't just any contact with the hand = infringement. That is wrong

Not when a goal is scored. In that instance any contact with the hand is handball.

This is the key phrase...

Any goal scored or created with the use of the hand or arm will be disallowed this season even if it is accidental.

That usuros all the other points about silhouettes and deflections... those are for defensive handballs. That is how the law is interpreted.

 

[wizadry]

Not one Brighton player claimed for it, that’s what makes decisions like today, rules like this and VAR a right load of bollocks.

 

[penthouseblade]

It's clear as day, it comes off someone else in front of him, but then he moves his arm into it (assume the change in direction makes his moving his arm out of the way into a karate chop) but yeah, clear handball, thankfully didn't cost us.

View attachment 66934
View attachment 66935

I've seen it!! I stand corrected......Bounced in off Egan's left hand. Christ, maybe it's my age, who knows, it still wasn't "clear and obvious" …...

 

[nicksufc]

It's not wrong when it comes to attackers.

Any contact with the hand from the attacker that leads to a goal leads to the goal being ruled out (assuming they see it).

Antonio had one ruled out the other day for it.

Defensive handballs still have other things applied, like intent, position, defection, distance from kick etc.

Also those are IFAB rules, which are not universally followed by the Premier League I believe.

I thought the Premier League actually stated they were going to be a bit more liberal with those rules, ie not dishing out penalties for any contact with the hand in the box

 

[bromtom]

I thought the Premier League actually stated they were going to be a bit more liberal with those rules, ie not dishing out penalties for any contact with the hand in the box

There's one rule for attacking handballs and one rule for defensive handballs.

They can be liberal when it comes to penalty incidents, as there is still room in those rules for context, distance from the ball when hit, silhouette, intent etc.

They can't be liberal with goal scoring incidents as their rules state any attacking phase of play leading to a goal which contains a handball, will mean the goal is disallowed. It's black and white.

The rule is too harsh, and they may change it next season, but this season, the shout on Egan was 100% correct, and "clear and obvious" doesn't apply either.

 

[Bladepicker]

I thought the Premier League actually stated they were going to be a bit more liberal with those rules, ie not dishing out penalties for any contact with the hand in the box

Yes thst defensive handballs... i.e. conceding a penalty.

Attacking handbslls are always a foul if leading to a goal.

The actual law:

Handball
Law 12
Changes
• Deliberate handball remains an offence
• The following ‘handball’ situations, even if accidental, will be a free kick:
• the ball goes into the goal after touching an attacking player’s hand/arm
• a player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm
and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity
• the ball touches a player’s hand/arm which has made their body unnaturally
bigger
• the ball touches a player’s hand/arm when it is above their shoulder (unless the
player has deliberately played the ball which then touches their hand/arm)

The following will not usually be a free kick, unless they are one of the above
situations:
• the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or
the head/body/foot of another player who is close/near
• the ball touches a player’s hand/arm which is close to their body and has not
made their body unnaturally bigger
•if a player is falling and the ball touches their hand/arm when it is between their
body and the ground to support the body (but not extended to make the body
bigger)
•If the goalkeeper attempts to ‘clear’ (release into play) a throw-in or deliberate
kick from a team-mate but the ‘clearance’ fails, the goalkeeper can then handle
the ball.

As you can see the interpretations about intent or deflections are ONLY if it isnt one of the top situations.

Shitty I know, but it was correctly disallowed.

 

[PokerBlade]

Did we have a lot of trouble with attackers handling the ball and no one being able to tell if it was deliberate or not? It's a rule change that's given defending teams an advantage but doesn't really benefit the game as a spectator sport. It is, however, something that the VAR can spot. And a more conspiratorial person might think they altered the rules just so VAR gets more chances to make correct decisions...

As for VAR, it ruled out a goal that would've been legal this time last season and nobody would've objected to. And it got correct several decisions that the referee and assistants had already got correct without it. But it did slow down the game unnecessarily, and I think we'd all love more stoppages and a slower game.

 

[Freethinker]

Got everything correct today, no complaints from me.

Bollocks

 

[Ranmoorblade]

What VAR should be doing is turning over penalties like Man City got. Sterling clearly dived to get that penalty and he should have been booked.

 

[Keen Blade]

Egan just needs lightening reactions to keep his hands & arms off the ball - that corner today would have gone in off his chest + been a goal

 

[Keen Blade]

And Didsy needs to take a leaf out of Basham's book + tackle the ball into the net , like Bash did at Leeds

 

[CaptainMorgans]

What VAR should be doing is turning over penalties like Man City got. Sterling clearly dived to get that penalty and he should have been booked.

Bizarrely this didn't get highlighted by any pundits or commentators. The trailing leg is so unnatural. Ridiculous.

 

[Yewsman]

at Norwich the ball clearly hit an attackers hand then fell to Tetty who scored. This was not ruled out by VAR. Why?
Totally inconsistent

 

[Bladepicker]

Bollocks

What did VAR get wrong?

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

Plus, not one complaint from any player or fan. Until the slow mo 5 times.
I know it's the 'new rule' , but this its football anymore.

 

[Gulpy]

You sure on that? All the commentators and pundits believe that we’re all clear that the law is that if the ball touches the hand it’s handball

Under those rules, an attacker could simply try to fire the ball at a defenders arm from close range to win a penalty. So I think he is right in saying that the new rules only apply to instances where a goal is scored due to a handball.

 

[Champagneblade]

You'd think that inserting 'if a significant advantage is then gained' would be a better interpretation.

Lunny vs Spurs, even if we set aside questions of the frame, blurring, the line etc, did he gain a significant advantage have his foot one inch further forward? Not at all.

In this case, the ball already hit his groin and was going in. Touching his fingernail made no significant impact to what was already going to be a goal. With this fantastic technology they supposedly have, can't they take the trajectory of the ball, confirm no defensive obstacles in place and in cases like yesterday confirm no advantage was sought by brushing his fingertips?

These are rulings followed to the letter foregoing the original intention of the rules. I.e. don't stand miles offside and don't control the ball with your hands. Neither of these occurred.

If you're going to be a smartarse with the technology then at least update the rules and be a proper smartarse!

 

[bromtom]

You'd think that inserting 'if a significant advantage is then gained' would be a better interpretation.

Lunny vs Spurs, even if we set aside questions of the frame, blurring, the line etc, did he gain a significant advantage have his foot one inch further forward? Not at all.

In this case, the ball already hit his groin and was going in. Touching his fingernail made no significant impact to what was already going to be a goal. With this fantastic technology they supposedly have, can't they take the trajectory of the ball, confirm no defensive obstacles in place and in cases like yesterday confirm no advantage was sought by brushing his fingertips?

These are rulings followed to the letter foregoing the original intention of the rules. I.e. don't stand miles offside and don't control the ball with your hands. Neither of these occurred.

If you're going to be a smartarse with the technology then at least update the rules and be a proper smartarse!

Wasn't his fingertips though in this case, it was a full on swipe, moved his arm toward it and his arm fully directed it in. If it'd been scored against us and it stood, I'd be well pissed off. I don't think the thigh hit was going in, seemed to be going up and to the side of him, so if it was going in, the best bet would've been from JOC behind him getting a tap in, he was too high to score really, ball was crotch height. To be honest in this case, I'd be more concerned with Egan handballing in a potentially game changing way for the second game in a row.

As for your trajectory suggestion, no they can't unless you want VAR reviews to take 25 minutes.

 

[JimPhipps]

Referee gave the goal, so had to be ‘clear and obvious’ to overrule it - I’ve watched it 6 times now and still can’t tell whether he handled it or not! If VAR is to have a chance of winning people round, they should be forced to release the actual footage that convinced them that the ref’s decision was wrong.

Right hand was behind him. Ball bounced off his body. No clear or convincing evidence showing unlawful contact of any kind. It's not the new handball rule, it's VAR and it's atrocious and moronic.

 

[grafikhaus]

Right hand was behind him. Ball bounced off his body. No clear or convincing evidence showing unlawful contact of any kind. It's not the new handball rule, it's VAR and it's atrocious and moronic.

Not a single Brighton player appealed about Egan's 'goal'. So much for 'clear and obvious'.

The Liverpool v Flamengo game showed VAR applied to the letter of the law with Liverpool's late 'penalty'. The ref. had several looks at it and went over to the pitchside monitor to check. Was it a penalty? Was the initial contact in or outside the box?

The ref. made his decision. Uncontested bounce-up to Flamengo. A bottle job and utter madness.

 

[itsinyerblood]

I know I'm adding little to what's already been said, but where VAR falls down with an indisputable thud is where the question of intent matters.

Intent was always the reason why decisions were or were not given. Now someone has decided that even if the ball unintentionally touches a hand, or even an arm, then the decision goes against the player even if it's clear that wasn't his intent.

At what point did a bureaucrat decide that intent was no longer relevant, and instead it should be replaced by a blanket decision that removes the intentional from the unintentional. Removing this aspect of play and replacing it with something that removes all possibility of innocence or cheating is plainly barmy at best, imbecilic at worst.

 

[bromtom]

Not a single Brighton player appealed about Egan's 'goal'. So much for 'clear and obvious'.

The Liverpool v Flamengo game showed VAR applied to the letter of the law with Liverpool's late 'penalty'. The ref. had several looks at it and went over to the pitchside monitor to check. Was it a penalty? Was the initial contact in or outside the box?

The ref. made his decision. Uncontested bounce-up to Flamengo. A bottle job and utter madness.

Clear and obvious isn't a thing for attacking handballs in the Premier League. It's yes or no and it clearly hit Egan's arm.

 

[bromtom]

I know I'm adding little to what's already been said, but where VAR falls down with an indisputable thud is where the question of intent matters.

Intent was always the reason why decisions were or were not given. Now someone has decided that even if the ball unintentionally touches a hand, or even an arm, then the decision goes against the player even if it's clear that wasn't his intent.

At what point did a bureaucrat decide that intent was no longer relevant, and instead it should be replaced by a blanket decision that removes the intentional from the unintentional. Removing this aspect of play and replacing it with something that removes all possibility of innocence or cheating is plainly barmy at best, imbecilic at worst.

When the referees got too shit to be trusted. They're trying to get some of the wildly unpredictable refereeing decisions out of the game.

 

[itsinyerblood]

When the referees got too shit to be trusted. They're trying to get some of the wildly unpredictable refereeing decisions out of the game.

Tom, it's a game where human decision making will always cause debate, so to sanitise every possible situation that can possibly be disputed is to remove good decisions as well as bad. The fact that VAR seems to cause weekly disputes suggests that it's no better or worse than the referees you mention, so we're left with a system that costs a fortune and contributes little in terms of progress, leaving the majority of supporters baffled by the decision making that's employed.

Whatever the pros and cons that surround referees, and I agree that they need help in certain situations, my preference is that referees should be allowed to officiate with, where necessary, the help of the fourth official that was brought in to do this exact job. It may not be perfect, but is it any less effective than what we've seen from VAR up until this part of the season.....the answer appears to be that all we've received from VAR is controversy, most of which divides opinion and remains unconvincing in it's application.