[ad_1]
Everything was going on regularly for Manchester City in Gelsenkirchen. Sergio Aguero had put the visitors 1-0 in the 18th minute after David Silva stole Salif Sane on the edge of the box and equalized the ball to allow Argentina to kick the ball. It was surely the beginning of another easy night for Pep Guardiola's team.
At half-time, they lost 2-1 after conceding two penalties for Nabil Bentaleb. Nicolas Otamendi's dismissal for a second yellow card in the middle of the second half served only to make matters worse.
Leroy Sane restored parity with a late free kick and superbly hit, and Raheem Sterling got a winner in the final seconds to give the expected result at the end. The city will have no excuse if it fails to qualify for the quarterfinals of the Champions League: it has three goals on the outside in its favor and an upcoming home away from home. Respectfully for Schalke, it would be rather a shock if City failed now.
But as difficult as it may be, you could be a little sympathetic with City for the first decision of sanction which was opposed to them: a handball against Nicolas Otamendi, given after a rather long revision of VAR – regardless of Guardiola's admission that he thought the right decision had been made.
There is no doubt that Daniel Caligiuri's shot hit Otamendi on the forearm. But the laws of the game make it very clear that such offenses must be "deliberate" and – since the referee saw the incident and immediately left a gap – the VAR can make such a decision only if a "clear and obvious" error has been made.
The incident highlighted some of the VAR wrinkles that will need to be addressed: the viewer did not fully understand what sequences the referees used to make their decision, and one of the reasons for the delay was that both sets The referees were surrounded by ongoing discussions, which led the official to speak with the two captains, for the good that it had.
But the VAR process was a red clutter in this case, and only served to hide the fact that handball is the most opaque offense in the rule book. Since the IFAB (International Football Association Board) insists that the rules be called "laws", it seems reasonable to treat them as such.
In law, it is usually necessary to prove the mens reaor "guilty" of a crime. Because accidents occur, it is generally not enough that an act has taken place (the actus reusit must also be shown that the responsible party had intended to do so or should have known that it could be prejudicial, but nevertheless took the lead. In many criminal trials, the verdict depends on whether the jury considers that the prosecution's arguments mens rea was present.
Most mistakes in football do not require mens rea, making it "strict liability" offenses … a bit like if you were being taken for speeding in your car, the act alone is enough for it to be criminal, whether you like it or not. This is only reasonable in sport: it would be impracticable, at the very least, to stipulate that one's own goals should only survive if you intend to turn the ball into your own net.
Handball is different because it forces the referee to make a decision on mens rea: "Did the player do this deliberately or not?" There is no attorney for the prosecution or defense who logically seizes a jury of 12 laypeople over several days; the grievor should instead make the decision immediately, after seeing it once, with the naked eye, in real time. This seems almost impossible to determine in all but the most egregious cases, like Luis Suarez against Ghana at the 2010 World Cup.
(For curious minds, the only other offense that requires the referee to decide what the player must mens rea were all either rare, less serious or more likely: violent behavior, delaying the resumption of play, leaving the field of play, pbading a pbad and defenders playing the ball to an opponent in an offside position the only other laws involving the requirement "deliberate".)
The duties of public servants are made more difficult by the lack of precision of the laws concerning the level of proof required. In English criminal law, the standard is set at nothing less than beyond a reasonable doubt (that is, "I am 99% sure they thought so"); in civil law, it is usually good to make a decision on the balance of probabilities (that is, "yes, they probably thought so").
This creates a huge contradiction. Because almost everything is a strict responsibility in football, the standard must be beyond a reasonable doubt; However, it is impossible for a non-psychic referee to make a decision that achieves this standard for a handball, with the exception of the most serious cases of Suarezy. But lower the norm to balance of probabilities would open the door to absurdly soft decisions in handball. But then, where are we with the VAR obligation that any error must be "clear and obvious"? Ugh. I need to sit down.
Fortunately, it may not be necessary to wait too long for these issues to be solved: a discussion on the handball law is already on the agenda for the next IFAB Annual General Meeting, which will take place on Saturday, March 2nd.
Hello, The IFAB is aware that handball is one of the most controversial areas of #LawsOfTheGame. This topic is on the agenda of our March 2 Annual General Meeting (https://t.co/J0F1M7C6RS). He seeks a more precise and detailed wording of the different types of handball offenses.
– IFAB (@TheIFAB) February 4, 2019
It is clear that the current law has been crafted with the best intentions in the world, but with supporters, players and managers all demanding greater clarity and clarity, the current wording leaves too much room for debate. It seems that the options would be either to reduce the penalty for an unintentional handball to an indirect free kick inside the surface, as in the case of a back pbad; make handball an offense of strict liability, which may seem draconian but at least clear; or to formulate the law in such a way as to recognize and accept a certain degree of interpretation on the part of the officials.
Either that or we all have to grow up and accept the fact that it is a difficult area that will always be open to interpretation and that we just have to accept it when it does not suit us. But I think we all know that it will not happen.
Steven Poulet is on Twitter
[ad_2]
Source link
