Ollie Watkins

[Stevo985]

6 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

In that position I *think* it doesn’t matter whether it’s deliberate / unnatural / or has any bearing on whether he controls it. Any touch in build up to goal is no goal, even if it’s just glancing a finger or something?

Correct. As above, if it hit his hand it's handball. Those are the current rules.

They're mental. But those are the rules

[LondonLax]

I don’t think the rule is even that big of a deal. It is much simpler to just say that any touch of the ball with the hand when scoring a goal is a handball. Having to get the ref to make an interpretation makes it much more inconsistent. 

Then you get the other cases where the handball is in the build up where you do have to make an interpretation about things like ‘natural position’ or ‘intention to play the ball’ etc. 

I think it is mostly frustration that we had two great goals ruled out but it’s more just bad luck, the rules don’t really need to change. 

[Rightdm00]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

I don't agree that the Onana hand ball was far more harsh. The right decision was very obviously made.

But I do agree with why the ref was sent to the screen for that one and not the Watkins one.

 

With the way the rules are, if VAR sees the ball hit Watkins' hand then the goal is disallowed. There is no grey area. Ball hits hand, goal doesn't stand.

With Onana, some discretion can be used, hence the ref needs to look at it to make a decision. I still think it was overkill to send him to the screen as it was such an obvious handball, but that would be why

I think most are misunderstanding why the ref was sent to the monitor for the Onana handball. It wasn't for determination of a handball. That part is obvious. The ref was trying to determine two things, did the attacker gain an advantage with the inadvertent handball and if the handball was in the same phase of play as the goal.  Of course, that's me using the IFAB rules on VAR. Without the refs explaining their decision there will always be a massive gray area in what actually ruled out the goal. 

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, Rightdm00 said:

I think most are misunderstanding why the ref was sent to the monitor for the Onana handball. It wasn't for determination of a handball. That part is obvious. The ref was trying to determine two things, did the attacker gain an advantage with the inadvertent handball and if the handball was in the same phase of play as the goal.  Of course, that's me using the IFAB rules on VAR. Without the refs explaining their decision there will always be a massive gray area in what actually ruled out the goal. 

Yeah exactly. That's what i was getting at. There is a decision for the ref to make in that scenario

With the Watkins one, if it hit his hand then there's no decision to make. It's handball

[Vive_La_Villa]

13 minutes ago, Rightdm00 said:

I think most are misunderstanding why the ref was sent to the monitor for the Onana handball. It wasn't for determination of a handball. That part is obvious. The ref was trying to determine two things, did the attacker gain an advantage with the inadvertent handball and if the handball was in the same phase of play as the goal.  Of course, that's me using the IFAB rules on VAR. Without the refs explaining their decision there will always be a massive gray area in what actually ruled out the goal. 

Correct me if I'm wrong but when they showed us the screen he only looked at the handball several times and not what happened next. That's why it was a bit strange. 
 

The Ollie one I still don't get how they can give that handball unless they are using sound technology they used in Euros. Anybody know if they are ?

Edited 7 hours ago by Vive_La_Villa