Refereeing Inconsistencies

[joewarkfanclub]

I thought the referee was poor today. Reminded me of a young Willie Collum.

That said he wasnt any worse than some of the others we have had.

Thankfully we got the 3 points so it didnt matter.

[weeyin]

Ref was very inconsistent and, while I am obviously biased, thought he was worse for us. 

I hate the current hand-ball, but will grudgingly accept a pen against us if it falls within the nonsenical guidelines.

However, when the ball hits the hand of a player whose elbow is tucked against his side, that should never be a pen.

[wellsince75]

Until yesterday I thought the handball rule was much better managed this season .

Given humans have hands , if the ball is blasted from short range there’s little anyone could do . Poor show on var for first one .

great spot on second - think they were working hard to make up for the earlier error .

[santheman]

3 hours ago, wellsince75 said:

Until yesterday I thought the handball rule was much better managed this season .

Given humans have hands , if the ball is blasted from short range there’s little anyone could do . Poor show on var for first one .

great spot on second - think they were working hard to make up for the earlier error .

Not even a mention of the penalty on Soortscene.

I defy anyone to get out of the road when a ball is blasted at you from 2 yards away and you're moving towards the ball.

 

[Kmcalpin]

2 minutes ago, santheman said:

Not even a mention of the penalty on Soortscene.

I defy anyone to get out of the road when a ball is blasted at you from 2 yards away and you're moving towards the ball.

Yes, I noticed that. No controversy obviously!

Never a penalty in my book. That decision turned the course of the game but fortunately not the result. Saints do have a record for getting erroneous penalties against us though.

[Orinoco]

Not just us. They had a very soft penalty awarded last week! 

To not highlight the penalty only adds to fan frustrations. Mind you I'm sure wee willie will be along to tell us that we are all wrong and it was a stonewaller. 

You would think having more cameras at the game would help the referees. Surely more footage to study, do they study?, would aid consistancy. 

These decisions change games, and costs managers jobs. 

The fact the two side assistants and referee missed a punch into the net, is probably more a worry. Just as well VAR did what it's ment to do, ie clear and obvious.

[Spiderpig]

18 minutes ago, Kmcalpin said:

Yes, I noticed that. No controversy obviously!

Never a penalty in my book. That decision turned the course of the game but fortunately not the result. Saints do have a record for getting erroneous penalties against us though.

Sportscene showed the close up, Hallidays elbow is tight to his body as was his right hand that the ball hit, fired at him from less than a yard, a complete disgrace to award a pen for that,  shocking decision.

And then we saw the good side of VAR, in spotting the St J player handling the ball into the net on 91 mins.

There were not many consistent refereeing  decisions on show yesterday and the sad thing is nobody is surprised.

[wellfan]

When the ball is booted at your hand from 2 feet away, it should never be a foul, unless it denies a goal or leads to a goal, maybe?! It’s not deliberate, regardless.

Halliday didn’t do himself any favours, however, by turning his back to the ball and raising his hand, regardless of his arm/elbow being tucked in. It gives the idiot refs a decision to make.

The bottom line is that it’s a stupid rule that’s not fit for the realities of the game. And the referees apply different interpretations of that rule every week, which is worsened by the interventions of VAR. It’s utterly ridiculous and having Collum at the helm won’t change a thing for the better.

 

[Ya Bezzer!]

30 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

Sportscene showed the close up, Hallidays elbow is tight to his body as was his right hand that the ball hit, fired at him from less than a yard, a complete disgrace to award a pen for that,  shocking decision.

He move his hand in an upward motion.  If you move your hand towards the ball it's always going to be a penalty.  

Well maybe not against Rangers and Celtic but almost always!

[Big Wispy Flossy]

5 minutes ago, Ya Bezzer! said:

He move his hand in an upward motion.  If you move your hand towards the ball it's always going to be a penalty.  

Well maybe not against Rangers and Celtic but almost always!

Agreed, it’s a penalty by today’s rules, though as you say good luck getting similar at Ibrox or parkhead

[weeyin]

32 minutes ago, Ya Bezzer! said:

He move his hand in an upward motion.  If you move your hand towards the ball it's always going to be a penalty.  

Well maybe not against Rangers and Celtic but almost always!

I'm no physicist, but I'm pretty sure the ball was moved towards him at great velocity first.

[Stuwell2]

Thought it was a penalty all day long, thought Halliday’s hand was up beside his face and if it had been the other way I’d have been expecting a penalty. 
will check the highlights and correct if I’m wrong. 

[joewarkfanclub]

The only thing Halliday is guilty of imho is not wanting to he smacked in the face with the ball.

He turns his back to stop himself being hurt and the rotation brings his arm up towards his face (possibly trying to protect it).

I dont think he makes his body bigger and the ball wasnt going in.

Last season it was a penalty all day long due to the idiotic rules.

This season we were supposed to have re-evaluated and raised the threshold, resulting in far fewer decisions like yesterdays.

You can definitely make a case for it being a penalty if you choose to, but I thought we had moved on.

 

[Kmcalpin]

1 hour ago, joewarkfanclub said:

The only thing Halliday is guilty of imho is not wanting to he smacked in the face with the ball.

He turns his back to stop himself being hurt and the rotation brings his arm up towards his face (possibly trying to protect it).

I dont think he makes his body bigger and the ball wasnt going in.

Thats exactly my take on it Joe. A simple attempt to protect himself, no more no less.

On a related matter, St Johnstone's chalked off goal. I'm not sure exactly what happened but reports suggest that Sanders punched or guided the ball into the net with his hand. If true, I suspect he wouldn't have owned up? Now if a defender stops a certain goal with his hand or arm deliberately, he would be red carded, unless your name is Mark Reynolds. That being the case shouldn't an attacker who deliberately punches/pushes the ball into the net with his arm/hand also be red carded?

Just a thought.  

[texanwellfan]

5 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

Thats exactly my take on it Joe. A simple attempt to protect himself, no more no less.

On a related matter, St Johnstone's chalked off goal. I'm not sure exactly what happened but reports suggest that Sanders punched or guided the ball into the net with his hand. If true, I suspect he wouldn't have owned up? Now if a defender stops a certain goal with his hand or arm deliberately, he would be red carded, unless your name is Mark Reynolds. That being the case shouldn't an attacker who deliberately punches/pushes the ball into the net with his arm/hand also be red carded?

Just a thought.  

I’m not sure he deliberately used his hand/arm. I think he tried to header it but totally mistimed it and it went in via his arm.  However, regarding the jist of your argument, I’d agree. 
 

edit: just looked at highlights. It was deliberate. A volleyball-esque move to direct the ball into the goal. Did he even get a yellow?? 

[Kmcalpin]

An interesting take from Graham Carey in the Dundee Courier.

"Carey had no complaints with Jack Sanders’ late equaliser from his corner being chalked off for handball.

And he pointed out that the VAR decision to award Saints a penalty when his shot struck Andy Halliday’s hand is a part of modern football everybody has no option but to get used to.

“For me, I don’t think it is a penalty but I will take it,” he said.

“He’s unlucky. His arm is not really away from his body but that’s just the way they give them now.”

“Big Jack said straight away that the ball hit his hand.

“I think both decisions are right, going by the rules.”"

[Pepper]

Halliday's hand ball was, going by the current rules, a stone waller.

 

[weeyin]

3 minutes ago, Pepper said:

Halliday's hand ball was, going by the current rules, a stone waller.

 

Only if you believe he deliberately touched the ball as per the IFAB wording. He certainly didn't make his body "unnaturally bigger"

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

I'd argue if you are turning your back on a shot blasted at you from 3 yards away, there is not deliberate touching of the ball or unnatural "biggening"

Especially using this season's interpretation that are supposed to include a little more common sense.

The fact that the ref had a clear view and didn't award it suggests to me he was OK with it too and only felt like he had to give it when he was summoned by VAR.

[wellfan]

It doesn’t matter what the rules are when those applying them are a cabal of incompetent eegits. 

[well_said]

The offside law is an absolute force now. I don't know why it was ever changed , it is now an absolute mess and needs changed back as soon as possible.

[grumpy]

13 hours ago, Kmcalpin said:

Thats exactly my take on it Joe. A simple attempt to protect himself, no more no less.

On a related matter, St Johnstone's chalked off goal. I'm not sure exactly what happened but reports suggest that Sanders punched or guided the ball into the net with his hand. If true, I suspect he wouldn't have owned up? Now if a defender stops a certain goal with his hand or arm deliberately, he would be red carded, unless your name is Mark Reynolds. That being the case shouldn't an attacker who deliberately punches/pushes the ball into the net with his arm/hand also be red carded?

Just a thought.  

With a view from the Cooper stand we had no idea of either incident in real time. Having watched Sportscene however, my immediate reaction to the "equaliser" was exactly the same as yours, if a defender had committed the offence to save a goal, there is no way he would have avoided a card of some colour, and given that the ball went directly into the goal, how does that differ from Casey's red card v St. Mirren. You could argue that Sander's offence is a deliberate act of cheating.

As to Halliday, I don't think a penalty is justified but I'm not totally surprised at the decision. We are back to consistency though, there was a very similar handball in the Hibs v St. Mirren game on Saturday that didn't even warrant a mention.

[texanwellfan]

If the ref gives a PK and he disallows the goal, surely both players should have got yellow cards but neither did. 

[steelboy]

Halliday definitely makes himself bigger with the position of his arm.

It's a strange one because the law doesn't account for players closing their eyes, turning their back and trying to get out the way of the ball.'

[texanwellfan]

I think the law talks about natural position and that natural position can be different depending on what the player is doing. I don’t know how they coach the refs on determining the correct call nowadays but in my mind first two questions should be

1. did he deliberately touch the ball with his hand/arm?

2. did he deliberately make himself bigger?
 

if the answer to either of those questions is yes then the player should be penalized and be at least yellow carded. Red card for saving it being a goal. No question regarding proximity to where the ball was played or if it ricocheted as that comes under consideration in the questions. 
 

That covers the defensive end at the attacking end it’s much more clear cut

1. did the scorer (deliberately or accidentally) touch the ball with his hand/arm before the ball went over the line? 
if the answer is yes then goal is disallowed. However that then leads us onto the question of punishment. I think the following should apply

1. accidental. No card

2. Deliberate scoring goal red card (balances red card for a defender saving a goal). 
deliberate controlling ball yellow card

I think that leaves one point to be resolved discussed. The attacker will have goal disallowed even for accidental hand ball so if a defender stops the ball going into the net with accidental hand ball should a goal be awarded? Penalty? 
 

doesn’t seem like there is 100% way to guarantee the same decision for every situation but surely it can be much more consistent than it is now. 
 

I don’t think it should have been penalty against Halliday. To support my impartiality, I don’t think Lennon millers goal should have been awarded earlier in the season when the ball ricocheted around and clearly hit his arm before he scored. So much for my earlier statement above “at the attacking end it’s much more clear cut” 😂