Euro 2024

[Durhamfootman]

VAR even had a 'hot spot' type graphic for the handball, like in cricket, which showed contact between ball and hand. I haven't seen that before. Of course in more simple times a decision was made after assessing whether hand hit ball or ball hit hand, whether the contact helped control the ball and whether there was any intent, but the UEFA handball rules have changed to make it far less nuanced as Newcastle found to their cost late last year. I think Slovakia probably got away with one there, but there was hand contact in the build up as Openda fought to get the ball under control, although it's also fair to say that it was some distance out and he still had an awful lot of work to do before he got his pass away to Lukaku. I have no doubt that the Belgian papers will claim 'we wuz robbed', just as Newcastle fans felt robbed in Paris, and it did feel slightly harsh to me. I thought Lukaku was offside for his first disallowed goal, even before VAR got involved

I've not seen that hot spot thing before. It isn't anywhere near as precise as the one in cricket.

[mikesiva]

Romania 3-0 Ukraine
Slovakia 1-0 Belgium
France 1-0 Austria

[sussexpob]

I think Slovakia probably got away with one there, but there was hand contact in the build up as Openda fought to get the ball under control, although it's also fair to say that it was some distance out and he still had an awful lot of work to do before he got his pass away to Lukaku. I have no doubt that the Belgian papers will claim 'we wuz robbed', just as Newcastle fans felt robbed in Paris, and it did feel slightly harsh to me. I thought Lukaku was offside for his first disallowed goal, even before VAR got involved

When the ball is about to drop between Openda and the defender, the Slovakian has his arm over Openda's shoulder and hooked around his neck. When the ball drops, he then realises he cannot just headlock him now the referee will see it, and disengages by pushing Openda, who stays on his feet only through sheer strength but does momentarily lose his balance and does not even notice where the ball is (he is looking the other way) as it bounces and hits his hand. The ball struck the hand that, until 1 or 2 seconds before, had been hooked under the Slovakians arm and had nowhere to go.

Is it deliberate? No. He is pivoting his head to see where the ball is, and is facing 90 degrees to it when it hits him.

Is his arm in an unnatural position? No. Its only where it is because he initially protects himself from an illegal foul, and is then illegally held in place by the arm of the Slovakian round his shoulder. So no... the consequence of natural actions are the reason his arm is where it is. he would not have touched the ball if he wasn't being pushed into it.

Is the goal directly after the handball..... No. It is a 15 meter sprint, beating a man and a 10 yard pass away from reaching the goal scorers foot.

In the end we have two options. The referee wanted Slovakia to win, or the referee wrongly assumed all hand contact is a foul and does not know the rules.... either way, he is not fit to referee at this standard, and should be sent home.

For me, its a terrible decision made even worse because the referee didn't even give the Free-kick to Openda. There is pretty much ZERO debate about that. If he touches it with his hand and you decide to rule out the goal, then its a foul to Belgium and you book the Slovakian player for trying a wrestling move.

[sussexpob]

Of course in more simple times a decision was made after assessing whether hand hit ball or ball hit hand, whether the contact helped control the ball and whether there was any intent, but the UEFA handball rules have changed to make it far less nuanced as Newcastle found to their cost late last year.

I will use another example to demonstrate the point, so bare with me.

Lets just say that you have a judge who is trying a matter of theft. The law says that to be theft, you need to take someones "property" and "permanently deprive them of it". In the dock is a poor single mum with a new born baby who, with zero money in the bank, nicked a loaf of bread. The judge has to apply the law, but doesn't want to send the young mum to prison while the baby gets sent to a home, so decides contrary to all sense and meaning of the law, that the mother had not actually "permanently deprived" the shop of the bread, and had always intended to pay for it when she had the money, so lets her off .

The next judge comes to try a thief, and has to apply what the other did or choose a reason why that precedent does not apply to him to make a legal case to defer from it. The criminal in this case is his best friend from childhood who grew up like a brother to him, but is banged to rights legally. He stole a loaf of bread from the same shop, and left a note saying he just didn't like paying for things and had no intention of ever paying the shop back. In this case, the judge ponders the philospical concept of what "property" really means. He concludes that bread is made by placing seeds into the ground, watered by the rain and helped to grow by sunlight - he decides that no mortal person can claim ownership of the rain,the sun and of nature, and decides to let his friend of because the bread was as much his as anyone elses.

The next judge comes to try a thief, and concludes the interpretation of the other two renders the concept of theft no longer existent, and rules all people awaiting trial for it be released.

In these above examples, is the law the problem, or is it the judge?

This is pretty much what happens in football all the time. Referees consistently exhibit bias towards certain teams, and routinely "interpret" the laws of the game wrongly so they can give a decision where they want to. And then that decision creates a precedent for following referees to similarly ignore the rules, or find their own interpretation to get what they want. And in no time at all, the rule becomes utterly meaningless, because at the end of the day the referee applies it how he wants and no one does anything. And because it favours big sides all the time, no one cares..... you end up with 1 million Man United fans gaslighting 100 fans of Brentford into believing the rule was applied correctly, because the bias in the game only starts with the decision - its re-enforced by the fans, the media and the pundits. When is the last time you heard Gary Neville admit Man United got a decision? When did Carragher last say "yeah thats a penalty against Liverpool?"... if there is any grey, they wont. They will just claim their side. And bigger clubs have more people claiming their side....

Yesterday, the referee decided the rule said "hits the hand, foul".... its not the rule, but there we go. He didn't want to give the goal so made it the rule.

[Gingerfinch]

Is ball to hand not the rule when a goal is scored, no matter how unlucky it is? I know it's different if a defender handles it but I'm sure it's handball regardless if the attacking team get a goal.

[sussexpob]

Is ball to hand not the rule when a goal is scored, no matter how unlucky it is? I know it's different if a defender handles it but I'm sure it's handball regardless if the attacking team get a goal.

I think you might be confusing two different applications, GF....

If a player scores a goal directly from a handball, it can never be a goal. Even if its accidental and otherwise a legal handball... so say a player covers his face as a keeper boots it out at him, and it hits his arm and rolls in, its not a goal. If it goes wide, it is not a free kick.

If a player handballs it accidentally, and the handball does not go directly into the net, the handball is only given if the next immediate phase of play leads to the goal. So in the same example, if the player covers his face, the ball whacks the post, and he then hits the rebound in ... no goal. If it bounces to another player who shoots into the net...no goal. If it bounces out to the winger, a player throws in a cross, and the same player who handballed it heads it in.....

Its a goal...

In this case, the handball does not lead immediately to the shot that goes in, so it an accidental handball that should not be blown. The goal then comes after the immediate play from the hand, and is therefore legal.

It really is a terrible decision.

[Durhamfootman]

I don't disagree with you at all, SP. The handball law is not fit for purpose.

The TV coverage here had somebody on who talked through the review in real time, while vAR was checking it and came to the same conclusion before VAR and then the ref overturned the goal

The handball rule isn't even consistent, because it seems to vary from league to league and football authority to football authority. It's just a rubbish rule.

[sussexpob]

Thought that was going to be boring... Well well...

One of the greatest matches of football I've seen in a while. Unlucky to my boys Georgia, they did everything but score at the end.

[Durhamfootman]

I saw the first 2 Turkey goals, before the grandkids came round after school. They were absolute belters

[mikesiva]

Turkey 3-1 Georgia
Portugal 2-1 Czech Republic

[sussexpob]

Turning into an epic tournament this.

Albania v Croatia was another match I thought might be a drag, but its turning into a cracker. Albania were the better side, Croatia then scored two goals in a matter of seconds. 2-1 so far, Albania have maybe punched themselves out a little

[Durhamfootman]

ho, ho, ho. What a second half that was. Brilliant

Had everything really

Gawd bless that Albania sub. Unfortunate ricochet, great equaliser and then a match saving yellow card right at the death

Terrfic..... I was bouncing all the way through that half

[sussexpob]

ho, ho, ho. What a second half that was. Brilliant

My comment came before Albania scored, then nearly scored again, then Croatia went down and nearly scored... all in the last 3 minutes.

The run of games since France v Austria have all been excellent. The Portugal game was the worst, and that included a last kick winner.....

[sussexpob]

Buzzing that Deniz got on for Germany...

Once USG, always USG....

[Durhamfootman]

I see that bright boy, Sir G, says we shouldn't take England wins for granted

The big, daft barmpot. It always feels to me as though we are perpetually just one goal away from facing either a shock defeat or a disastrous penalty shootout.... no matter who we are playing. Perhaps Sir G should remind himself of the last 2 England results against Hungary