GWT: PL Matchweek 12

[les Habs]

No one is blaming Liverpool for being the favorites....

Yeah, saying City have had injuries isn't at all blaming Liverpool. It's simply context.

 

[Halladay]

I agree Man City are missing their best winger in Sane. He was always creating havoc against Liverpool.

Is Sane even at City if he doesn't get hurt though?

Anyway, gigantic win. City have already dropped 11 points in 12 matches and with LaPorte out for a bit more and their upcoming schedule they will probably drop some more. Have to feel pretty good right now.

 

[Burner Account]

Is Sane even at City if he doesn't get hurt though?

Anyway, gigantic win. City have already dropped 11 points in 12 matches and with LaPorte out for a bit more and their upcoming schedule they will probably drop some more. Have to feel pretty good right now.

If we say 32 wins gets the title, City can only drop points two more times to have a chance, and four more times if we call it 30. Neither looks good.

 

[YNWA14]

Yeah Laporte is a big miss but I think Sane is not a player to count for City at this point given it's doubtful he'll play for them again in any event. Something that's very noticeable about this Liverpool team that separates them from teams of the past is their ability to play stylistically to fit the situation; they can absorb pressure, they can play with possession and they can set up on the counter. The belief, confidence and calm that they play with even under pressure and being attacked at times as City did is incredible to watch. "Mentality giants". They look like champions.

Again, still early, but this is probably the most hopeful I've ever been of a title.

 

[Gecklund]

Of course they’d look at the Bernardo handball in reviewing that situation.

They aren’t allowed to. VAR rules don’t let them unless City scored off that play. So since the Liverpool handball happened and City didn’t score, Bernardo’s handball should have NO effect on giving the penalty.

Also here is a disclaimer down here, this is based on my understanding of the rules and also the MLS rules of VAR (which I’m pretty sure are the same as PL)

 

[YNWA14]

They aren’t allowed to. VAR rules don’t let them unless City scored off that play. So since the Liverpool handball happened and City didn’t score, Bernardo’s handball should have NO effect on giving the penalty.

Also here is a disclaimer down here, this is based on my understanding of the rules and also the MLS rules of VAR (which I’m pretty sure are the same as PL)

The penalty would be a result of the offensive play which means it would all have to be looked at, which was already said by multiple refs/former refs if they found Trent's handball to be a penalty worthy offence. They didn't look at it because it was judged not to be, or it would have been called back as a Liverpool free kick.

 

[Halladay]

If we say 32 wins gets the title, City can only drop points two more times to have a chance, and four more times if we call it 30. Neither looks good.

I think the 32 wins is too many but I definitely see them getting at least 90 points. So that means they can only drop points 5 times. Granted injuries can happen, but it is looking good. With their defensive frailties nothing has suggested yet they can rattle off 10 wins in a row right now.

 

[hatterson]

The penalty would be a result of the offensive play which means it would all have to be looked at, which was already said by multiple refs/former refs if they found Trent's handball to be a penalty worthy offence. They didn't look at it because it was judged not to be, or it would have been called back as a Liverpool free kick.

It can be looked at under the old/non-goal handball standard.

The new handball rule specific to goals doesn't mention penalties, so it's not automatic. They would have to rule it a deliberate handball (deliberate either by movement or position) which it clearly isn't given the position of his arm in relation to how he was moving and how close the ball was when it was struck at him. The Silva handball was very similar to the TAA handball later in the game in that neither were unnatural positions and both were the result of a ball being kicked into the arm from incredibly close range.

If Oliver would have given the pen, or if VAR would have deemed it a clear and obvious mistake to have no given it, VAR as currently implemented wouldn't have grounds to overturn it based on the Silva situation.

 

[Chimaera]

It's certainly more than a little bit confusing with VAR (understatement of the year I know).

 

[YNWA14]

It can be looked at under the old/non-goal handball standard.

The new handball rule specific to goals doesn't mention penalties, so it's not automatic. They would have to rule it a deliberate handball (deliberate either by movement or position) which it clearly isn't given the position of his arm in relation to how he was moving and how close the ball was when it was struck at him. The Silva handball was very similar to the TAA handball later in the game in that neither were unnatural positions and both were the result of a ball being kicked into the arm from incredibly close range.

If Oliver would have given the pen, or if VAR would have deemed it a clear and obvious mistake to have no given it, VAR as currently implemented wouldn't have grounds to overturn it based on the Silva situation.

That's not what the refs said though. They said that if there was a handball in the box they look at the entire play leading up to the penalty, which would have resulted in the Silva handball (likewise, if an attacker were to foul a defender before being fouled himself but the ref only saw the penalty-worthy foul, on VAR review it would be overturned).

 

[hatterson]

That's not what the refs said though. They said that if there was a handball in the box they look at the entire play leading up to the penalty, which would have resulted in the Silva handball (likewise, if an attacker were to foul a defender before being fouled himself but the ref only saw the penalty-worthy foul, on VAR review it would be overturned).

Yes they would look at it, but it’s not an automatic handball simply because it hit his hand. That only applies to goals or obvious goal scoring opportunities, it doesn’t apply to future fouls by the opposite team.

The standard for the Silva handball isn’t “did it hit his hand” it’s the same standard used for the TAA handball claim later in the game.

 

[YNWA14]

Yes they would look at it, but it’s not an automatic handball simply because it hit his hand. That only applies to goals or obvious goal scoring opportunities, it doesn’t apply to future fouls by the opposite team.

The standard for the Silva handball isn’t “did it hit his hand” it’s the same standard used for the TAA handball claim later in the game.

Standard is for attacking players and they discussed this on the post game. If you are attacking and gain an advantage by a handball it doesn't have to be deliberate. That's it; period. Also creating a penalty by hitting a ball with your hand into another player's arm would certainly qualify as an obvious goal scoring opportunity, but it basically applies to any attacking handball in the box. Defenders are given the benefit of the doubt and attackers are not.

 

[bluesfan94]

Standard is for attacking players and they discussed this on the post game. If you are attacking and gain an advantage by a handball it doesn't have to be deliberate. That's it; period. Also creating a penalty by hitting a ball with your hand into another player's arm would certainly qualify as an obvious goal scoring opportunity, but it basically applies to any attacking handball in the box. Defenders are given the benefit of the doubt and attackers are not.

Again, if you do not allow the playing of the ball by an opponent to end the attack for the purposes of a handball, then there is no end to an attack.

 

[hatterson]

Standard is for attacking players and they discussed this on the post game. If you are attacking and gain an advantage by a handball it doesn't have to be deliberate. That's it; period. Also creating a penalty by hitting a ball with your hand into another player's arm would certainly qualify as an obvious goal scoring opportunity, but it basically applies to any attacking handball in the box. Defenders are given the benefit of the doubt and attackers are not.

That's not what the new rules say though.

• The following ‘handball’ situations, even if accidental, will be a free kick:
• the ball goes into the goal after touching an attacking player’s hand/arm
• a player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity

It didn't go in the goal, so the first doesn't apply.
No City player gained control of the ball, so the second part doesn't apply.

The penalty was created because TAA put his hand out from his body and blocked the ball. If anything, once it's coming towards him he actually moves his hand towards the ball instead of away from it.

• The following will not usually be a free kick, unless they are one of the above situations:
• the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/near
• the ball touches a player’s hand/arm which is close to their body and has not made their body unnaturally bigger

Both the first and second bit apply to Silva here. His arm isn't in an unnatural position and the ball is hit directly into his hand from a player who is close/near. The deflection off Silva isn't close/near to TAA and the ball isn't moving excessively fast for him to be unable to move his arm.

By your logic, as soon as the ball hits Silva's arm, TAA could have literally reached out and grabbed the ball with both hands like he was an NFL receiver and not had anything happen.

 

[YNWA14]

Gaining a penalty is effectively a goal scoring situation or control of the ball as the direct result of the ball coming off the arm of the attacker. Like I said, the refs and panel already discussed this and said it would have been called back as a Liverpool free kick if they had decided that TAA did commit a foul worthy offence when the ball hit his arm.

 

[hatterson]

No, it fundamentally isn’t.

For the same reason that if a player is in an offside position you can’t intercept a cross to him by reaching out and grabbing the ball and then claim offside.

It’s telling that the defense from the PGMOL for the TAA situation mentions nothing about Silva but simply says it doesn’t meet the standards for a deliberate handball (which is a joke). If the ball hitting Silva’s hand negated any potential penalty, regardless of how intentional TAA’s actions were, they would have said that because it would have been a much more convincing defense and allowed them to hide behind the new rule.

“If I didn’t break the rules, the other team would have, so mine doesn’t count” is never a defense of an action under the rules.

 

[YNWA14]

It fundamentally is and was already confirmed multiple times by officials and pundits that had discussed with officials so I don’t know what to tell you. You might not agree with it but that’s the reality of the rules at the moment.

As far as the offside goes yes they do cancel fouls (or rather not punish for them) after offside calls plenty.

 

[hatterson]

Offside wouldn’t do anything if the player hasn’t played the ball yet, which is this similar situation.

A ball accidentally hitting an attackers hand is only a foul if either a.) it goes into the net or; b.) an attacker controls the ball and scores/generates a goal scoring opportunity. Arguero did not gain control, Sterling did not gain control. And a potential offense by the other team doesn’t negate an offense by you.

The rules say nothing about gaining an advantage or negating a foul by the defense.

Pretend this is the situation: The ball goes past TAA, and TAA doesn’t handle it. Just as Sterling it about to slot it in (before he touches it), someone rugby tackles him from behind. That player is 100% getting a red and its a pen regardless of if it hit Silva’s arm or not.

The comparable to offside that I made was the following situation.

Attacker sends a cross in towards a player is in an offside position. That player is making a back post run to head the ball in. A defender sees the run and before the ball gets to the back post he jumps up like an NFL receiver and grabs the ball out of the air. In that situation, the potential offside does not negate the handball offense. The attacking team has not committed an offside offense yet.

The same applies here. City had not yet committed a handball offense because the ball neither went in the net nor did a City player gain control of it. It would have been an offense if the ball went to Sterling, but TAA handled it before it got there.

There’s a reason why the PGMOL made zero mention of Silva, because a *potential* offense by one team does not negate an actual offense by the other team.

All of the commentary I’ve seen supports that, and the only former referee I’ve seen argue the same as you is Bobby Madley. There clearly is plenty out there I haven’t seen, but I’ve tried googling a lot and I haven’t found hardly anything outside of Twitter.

The real reason it wasn’t given seems obvious. Oliver was in a decent enough position that they were able to claim he had a good view, play continued for a while, and Liverpool scored. VAR didn’t want to be the reason for a significant shift in the title race like that. The controversy around not giving a handball is far less than it would be around erasing a goal and giving a penalty the other way.

 

[Live in the Now]

First of all I'm not even a little bit surprised this happened.

Second of all Sterling is lucky that they did.

 

[Live in the Now]

Sterling has also been dropped from the game because he confronted Gomez and was mad over losing.

 

[Savant]

Sterling has also been dropped from the game because he confronted Gomez and was mad over losing.

Any excuse to have a little Cam’ron in my life.

 

[Live in the Now]

Sterling and Gomez clashed at the end of Liverpool’s victory over Manchester City, but had appeared to make peace by later embracing.
But Gomez was astonished when Sterling arrived at St George’s Park to meet up for England duty and immediately laid into him again and, according to witnesses, allegedly attempted to provoke a physical confrontation.
It is believed Sterling aimed jibes at Gomez, asking if he still thought he was the “big man” and got into the 22-year-old’s face looking for a reaction.
Some of those present were impressed with the way Gomez handled the situation by refusing to be goaded into retaliating physically and instead taking a step back.

Raheem Sterling dropped for Montenegro match after confronting Liverpool's Joe Gomez on England duty

Haha.

 

[hatterson]

Lol, nothing like trash talking a sub after you lose the game.

 

[Savant]

Raheem Sterling dropped for Montenegro match after confronting Liverpool's Joe Gomez on England duty

Haha.

Rent. Free.

 

[YNWA14]

This aged well.