Denmark v Tunisia

[littlebabyjesus]

Anyone watching?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Tunisia cling on. Entertaining nil nil.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Common sense handball reffing. What's going on?

 

[Petcha]

That was a clear penalty

 

[Petcha]

It didn't just hit one hand, it hit both!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That was a clear penalty

Nah. And he didn't give the other one either, so evens out imo.

 

[Petcha]

Terrible ref. There's a battalion of people sitting in that VAR box. I don't think they'd call him over unless they all thought there was a very good case.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Hartson had a point about consistency, but at least this ref was consistent within this game.

 

[Petcha]

Nah. And he didn't give the other one either, so evens out imo.

Right. So as long he's consistent in not applying the rules of the game that's ok then.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Right. So as long he's consistent in not applying the rules of the game that's ok then.

Handball rule is still a dog's dinner. It's not ball to hand or hand to ball any more. Now it's 'is the arm in a natural position?' and defenders with their arms behind their backs half the time just in case. Either way, there's still a big grey area open to an individual ref's interpretation.

tbh I think it's just one of those rules that you can't get 100% right.

 

[strung out]

Right. So as long he's consistent in not applying the rules of the game that's ok then.

Do you know what the handball law actually is? Because the way you're reacting, it seems not.

 

[Petcha]

Do you know what the handball law actually is? Because the way you're reacting, it seems not.

No, clearly I don't. And neither do the 8 officials crowded around screens in the VAR room. Who clearly thought it was a pen. I agree with littlebabyjesus, it's a very hard rule to interpret but for me that was clearly a penalty. Anyway. All done now.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Pat Nevin thinks no pen:

No penalty there, the referee has got that right. It came off his chest and then hit his arm. What a horrible, unfair end to the game that would have been if it had been given. The referee has had a very good game.

I agree. He played lots of advantage as well. Both teams wanted to play and the ref wanted to let them play. Good stuff.

 

[strung out]

No, clearly I don't. And neither do the 8 officials crowded around screens in the VAR room. Who clearly thought it was a pen. I agree with littlebabyjesus, it's a very hard rule to interpret but for me that was clearly a penalty. Anyway. All done now.

Why do you think the VAR officials thought it was a pen? Just because they invited the ref to take a look doesn't mean shit all.

 

[Athos]

Law 12
...

HANDLING THE BALL

For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence.

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
• scores in the opponents' goal:
  • directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
  • immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental

The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but there is no disciplinary sanction. However, if the offence is playing the ball a second time (with or without the hand/arm) after a restart before it touches another player, the goalkeeper must be sanctioned if the offence stops a promising attack or denies an opponent or the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.

...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Law 12
...

HANDLING THE BALL

For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence.

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
• scores in the opponents' goal:
  • directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
  • immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental

The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but there is no disciplinary sanction. However, if the offence is playing the ball a second time (with or without the hand/arm) after a restart before it touches another player, the goalkeeper must be sanctioned if the offence stops a promising attack or denies an opponent or the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity.

...

So it's hand to ball or accidental but arm is considered to be in an unnatural place. I would argue that both the incidents in this game failed to meet those criteria.

 

[Athos]

So it's hand to ball or accidental but arm is considered to be in an unnatural place. I would argue that both the incidents in this game failed to meet those criteria.

Not seen them.

 

[Petcha]

Why do you think the VAR officials thought it was a pen? Just because they invited the ref to take a look doesn't mean shit all.

9 times out of 10 if they summon the ref it's coz they think he got it wrong. It's a very grey area but I'm sure if that happened in an England game there'd be outcries. They took about 5 minutes looking at it before summoning him, he spent about 20 seconds at the screen.

A nothing game anyway, although entertaining. Onwards.

 

[Petcha]

This is from the Guardian commentary thing anyway. Which might explain it.

On that non-penalty, from my esteemed colleague Philip Cornwall: “I think the no penalty call was not because of the handball, but because of a Denmark playing shoving a Tunisian beforehand. That’s why it restarted with a Tunisia free-kick. Jensen shoves someone over with an arm in the back.”

On ITV, rentaref Peter Walton is rattling on about it not being a handball. He’ll probably change his opinion later to suit events, as is his way.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

This is from the Guardian commentary thing anyway. Which might explain it.

Fair dos. I missed that. A pragmatically discovered foul. There's always pushing in the pen area.

I still think there's an argument it wasn't a pen, but I also think the rule for it isn't really adequate.