Paris Saint-Germain v Manchester United , Round of 16 2nd Leg, BT Sport 2, 8pm

yabadabado

Nothing wrong with the penalty decision last night.It was called correctly as per the rules of the game.

A lot of the people crying foul online obviously have no clue of the rules .

FatherTed

It is absolutely 100% a penalty. He jumped to block the ball. Not to head it or chest it or kick it. He only intention was to block the ball and in doing so whether he meant to block it with his hand or not, did block it with his hand.

If he was standing and the shot was lower and hit him on his arm then it's not a penalty because his intent was not to block it.

But his mere action of jumping to block the ball opens the possibility of any part of his body being open to be hit ball.

yabadabado

yabadabado wrote: »

Nothing wrong with the penalty decision last night.It was called correctly as per the rules of the game.

A lot of the people crying foul online obviously have no clue of the rules .

VAR captured everything last night. A great system.

If you look closely, when the decision was given you can clearly see the hearts of the "neutrals" crushing

SlickRic

yabadabado wrote: »

Nothing wrong with the penalty decision last night.It was called correctly as per the rules of the game.

that's the key bit, and the only thing worth discussion.

the ref was spot on in terms of the rule. the only debate is whether you agree with the rule or not.

SlickRic

Fred The Red wrote: »

If you look closely, when the decision was given you can clearly see the hearts of the "neutrals" crushing

Has this genuinely been what you've found?

i've seen literally the odd Liverpool fan (for instance) so far who really resents Utd going through and wishes PSG did. that's it. Now much of that is down to how utterly detestable PSG and most of their players are, but still.

charolais0153

SlickRic wrote: »

Has this genuinely been what you've found?

i've seen literally the odd Liverpool fan (for instance) so far who really resents Utd going through and wishes PSG did. that's it. Now much of that is down to how utterly detestable PSG and most of their players are, but still.

Doesnt suit the narrative

sReq | uTeK

SlickRic wrote: »

that's the key bit, and the only thing worth discussion.

the ref was spot on in terms of the rule. the only debate is whether you agree with the rule or not.

Yup as per the rules of the game he made made a part of his body, deemed to be against the rules bigger to block the shot. It's a penalty.

However, the only debate in question is:

Was it within the laws to give a penalty, yes
Was it just? perhaps not.

Mind you Di Maria's tears....oh so good

charolais0153

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Yup as per the rules of the game he made made a part of his body, deemed to be against the rules bigger to block the shot. It's a penalty.

However, the only debate in question is:

Was it within the laws to give a penalty, yes
Was it just? perhaps not.

Mind you Di Maria's tears....oh so good

Was he crying i didnt see that. Was a bit of a d1ck to the utd fans tbf

brinty

SlickRic wrote: »

that's the key bit, and the only thing worth discussion.

the ref was spot on in terms of the rule. the only debate is whether you agree with the rule or not.

But the rules are what govern things aren't they Slick
I mean without rules we'd just have anarchy....

I don't agree with a lot of rules but I'm still living by them whether I like it or not

sReq | uTeK

charolais0153 wrote: »

Was he crying i didnt see that. Was a bit of a d1ck to the utd fans tbf

Nah he wasn't but, it panned to him on BT Sport for the final whistle for a good 10 seconds and he looked very very pissed off.

The fact he picked up a beer bottle and mocked the fans (look, rightly so he was getting abuse) made it sweeter, that and how he exited united.

Anyway, still buzzing today.

Again have to say it, as an ex Liverpool player Steve McManaman, top class. Gets involved, actually sounded like a united fan last night. "No, no don't do that"

rob316

Your missing the point, if its the rules that's fine. They weren't even sure last night themselves who ever was deciding this, why did it take 4 mins? Then the ref seemed to just play added time till he felt like it. Farcical

yabadabado

SlickRic wrote: »

that's the key bit, and the only thing worth discussion.

the ref was spot on in terms of the rule. the only debate is whether you agree with the rule or not.

It doesn't make a bit of difference if we agree with the rule or not.Ref followed the rules correctly and make the right call.


Lads crying online about disgraceful decision or some sorta conspiracy haven't a clue what they are talking about.

8-10

SlickRic wrote: »

Has this genuinely been what you've found?

i've seen literally the odd Liverpool fan (for instance) so far who really resents Utd going through and wishes PSG did. that's it. Now much of that is down to how utterly detestable PSG and most of their players are, but still.

I haven't seen any Liverpool fan say they wish PSG had gone through. I was delighted myself they got knocked out. And I believe it was a clear peno

yabadabado

rob316 wrote: »

Your missing the point, if its the rules that's fine. They weren't even sure last night themselves who ever was deciding this, why did it take 4 mins? Then the ref seemed to just play added time till he felt like it. Farcical

Who wasn't sure ?
The ref plays the time it takes to sort VAR at the end,again he did that correctly.

I think certain quarters are just looking for reasons to pick holes in the system.

Morzadec

Good article on VAR:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2019/mar/07/manchester-united-miravle-in-paris-highlights-woolly-failings-of-var-champions-league

The rule of handball is that it has to be "clear and deliberate". Unfortunately it appears there seems to be a lot of subjectivity into how one reads what is or isn't "deliberate".

I don't like to see penalties given and games decided because of, what to me seem like totally accidental handballs. It annoyed me in the World Cup and it's annoying me now in the CL (putting aside all club loyalties for the moment).

However, what I like is subjective. Making sure the rule is consistently understood and applied and can not be debated over is the first important step, and VAR shouldn't be introduced until lawmakers can make it clear objectively what is / isn't a handball. Likewise a tug off the ball in the box.

Create more clear objective boundaries. This may not have been needed before VAR but it's badly needed now. This was always going to happen.

Personally-speaking I think it would be a shame if we started seeing multiple delays, multiple penalties in a match which is the road VAR appears to be leading to. Intention should be factored in. But at least make it clear to everyone, so the players know that any grab of a shirt is no go, or that they should put their hands behind their back when facing the cross.

There needs to be an intensive course for the refs pre-VAR in the Premier League in advance of next season. They need to be sat through hundreds of examples of contentious handballs and agree upon which is / isn't a penalty and why.

They then need to take this information and communicate it clearly and easily so that all managers, players, and fans understand it. Even if they ultimately disagree with what the definition of handball becomes, as long as it's clear and unequivocal beforehand then it should eliminate the vast majority of the controversy and delays.

VAR being the central incident and main talking point of a massive Champions League game is tedious and wrong.

SlickRic

brinty wrote: »

But the rules are what govern things aren't they Slick
I mean without rules we'd just have anarchy....

I don't agree with a lot of rules but I'm still living by them whether I like it or not

i'm not saying don't follow the rules.

my point was that there is no debate as to whether it was a handball or not. the ref was spot on. he thought there was enough evidence that it was a 'deliberate' handball, as in, the player didn't do enough to stop himself handling the ball. that is the nature of the rule and the subjectivity of it. you're delighted if it goes for you. you're annoyed if it goes against you. but the ref did absolutely nothing wrong. that's indisputable IMO.

now, if you want to have a debate about whether you like the rule, or you think the rule should be looked at and potentially changed, then that's a debate that can be had.

Morzadec

SlickRic wrote: »

i'm not saying don't follow the rules.

my point was that there is no debate as to whether it was a handball or not. the ref was spot on. he thought there was enough evidence that it was a 'deliberate' handball, as in, the player didn't do enough to stop himself handling the ball. that is the nature of the rule and the subjectivity of it. you're delighted if it goes for you. you're annoyed if it goes against you. but the ref did absolutely nothing wrong. that's indisputable IMO.

now, if you want to have a debate about whether you like the rule, or you think the rule should be looked at and potentially changed, then that's a debate that can be had.

The rule needs to be more objective. Interpretation is fine when it's a decision made in the moment only, but if you bring VAR into it to make things fair and unequivocal then you need a rule that is far less subjective.

They should be aiming to get the rule to a place where there should be no debate. Big challange I know, but get the rule to as close to that as possible.

For me (and again putting club loyalties aside, I would say the same if a penalty like this went Liverpool's way), I don't think it's a penalty. Otamendi's one against Shalke was not a penalty for me either (and obviously I was up for Shalke then). Why? I don't believe they were deliberate or reckless acts by the players. Hands and arms can move quite far outside the body when you run, jump, skid, turn suddenly etc... Both shots are fired with power with no realistic chance for the player to get their dangling arms out of the way.

Now I'm not trying to argue I'm right and you're wrong, but I'm just saying the very fact that I can make a reasonable argument for them not being penalties and those who think it was "100% a penalty" presumably can too based on their own subjective interpretation of the law is problematic.

I would prefer to see referees go with my interpretation as I think it's a very random and harsh way to decide a match, but that's a secondary question.

First things first, decide on the rule, make the rule more clear, get consensus, explain it to everyone.

At the moment it looks like the game is going to end up with defenders hopping around with their hands behind their backs which is a shame imo, but at least clarify that that is the type of game you want in the rules.

yabadabado

SlickRic wrote: »

i'm not saying don't follow the rules.

my point was that there is no debate as to whether it was a handball or not. the ref was spot on. he thought there was enough evidence that it was a 'deliberate' handball, as in, the player didn't do enough to stop himself handling the ball. that is the nature of the rule and the subjectivity of it. you're delighted if it goes for you. you're annoyed if it goes against you. but the ref did absolutely nothing wrong. that's indisputable IMO.

now, if you want to have a debate about whether you like the rule, or you think the rule should be looked at and potentially changed, then that's a debate that can be had.

This thread isn't really the place for that .A rule change affects everyone.

Maybe start a new thread and keep this on topic ?

charolais0153

sReq | uTeK wrote: »

Nah he wasn't but, it panned to him on BT Sport for the final whistle for a good 10 seconds and he looked very very pissed off.

The fact he picked up a beer bottle and mocked the fans (look, rightly so he was getting abuse) made it sweeter, that and how he exited united.

Anyway, still buzzing today.

Again have to say it, as an ex Liverpool player Steve McManaman, top class. Gets involved, actually sounded like a united fan last night. "No, no don't do that"

Ya mcmanaman is alrigt. Id have liked to have heard andy gray and richard keys commenting last night.

fatherted1969

I think it was a soft penalty, that being said I can understand why it was given. If he jumps into the air to block a ball and it hits him on the arm he's opening himself up to be penalised for it.

vetinari

Never a penalty for me. I thought the defender did a better job than most in geting his arm down to his side.
I mean arm pretty much by your side is a natural position. Are defenders not supposed to jump while blocking?

raze_them_all_

vetinari wrote: »

Never a penalty for me. I thought the defender did a better job than most in geting his arm down to his side.
I mean arm pretty much by your side is a natural position. Are defenders not supposed to jump while blocking?

Both arms on the same side is natural?

yabadabado

vetinari wrote: »

Never a penalty for me. I thought the defender did a better job than most in geting his arm down to his side.
I mean arm pretty much by your side is a natural position. Are defenders not supposed to jump while blocking?

Of course they are allowed jump.Why do you think they aren't?

Strumms

His arm, unnatural position, moving towards the ball, a deliberate act, blocked shot from going on target, penalty..simple.

rob316

He's trying to pull his hand in, the balled is hit with power and travels at speed, its all happens very quickly. You try jump up with your hands stuck to your side, his hands were in a natural position. If this is the case will defenders even bother trying to block shots with their body anymore.

For the record I don't like PSG and especially Neymar so I'm not bothered about United going through.

marklazarcovic

The video of dalot running into the crowd at the end to his father, embracing him, even as a pool fan,it's brilliant,it's why we love football, because we are invested in it,from the players earning millions to the fan on the dole,we feel the joy and the pain, regardless of club,size, or competition,if your in,your in.

osarusan

SlickRic wrote: »

my point was that there is no debate as to whether it was a handball or not. the ref was spot on. he thought there was enough evidence that it was a 'deliberate' handball, as in, the player didn't do enough to stop himself handling the ball. that is the nature of the rule and the subjectivity of it. you're delighted if it goes for you. you're annoyed if it goes against you. but the ref did absolutely nothing wrong. that's indisputable IMO.

now, if you want to have a debate about whether you like the rule, or you think the rule should be looked at and potentially changed, then that's a debate that can be had.

I still think there is a debate about it.


If players are not to be penalised for having their arms in a natural or normal position, then what happens when a player has their arm in a natural position, but that normal position 'makes the body bigger'?

Considering the way that Kimpembe ran, jumped and twisted, I think it is completely natural that his right hand ended up where it did (it would be completely unnatural for it to be pressed against his body), but it also had the effect of 'making the body bigger'.

It seems that refs should consider it exclusively as one or the other, but there will be a huge overlap in many movements/actions.

yabadabado

rob316 wrote: »

He's trying to pull his hand in, the balled is hit with power and travels at speed, its all happens very quickly. You try jump up with your hands stuck to your side, his hands were in a natural position. If this is the case will defenders even bother trying to block shots with their body anymore.

For the record I don't like PSG and especially Neymar so I'm not bothered about United going through.

According to the rules of the game his hands weren't in a natural position.

Of course defenders will continue to block shots with their bodies ,just dont use use your arms.Its very straight forward.

Nalz

Hi everyone!

vetinari

yabadabado wrote: »

According to the rules of the game his hands weren't in a natural position.

Of course defenders will continue to block shots with their bodies ,just dont use use your arms.Its very straight forward.

People seem to be talking in circles. Is the rule now that it's always a foul if the ball hits your arms while jumping? His arms were definitely in a natural position for someone jumping in the air. Is he supposed to jump with his arms crossed? You sometimes see penalties where the player has his arms far from his body and that's fair enough. In this case they were pretty close to his body.

brinty

yabadabado wrote:

This thread isn't really the place for that .A rule change affects everyone.

You do know the game has laws and by laws

There's no rules in it....

charolais0153

To jump high, its a natural enough position but its not how you defend that situation. Penalty for me, he obstructs the path of the ball with his hand unintentionally doesnt disguise the fact he did it. Top defenders wont do that,ramos vvd someobe mentioned neville i think.

yabadabado

brinty wrote: »

You do know the game has laws and by laws

There's no rules in it....

Rules or laws the point still stands.VAR made the correct call as much as it seems to pain some people to say that.

yabadabado

vetinari wrote: »

People seem to be talking in circles. Is the rule now that it's always a foul if the ball hits your arms while jumping? His arms were definitely in a natural position for someone jumping in the air. Is he supposed to jump with his arms crossed? You sometimes see penalties where the player has his arms far from his body and that's fair enough. In this case they were pretty close to his body.

See the problem there?

vetinari

I don't follow, if you jump to block a shot and have your arms near your sides (as opposed to far from your body) then that would be considered a natural position for most people. Other posters here seem to be suggesting that the laws now state that it will always be handball if you jump and the ball hits your arm. It's a bit of a slippery slope. It's not far from incentivizing players to deliberately aim for the arms of players in the box. Unless the defender is stationary it will be given as a penalty. Similarly, now if you slide to make a block and the ball hits your arm is it automatically a penalty?

Liam O

vetinari wrote: »

I don't follow, if you jump to block a shot and have your arms near your sides (as opposed to far from your body) then that would be considered a natural position for most people. Other posters here seem to be suggesting that the laws now state that it will always be handball if you jump and the ball hits your arm. It's a bit of a slippery slope. It's not far from incentivizing players to deliberately aim for the arms of players in the box. Unless the defender is stationary it will be given as a penalty. Similarly, now if you slide to make a block and the ball hits your arm is it automatically a penalty?

Very hard to aim for the arm of a player who is about to jump and twist his arms in a manner that they are in a different position to where they were a second ago (of course the defender doesn't know where the ball is in relation to his arms because he is turned away from it!)

It'd be like a player closing his eyes going in for a tackle, missing the ball and saying that he didn't go out to deliberately hurt an opponent because he didn't know where the opponent's legs were. A ridiculous excuse.

Players have been getting away with that for too long and there's not much argument from anyone outside of the England ex players from what I can see.

Has Buffon commented on the match yet? If he thought last season's penalising ref had a 'trashcan' heart, it would be interesting to see where he places this ref/decision on the waste and refuse scale.