RateTheRef

Reading reports about David Moyes reaction to his team not getting a penalty last night I was wondering about whether he actually had a point? I have read that PGMOL stated after the match that the defender had his hand down to break his fall and therefore when the ball struck his hand, it was in a natural position. No penalty. Now, if I recall correctly didn't West Ham earlier this season get the benefit of the doubt when one of their defenders fell on the ball in the penalty area? So apart from conveniently ignoring this matter, the decision follows convention and imho it is not a clear and obvious error, therefore VAR could not intervene. So far no problem for me apart from Moyes rant that is. But did he have a point? Does the law or interpretation of the handball law need adjusting?
A defender going off his feet to make a block is almost by default making himself bigger. His silhouette is therefore larger (his hand is stuck out to break his fall ) and is a result of a conscious decision to try and make a legitimate block. Should the Law be amended to imply that if you go off your feet to make a block you are liable to sanction if the ball hits your hand?
What do others think?

Reading reports about David Moyes reaction to his team not getting a penalty last night I was wondering about whether he actually had a point? I have read that PGMOL stated after the match that the defender had his hand down to break his fall and therefore when the ball struck his hand, it was in a natural position. No penalty. Now, if I recall correctly didn't West Ham earlier this season get the benefit of the doubt when one of their defenders fell on the ball in the penalty area? So apart from conveniently ignoring this matter, the decision follows convention and imho it is not a clear and obvious error, therefore VAR could not intervene. So far no problem for me apart from Moyes rant that is. But did he have a point? Does the law or interpretation of the handball law need adjusting?
A defender going off his feet to make a block is almost by default making himself bigger. His silhouette is therefore larger (his hand is stuck out to break his fall ) and is a result of a conscious decision to try and make a legitimate block. Should the Law be amended to imply that if you go off your feet to make a block you are liable to sanction if the ball hits your hand?
What do others think?

West Ham have scored several goals this season after benefitting from handball decisions in their favour, three of these alone against Fulham and two when Kavanagh was ref! West Hand have had more than their rub of the green

To clarify, imho Kavanagh got the decision right and Moyes is sulking again. No issues with that decision. I switched to the game getting bored with City v Arsenal game which was rather static in spite of its quality. The game at West Ham was far more pleasing on the eye.

Moyes is another serial whingebag!

Would've been very harsh for VAR to get involved there.

He would be saying no issues if it was the other way around.

Moyes' moan is a classic manager's tactic to avoid addressing why his team lost.  Its the footballing equivalent of a dead cat distraction.

As an aside, I am fed up with the nonsense surrounding VAR during (and after) a game.  I would dearly like to see VAR used on a team challenge basis.  Give the team captain three challenges per game and they can use them as they see fit.  If they are right, they keep the challenge, if they are wrong they lose it.

As soon as the committee of players surrounds the referee to dispute a decision, the referee can - in essence - ask the captain to:  "Put up or shut up".  It works in cricket and hockey; football should try it.

Moyes' moan is a classic manager's tactic to avoid addressing why his team lost.  Its the footballing equivalent of a dead cat distraction.

As an aside, I am fed up with the nonsense surrounding VAR during (and after) a game.  I would dearly like to see VAR used on a team challenge basis.  Give the team captain three challenges per game and they can use them as they see fit.  If they are right, they keep the challenge, if they are wrong they lose it.

As soon as the committee of players surrounds the referee to dispute a decision, the referee can - in essence - ask the captain to:  "Put up or shut up".  It works in cricket and hockey; football should try it.

I'm not necessarily sure what benefits a challenge system would bring, although obviously it depends on what you are trying to achieve.

I think it would be likely to lead to more delays in games because of VAR. If you're giving a team at least 3 challenges per match then they might as well use them so you're probably looking at 6 uses per game at least, and more if some are retained. I can't think of too many games that have had 6 lengthy VAR reviews. There are quite a few games where VAR isn't really notable at all.

There are some instances which are so marginal that it would be a bit of a lottery as to whether a challenge was successful or not, such as the very marginal offsides. If a few of these have happened and a team have narrowly been on the wrong side of them and used up their challenges and you get a situation in the 90th minute similar to Thierry Henry handball v ROI then it would seem to undermine the whole point of bringing in VAR as you can't use it. This would also mean that a wrong decision after VAR could have even more implications, as it would result in a challenge being lost too.

And if you'd had it on Wednesday night and Kavanagh had stuck with his original decision then presumably you'd pretty much be in the same position.

I do think the bar for VAR intervention might be too high in general and the VAR is perhaps a bit too separate from the referee. I can understand them wanting to do this initially as it was such a big change but I think it would be better if the referee was naturally able to view more replays but had more power to stick with their original decision. I guess I am thinking of a system more like rugby in this regard.