Handball ref? Ref?

Status
Not open for further replies.
….not sure anybody knows the rules but from what I read, last nights incident wasn’t even referred to VAR.

it might be more about the club involved than the rule.
Afaik VAR officials didnt ask the ref to review it as they thought his arms were by his side. Its another case of VAR referring the game instead of the ref.

I would imagine they spent the time reviewing if the ball crossed the line (which isnt their role) and the hand ball was an after thought.
 
Defo but nah I meant if someone was flying in to bury it on the rebound but it knocked off Robinson's hand in the same way it did, reckon it would've been given as a pen?

Not sure. Leaning towards a no still cause its Everton. Was fuming no one was following it up. Just stood there.
 
Afaik VAR officials didnt ask the ref to review it as they thought his arms were by his side. Its another case of VAR referring the game instead of the ref.

I would imagine they spent the time reviewing if the ball crossed the line (which isnt their role) and the hand ball was an after thought.
I don't get it, surely the ref was reffing the game when he didn't give the penalty?

I absolutely buy into the notion that big clubs are given decisions that wouldn't be given for other clubs, it's obvious to me, and I do think there is something about Everton which means we don't get decisions. But all this that was a penalty so this was a penalty so that was a penalty in a search for 'consistency' is absolutely ridiculous to me. It gets in the way of finding a solution to the real problem.

Last night's wasn't an obvious penalty so once the ref didn't give it the VAR wasn't going to overturn it. In this case it worked like they say it should. I don't think it's a penalty.
 

When they cleared it off the line, it was only travelling over the line because it came of Robinsons outstretched hand.
Thanks. That was down the other end of the pitch. Looked like an almighty scramble of bodies so missed the handball
 
I don't get it, surely the ref was reffing the game when he didn't give the penalty?

I absolutely buy into the notion that big clubs are given decisions that wouldn't be given for other clubs, it's obvious to me, and I do think there is something about Everton which means we don't get decisions. But all this that was a penalty so this was a penalty so that was a penalty in a search for 'consistency' is absolutely ridiculous to me. It gets in the way of finding a solution to the real problem.

Last night's wasn't an obvious penalty so once the ref didn't give it the VAR wasn't going to overturn it. In this case it worked like they say it should. I don't think it's a penalty.
Its my understanding that its not VARs role to make that call. They are supposed to draw the refs attention to a possible penalty and let the ref decide.

Now the ref can say he saw it and was happy it wasnt a penalty but the decision is supposed to be made by the ref on the pitch. There is no suggestion to my knowledge that a conversation took place between VAR officialsand the ref last night. Going off the reports of journalists at the game it was VAR who made the decision.

Think of our disallowed goal at Spurs. Ref and lino let it play, VAR drew his attention to a possible foul and allowed the ref make the call on the pitch.

Its the inconsistency and seeming willingness of refs to defer to VAR as the decision makers, with very few refs standing by their own decisions.
 
Its my understanding that its not VARs role to make that call. They are supposed to draw the refs attention to a possible penalty and let the ref decide.

Now the ref can say he saw it and was happy it wasnt a penalty but the decision is supposed to be made by the ref on the pitch. There is no suggestion to my knowledge that a conversation took place between VAR officialsand the ref last night. Going off the reports of journalists at the game it was VAR who made the decision.

Think of our disallowed goal at Spurs. Ref and lino let it play, VAR drew his attention to a possible foul and allowed the ref make the call on the pitch.

Its the inconsistency and seeming willingness of refs to defer to VAR as the decision makers, with very few refs standing by their own decisions.
That isn't how it works. The ref makes the call at the time, in both yesterday's game and the Spurs match the ref felt there was no offense committed. The VAR decides if there has been a clear and obvious error, and clearly yesterday decided there wasn't. They wouldn't have discussed it with the ref.

When the VAR has decided there has been a clear and obvious error they'll tell the ref, who will go over to the screen and look. There's virtually no point to this because the ref will practically always agree that there is a clear and obvious error, probably because if they make a decision to stick with their original decision at this point the media repercussions for them could be huge. They do however have the final call, so can disagree with the VAR and stick with their decision.

It definitely isn't the VAR asking the ref to 'have another look'.
 

They were crapping on in commentary that he didn't have time to get his hand out of the way. Now, their very quick to give them normally if a cross is drilled in and the players arms are not tucked into the body basically.

Chalk this one up as another one we've been dudded out of IMO.
Onana had loads of time to get his hand out of the way v City too eh?
 
Commentary team I was listening to said a VAR check was in progress and then check was complete.

I actually don’t think it was a pen tbh, the ball was bouncing away from the goal and by hitting his arm it was almost an own goal but for his teammates clearance (almost certain I previously heard Howard Webb mention that trajectory of the ball is taken into consideration).

If the ball was goalbound and hit him, sure, but I’d have been annoyed if that went against us.


“check is complete…no penalty for Everton” is what they said on the broadcast I was watching.
 
According to the Echo and then image from SportsBible (pic credit to the Premier League):

However, the officials overseeing the technology did not believe referee Thomas Bramall should review the call because his arm was considered to be by his side, a controversial decision given the distance it was from his body. An update was issued some time later to add that the contact was considered to be accidental but that explanation will still be questioned by a club and its supporters that have been left outraged by the decisions that have gone against it this season and over previous years.

----------------------
1706708649344.png

----------------------
So, when did "accidental" come into the equation? And is his arm by his side? You be the judge...
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top