Next game. Will go into Gillesphey's position.

I found it a more disappointing game than others this season. We were particularly bad in a whole heap of ways - very similar to that first half against Victory in lack of game control and intensity, but worse in terms of outright mistakes. Good thing is we are unlikely to be quite so bad next time we play (regardless of who it is against).

I agree we were lucky with the handball call. I am glad it wasn't handball though - doing everything you can to avoid the ball when it is kicked at you should never have been built into the rules as a handball like that.

We were lucky the games not officiated by keyboard warriors who don’t know the rules. 

I can’t believe you don’t know the rules. You’re normally good on that stuff ... 

Number 1 rule is waz is alright right, anybody who disagrees is wrong it seems.......................

The reason I am good at it is I don't know the rules inside out - so I look them up each time. I have many years of experience interpreting legislation and the like, and I am good at it. Do me a favour and seriously read the following explanation. I am happy to have anything wrong pointed out (always) but I can't see any other way to interpret what is written.

You are quoting one part of the laws in isolation and it is giving you the wrong answer. The parts before your quote include:

It is an offence if a player:
- touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
  the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger (This is the law that gets considered in this case)
  the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)

The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is
close. (This says it does not matter if they are close or has come off someone else - if the hand/arm made the body bigger it is handball.

Except for the above offences,(This means if they have not committed the offence above, you can read on) it is not an offence if the ball touches a
player’s hand/arm:
- directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close

The law is very clear - if the hand/arm has made the body unnaturally bigger in the circumstances we saw in our game it is handball and you do not get to include proximity or a deflection in your decision.

Looking at the IFAB Laws of 2018/19 it included words and concepts about "intent" for handball. They have completely removed that word from the 20/21 IFAB Laws. The rule now is "Make your body bigger or have your arms above shoulder height and that is considered deliberate handball. Keep your arms down and you are safe".

We are lucky because his arm was away from his body, and even though he tried not to get hit his body was arguably bigger because of his arm placement. Under the black and white rule, that is handball. The definition of "unnaturally bigger" is the only thing that can have saved us. Lucas has not been sure where the hand/arm was at the moment of contact so he has not called it handball. VAR can only legally have changed the decision if it was a clear and obvious error (I am very sketchy on VAR rules so could be wrong on that) and in real time they can't have considered it to be so obvious.

Had it not been in the box, I would suggest that Lucas would have called it handball since there was not the same ramifications of calling it wrong. He erred on the side of caution - which I think is right since we don't want refs guessing what they think happens.

Good explanation re the wording of the law. This part of the law is written in a cumbersome way, so you need to go through it carefully and thoroughly as just reading parts of it in isolation can lead to the wrong conclusion.

Unfortunately IFAB make it almost impossible to follow the laws and issue clarifications that direct the refs to go against what is written in the laws (or more correctly IFAB re-write the laws to try and reflect what refs are actually doing but this changes how refs interprets the laws so they issue clarifications to try and get the refs to go back to how they were calling things) .

the clarification to the handball laws from IFAB at the start of the the season was that in determining "unnaturally bigger" the ref should take into account the situation (the clearest example is when a player jumps their arms will go away from their body and this is not "unnaturally bigger") as opposed to the season before when the interpretation was that the body has a "natural silhouette" and if your arm is outside that "natural silhouette" then it is a handball no matter if you are jumping or sliding. 

in the case on the weekend the situation was that the ball was cleared from close range at him his hand was away from his body yes but it was still in a natural position for the situation (he is trying to not get hit by the clearance) so it is not a handball. 

the latest clarification from IFAB on march 5th should actually put this interpretation into the laws of the game for next season ."intent" was removed in 2019 but it moved to the refs interpretation of  "justifiable movement/positioning"

it was confirmed that referees should continue to use their judgment in determining the validity of the hand/arm’s position in relation to the player’s movement in that specific situation.
Following this clarification, it is a handball 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. 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
• 
  
• 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. 
• 
  
• - scores in the opponents’ goal:
• - directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper; or
• - immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental.

Beautiful! When that gets in it looks like it makes the written rules quite clear and sensible again.

Thanks for that.

Footnote to the latest change: If a defending player does a 'superman' dive to block a shot then their arms extended out in front of them is a justifiable position for the move being attempted.

I would hate to be a ref.

I would guess that a superman dive is not a "justifiable movement" to play the ball. 

I think next seasons rules if they actually end up being written that way should be getting closer to the spirit of the game IE dont deliberately play the ball with your hands. 

now if IFAB could please sort out the mess that offside have become, and the league get rid of VAR. 

Whatever it says and whatever everyone thinks it alludes too....I still think refs make their own interpretations on intentional or not however it's written. Maybe that's a good thing?
The offside rules are a whole other story.
Ive seen players unnecessarily injured because of when the flag is raised. 
One of the overriding and important duties of the ref is player safety. 
Its a whole other discussion. 

If the spirit of the law was to avoid deliberate handball, and not to worry about reasonable ball to hand, then refs making up their mind based on what they see is a very good thing.

this season (and from next season) the refs making up their own interpretation of intentional has sort of been what IFAB wanted with their clarifications. as opposed to the season before where they had strict definition of a natural silhouette which was universally panned as a terrible interpretation. 

Careful, you’ll be labelled as not being a Roar supporter by Waz.

It's quite clear that the rules are so convoluted that there will be errors such as the one in our game. Rules have become so hard to follow that it's hard to know what is what anymore and this will lead to the refs having far more inconsistency, even with video evidence to help. 

for 100 or so years it was pretty simple.  Did he deliberately handball it?

I can accept the  change which makes it a free kick, if it results in a goal or possibly even a goal scoring opportunity.

The rest is just absolute nonsense.  Aimed at trying to please everyone in circumstances where it is impossible to please everyone and fix what is often poor decisions (in a world where it is impossible to fix poor decisions).  They should just have left it exactly as it was for the first 100 years.

On the actual incident, it looked a clear handball at the time and i am surprised the ref didnt award the penalty.  To be honest, i didnt think it was all that close proximity, he was just too slow to move his hand.  Still, the ref obviously made the call on whether or not it was deliberate. The video ref obviously backing it up.  The rule, which now technically says it doesnt matter whether it is deliberate or not, means it should have been overruled.  But this is what happens when you put in stupid rules that you need a phd to understand and remember. How can a ref or var be expected to consider this rule and study it, in the middle of the game to understand its meaning.  You cant do that in half a second so instead you have refs half interpreting things with a rule that tries to get the same interpretation every time in every game.  It simply doesnt work.      

And while we are talking about recent ridiculous rule changes, I have one more that has been driving me mad for weeks. 

Leaving aside how poorly the VAR is implemented (the worst of any sport i can think of).  I agree with the principle they are trying to do, ie ref makes the call and it is only overruled when a clear and obvious error. 

So, with that being said, for 100 years the offside rule was pretty simple.  The linesman flags when a player is offside, and the ref considers this and if he agrees he blows the whistle.  The player, meanwhile, plays to the referees whistle and if he doesnt blow it, it doesnt matter.  So, with that being said, what possible reason is there, for a linesman to keep his flag down so VAR can make a decision as seems to be the instruction this year.  Surely, the linesman can simply flag the offside, the ref hold out on blowing the whistle and play continues. That way everyone knows what is happening and the VAR only rules if it is a clear and obvious answer. 

Once again no need to change what worked for 100 years.  And the changes just convolute things and make the officials jobs more complicated.


 

This decision I understand. They are saying a clear and obvious error is an offside goal or a goal that might have been except for a clear and obviously wrong offside call.

I think the best use of VAR is to look at it in real time, as the game progresses, and see if anyone is glaringly offside. So we don't wait 30 seconds or longer for calibration and analysis even though that gives the black or white offside call - instead we allow for the margin of error that exists in live sport and if VAR picks up a very bad call either way they advise the ref.

Will still be errors - just not clear and obvious ones.

the problem with that is that the ref is almost never in a position to overrule the lineman with offside so the the whistle should be blown pretty much as soon as the flag is raised. the players have almost never continued to play once they have seen the flag go up, so now, with VAR, you get into the position that happens often, where the AR calls an offside incorrectly, stops the play and takes away a possible goal scoring opportunity. if he keeps the flag down until the play is concluded then you get basically the same result as you want, play continues without interruption, when the play is concluded then if it was an error the VAR can overrule. 

that is actually an implementation that i agree with. If you are going to have VAR then the offside call has to be made at the end of the play otherwise you will effect the play itself  (either the attacker will stop the attack or the defender will stop defending). the one that I hate is when a player is clearly offside, and is the only player going for a ball, is clearly going to play at it but they have to keep the flag down until he touches it. just flag it, it is clear that there is no other outcome except offside so why wait. 

The Referees boss clarified it pretty well which I posted the link too - The correct decision was no hand ball because of the proximity of the player - keep arguing but you’re arguing against a correct interpretation of the law). 

(and it’s been that way for decades - a player close to the person who launched the ball is not pinged for handball because it would be unfair to do so when they simply have no time to get out of the way). 

Or, or, not understanding the laws of the game. 

Jai Ingham has been released. 
Hasn't really offered much for us. But of a waste of our money and his time. Maybe we see someone take him up. But I find both Ingham brothers uninspiring players.

Waz - attacking me if someone else has a go at you is not exactly constructive.

The referee explanation you quoted said:
and did not make himself “unnaturally bigger”

If you had genuinely read what I wrote you would see that I had concluded that to be the only way it could be named as no handball in the circumstances.

When I said:
"The law is very clear - if the hand/arm has made the body unnaturally bigger in the circumstances we saw in our game it is handball and you do not get to include proximity or a deflection in your decision."
I was not wrong.

Your consideration of proximity is not relevant under the laws as they are written (even if you dispute that) - it is the interpretation of "unnaturally bigger" that counts for everything.

I still think we are lucky they did not consider his arm being away from his body to be unnatural in a football sense - and I am still glad they decided that trying to get out of the way helps the case.

On a personal level I publicly acknowledge how much effort you put into the RSF, and into football generally. I have nowhere near your expertise with the game and don't pretend to. I do not always agree with you but I have not yet stooped to taking shots at you other than in good fun (which I think you know).

Happy to argue with you till the cows come home.

I find both Ingham's physically 'look' like they don't know what they are doing in games - even when they are doing the right thing.

I fit them both in the good squaddie group and, as always, every club needs some of them to make up the squad.

They both do really good things at times, and both do hideous things at times - but both add something to squads without being first team standouts with any consistency.

I do not think him going will hurt us (till we play him next and he has a blinder), but I wish him all the best wherever he goes next.

Hang on .....

The Referee didn’t think it was handball. 

The way Roar play doesnt suit Jai Ingham.
In a team with fast counter attacks and good playmakers  ,he has shown he can score.But slower teams that require the attackers to create and wing backs to lob in crosses,like Roar,there is little he can do except pass.
Time will tell if Kudo fits the way Roar play also.

When Jai joined Victory, it looked promising. He had pace and directness. He never quote went on from there. 

Suggest you both call time on this one. 

Happy to :)

Done