This is a real dog's dinner. We have Hackett saying VAR should have given the penalty but he makes no mention, and probably wasn't aware at the time, of the ball touching Siva's arm first. Clattenburg says no penalty was correct but that the wrong reason has been given - Silva's handball should have been the reason, otherwise it should have been a penalty as TAA's arm wasn't in a natural position; and Halsey thought Oliver's view may have been restricted by Aguero but VAR should have advised a penalty. Halsey's comments raised a question in my mind: we don't know what Michael Oliver saw or thought he saw and whether he had a good view (I still think it wasn't the best angle). But suppose he thought it might be a penalty but wasn't sure enough and therefore wanted VAR to look at it. Could he have blown straightaway for the VAR check to avoid the risk of a breakaway and goal at the other end, which of course is what happened? (If VAR had then stated no penalty, how would the game restart?) Or, not having made a decision, is he obliged to let play continue?
Hackett's version is wrong according to the latest version of the law on handball. Clattenburg's observation is correct but his conclusion is flawed for the reason given by Readingfan - if you allow play to continue after a "deliberate" handball then a player can catch the ball run to the edge of the penalty area and boot the ball upfield. Halsey is wrong insofar as a penalty should not have been awarded (for the same reason as Hackett) but is correct that VAR should have intervened. Play should have been allowed to continue but called back for a Liverpool free kick after the VAR check was completed. To allow the goal to stand means that advantage was given to the perpetrator of the handball, a new concept.
Whilst I agree with your point about that handball should be defined in terms of gaining an advantage (and defined the same for defenders and attackers), in this case under the current laws, I think Mark Clattenburg's view has merit. Whether Silva's handling of the ball is deliberate or not, it does deflect the ball towards TAA (arguably) within close proximity and this is an exception to the unnatural position criterion for a deliberate handball? If that is the case, then even if Silva's handling is deliberate then TAA has not committed a handling offence and so playing an advantage is ok.
This is of course a bit of moot argument as the PGMOL have said that Silva's handball played no part in the decision. For the second week running their comments pose more questions than they answer. If they are going to say anything then I think they should say exactly why it was not a penalty and relate that directly to the current wording of the laws. Henry Winter in the Times this morning thought that the PGMOL quote "it did not meet the considerations for a deliberate handball" confusing and insulting, and that managers and supporters deserve better.
Home
Forum
Search
Contact
Login
Register
