Thanks for posting. Really interesting to hear the commentary of the VAR to the on-field ref. Clearly influences the ref by calling it “hand ball” multiple times, calling it “unnatural,” and essentially convincing the the ref to call it. Not at all how the process is meant to work, even if it was the right call...which, as we all knew time of, it was not. He also states that the contact with the hand "stopped the cross," which is just objectively false!
So...what do we get out of this? The VAR shows a complete misunderstanding of one of the two rules he needs to know, and makes a bad recommendation to the on-field ref who feels like he has to overturn what he saw on-field. The VAR faces no punishment (should be suspended or fired) despite literally FAILING TO DO HIS ONE JOB, the Thorns get cheated out of two points in a historically tight shield race, and I have to take a walk around the block to stop myself from punching a hole in the wall.
Clearly, the league needs to substitute comment thread reffing for the VAR crew because commenters here who understand the handball rule (personally, not a member of that cohort) cited the rule correctly while they were still faffing with their fuzzy video options.
I’m honestly baffled why the PRO video guy says this.
I read thru the FIFA version of Law 12. It doesn’t provide an exception for deflection of the handling player. There IS an exception for “…the player’s body movement in that situation” which (per an FA publication) is largely intended to prevent a sliding player (who pretty much has to extend their arms) from being penalized if they make a good block that then bangs off an arm. But that isn’t the case here. There’s a deflection, but not sure that having her arm straight out is intrinsically part of “that situation”. I can see how it could be - but not how it automatically makes this not even reviewable.
I’ll be the first to say that 1) the handball rule is troublesome and that 2) the Menges handball was a troublesome example. The arm contact didn’t “benefit” Portland; the ball was going straight up, not towards goal or to a Washington player. The most likely outcome less the contact was a corner kick, or a Bixby take, or a scrummage in the box. Awarding a straight PK seems excessive for this given the circumstances. To me that PK was soft as church music.
But…I can’t find that exception the review guy cites and without that it’s kinda hard for it NOT to be at least reviewed. Anyone with a link to the applicable rule? I’d like to feel we got robbed…but I’m not finding the goods…
..........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
There are specific situations addressed in that link, among them the one at hand. It clearly states "no handball" in this situation. Why this isn't written into the law directly, I have no idea.
"a player heads/kicks the ball and it then hits their own hand/arm?"
"This is not handball (unless the ball goes directly into the opponents’ goal or the player scores immediately afterwards, in which case a direct free kick is awarded to the other team)."
Okay. I’ll buy justifiable given Menges’ movements.
But I don’t see how that suggests that the VAR wasn’t reasonable. It was a fast-moving sequence that involved contact with a player’s arm in the 18. I’d have wanted a long look at it if I’d have had the whistle. But I’m more than agreed that the review should have ruled out the PK.
The VAR (dude in the studio) should definitely look at it to make sure (as with all potential pens), but it should never, as the report states, have been recommended for *on-field review.* The report isn't saying it shouldn't have been checked at all, it's saying it shouldn't have been recommended for further review on-field. VAR tells the ref to look when they believe there was an on-field error made. The VAR applied the law in error as described by the IFAB, which is why they had the ref look on-field.
We shouldn't excuse the ref either, who also didn't know the rule and kow-towed to the incompetent VAR instead of sticking to his guns.
It clarification on what unaturally bigger means. And through guidance with IFAB if you intentionally play the ball with a foot/head/chest/legal body part, you can not be unnaturally bigger. It is to be considered natural to have the arm stretched out like Menges or all the way over their head for balance. As Kielbj said unless the goal is scored direct from it. (Theirry Henry vs Ireland)
"PRO’s opinion: Both arms were in a justifiable position for the player’s movement and playing the ball to your own hand is an exception under handball considerations. This review should not have been recommended."
I’ll buy the “justifiable position” thing - my reading of the rule is that the old “ball-to-hand” exception was eliminated by the last revision.
But…I’d argue that the arm position wasn’t immediately enough to eliminate a review. It’s still worth looking at! But that the review should have concluded that the arm position was “justifiable” given Menges’ movements and the PK rejected…
Are teams required to submit availability reports? Portland and Loovull have nothing on the league website. Or maybe their web content squad is out font shopping.
0-2 Thorns take the 3 points home. LFG!
ETA Hina needs to start. I don't even care where. And then there's the dun-dun-dunnnnn question of whither Sinc?
There it is, thanks. Holy hell, are some teams shredded. While I give Soph a 4X impact multiplier, some really, really key players are out this weekend.
Honestly I’ll be good if this gets done by, say, November. Gives the new owners six to eight weeks to replace KK and Norris and get their own people in for the NCAA draft.
Paulson has no reason to hurry and every reason to try and extort as much as he can from the buyers. So there’s no “push” from one side…and we have no clue who’s even across the table, so we don’t know the “pull” at all.
Way down on my “things to stress about” list just because I don’t see where I have leverage outside of threatening to not renew unless Paulson sells ASAP…and there’s no way he does before 9/15…
Yeah I'd go with this lineup but Hina needs to be starting next to Dunn. Betfort up top. Sinc and Moultrie with sub minutes. Moultrie as the first sub for either Hina or Dunn, whoever needs to come out first.
NWSL VAR review is up.
Menges made a deliberate play on the ball first and it should never have been sent to review by VAR. Thorns review starts 4:35 in
https://youtu.be/7c9CperTKzk?si=saL1Zsa9oV2k7IxX
Thanks for posting. Really interesting to hear the commentary of the VAR to the on-field ref. Clearly influences the ref by calling it “hand ball” multiple times, calling it “unnatural,” and essentially convincing the the ref to call it. Not at all how the process is meant to work, even if it was the right call...which, as we all knew time of, it was not. He also states that the contact with the hand "stopped the cross," which is just objectively false!
So...what do we get out of this? The VAR shows a complete misunderstanding of one of the two rules he needs to know, and makes a bad recommendation to the on-field ref who feels like he has to overturn what he saw on-field. The VAR faces no punishment (should be suspended or fired) despite literally FAILING TO DO HIS ONE JOB, the Thorns get cheated out of two points in a historically tight shield race, and I have to take a walk around the block to stop myself from punching a hole in the wall.
Clearly, the league needs to substitute comment thread reffing for the VAR crew because commenters here who understand the handball rule (personally, not a member of that cohort) cited the rule correctly while they were still faffing with their fuzzy video options.
Yeah so so frustrating. How nice it would’ve been to be up by 4 rather than 2! Can’t be like this in a playoff run with the league this close.
Give us our 2 points back please.
GIGO then, GIGO today. Grrrrr, stabby feels.
ETA, Emily's control, turn and clearance are lost in the discussion. Terrific job in a bad situation.
So, basically all of us know more about soccer than the referee and the VAR crew.
Solid.
I’m honestly baffled why the PRO video guy says this.
I read thru the FIFA version of Law 12. It doesn’t provide an exception for deflection of the handling player. There IS an exception for “…the player’s body movement in that situation” which (per an FA publication) is largely intended to prevent a sliding player (who pretty much has to extend their arms) from being penalized if they make a good block that then bangs off an arm. But that isn’t the case here. There’s a deflection, but not sure that having her arm straight out is intrinsically part of “that situation”. I can see how it could be - but not how it automatically makes this not even reviewable.
I’ll be the first to say that 1) the handball rule is troublesome and that 2) the Menges handball was a troublesome example. The arm contact didn’t “benefit” Portland; the ball was going straight up, not towards goal or to a Washington player. The most likely outcome less the contact was a corner kick, or a Bixby take, or a scrummage in the box. Awarding a straight PK seems excessive for this given the circumstances. To me that PK was soft as church music.
But…I can’t find that exception the review guy cites and without that it’s kinda hard for it NOT to be at least reviewed. Anyone with a link to the applicable rule? I’d like to feel we got robbed…but I’m not finding the goods…
From the IFAB:
https://www.footballrules.com/offences-sanctions/handball/
..........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
There are specific situations addressed in that link, among them the one at hand. It clearly states "no handball" in this situation. Why this isn't written into the law directly, I have no idea.
"a player heads/kicks the ball and it then hits their own hand/arm?"
"This is not handball (unless the ball goes directly into the opponents’ goal or the player scores immediately afterwards, in which case a direct free kick is awarded to the other team)."
https://proreferees.com/2023/09/02/2023-the-definitive-angle-nwsl-week-20/: FWIW, the written explanation also states that Menges' position is "justifiable."
Okay. I’ll buy justifiable given Menges’ movements.
But I don’t see how that suggests that the VAR wasn’t reasonable. It was a fast-moving sequence that involved contact with a player’s arm in the 18. I’d have wanted a long look at it if I’d have had the whistle. But I’m more than agreed that the review should have ruled out the PK.
The VAR (dude in the studio) should definitely look at it to make sure (as with all potential pens), but it should never, as the report states, have been recommended for *on-field review.* The report isn't saying it shouldn't have been checked at all, it's saying it shouldn't have been recommended for further review on-field. VAR tells the ref to look when they believe there was an on-field error made. The VAR applied the law in error as described by the IFAB, which is why they had the ref look on-field.
We shouldn't excuse the ref either, who also didn't know the rule and kow-towed to the incompetent VAR instead of sticking to his guns.
It clarification on what unaturally bigger means. And through guidance with IFAB if you intentionally play the ball with a foot/head/chest/legal body part, you can not be unnaturally bigger. It is to be considered natural to have the arm stretched out like Menges or all the way over their head for balance. As Kielbj said unless the goal is scored direct from it. (Theirry Henry vs Ireland)
Yeah, this was from PRO:
"PRO’s opinion: Both arms were in a justifiable position for the player’s movement and playing the ball to your own hand is an exception under handball considerations. This review should not have been recommended."
https://proreferees.com/2023/09/02/2023-the-definitive-angle-nwsl-week-20/
I’ll buy the “justifiable position” thing - my reading of the rule is that the old “ball-to-hand” exception was eliminated by the last revision.
But…I’d argue that the arm position wasn’t immediately enough to eliminate a review. It’s still worth looking at! But that the review should have concluded that the arm position was “justifiable” given Menges’ movements and the PK rejected…
Are teams required to submit availability reports? Portland and Loovull have nothing on the league website. Or maybe their web content squad is out font shopping.
0-2 Thorns take the 3 points home. LFG!
ETA Hina needs to start. I don't even care where. And then there's the dun-dun-dunnnnn question of whither Sinc?
Sometimes the league website is slow to post such things.
The availability report is up now , a little before noon Friday.
There it is, thanks. Holy hell, are some teams shredded. While I give Soph a 4X impact multiplier, some really, really key players are out this weekend.
From non league website
Racing Louisville OUT: Jordyn Bloomer (D45 - back); Jordan Baggett (lower leg); Savannah DeMelo (suspension); Carson Pickett (lower leg); Jess McDonald (maternity leave); Jaelin Howell (hip); QUESTIONABLE: Nadia Nadim (thigh)
Portland Thorns OUT: Janine Beckie (SEI - knee); Sophia Smith (knee)
Interesting re. DeMelo, who has accumulated four yellow and one spicy red. Talk about fortunate timing!
Yeah, if we can't capitalize on these holes in their starting XI...
That is a ROUGH IR for Loovul.
Hopefully, this won’t be one of those times the Thorns play down to their opponent’s level.
Hey look, Sinc's in the starting XI.
Kidding. Maybe. We have personnel for a hammer-and-tongs lineup and I think they like having top slot.
Don’t joke about that shit. Rope, house of a person who was hanged, you know…
Hina for Moultrie and this is my preferred lineup as well. Really hoping we see it.
OT: The Board of Governors approved the Chicago No Stars sale. Portland Thorns, you're on the clock.
Nobody yet willing to accommodate their demand for a top-quality 12-piece patio furniture set.
On the sundial more like.
Honestly I’ll be good if this gets done by, say, November. Gives the new owners six to eight weeks to replace KK and Norris and get their own people in for the NCAA draft.
Paulson has no reason to hurry and every reason to try and extort as much as he can from the buyers. So there’s no “push” from one side…and we have no clue who’s even across the table, so we don’t know the “pull” at all.
Way down on my “things to stress about” list just because I don’t see where I have leverage outside of threatening to not renew unless Paulson sells ASAP…and there’s no way he does before 9/15…
I’ll be *ecstatic* if this is done by November, and I don’t really expect it to be haha
I’m kinda 60-40 it’s done by 2024. Which gives you the idea…
At least by the dang draft.
Why wouldn't Hina start? Odd prediction for the 11 (unless she's got a knock we don't know about).
Yeah. she looked to be one of the better players on the pitch last game, and her impact was immediate.
Starting lineup in the order listed:
Bella
Kling
Menges
Hubly
Natu
Rocky
Coffey (c)
Hina
Moultrie
Weaver
Betfort
Could that order mean Hina at the 10 at long last?!?
Looks good, but I'd have the crook at the ready if Hubly doesn't play with fire.
Dunn and Sinc as subs today?
Dunn starting on the bench, which is odd...a knock in training, perhaps?
Betfort over Hina? Makes no sense.
Hina’s not going to start as a second striker. If she starts (which she should), it’ll be in Moultrie’s spot imo
Yeah I'd go with this lineup but Hina needs to be starting next to Dunn. Betfort up top. Sinc and Moultrie with sub minutes. Moultrie as the first sub for either Hina or Dunn, whoever needs to come out first.