Seems like a pretty standard no-handball call to me.
The screenshot below shows the defensive player clearly with his hands behind his back (he’s not purposefully trying to play the ball). He also doesn’t have his arms in an unnatural position (I’d argue this is actually a very natural position when defending crosses in modern day football).
This is what defending crosses looks like in 2023.
Here’s a screenshot of the LA Galaxy coach duplicating what the defensive player did and it’s just clearly not the same thing. He’s arguing what he’s doing is, “not a natural silhouette” which may be correct. But his reenactment and what actually happened on the field are just two different things entirely.
Bock bock!
My take: Usually when the hands are tucked behind the back like that on a cross, I think it’s really hard to call a handball on a defender for it. Unless it’s super obvious a defender stuck his arm out to purposefully make contact with the ball, I’m not calling this.
As is the case with most big moments in the game, this is a good reminder that you need to have a good sightline on the cross as the CR.
And while the AR’s main duty here is to track offside players, it also important for you to try to get eyes on crosses like this to help the CR make a potentially critical call.
2. Offside, line of vision (2:08)
This is probably the right call by the letter of the law. The attacking player is in an offside position while shielding the goalkeeper’s vision of the ball before it hits the defenders head.
Takeaway: To be honest, I’m not 100% convinced that this is the right call. And I’m a former goalkeeper! Is it “clear and obvious” that the attacker in an offside position got in the goalkeeper’s line of vision such that it affected his play on the ball? I’m not sure it reaches that threshold.
See the screenshot below. It’s easier to see in the video but the goalkeeper starts stepping to his left as the ball is hit, which in my mind means he knows where it’s going.
In my opinion, the goalkeeper’s actions seem natural and unaffected by a blocked view!
Then once it deflects off the defender’s head, the attacking player is in an offside position but isn’t in the keeper’s line of vision anymore so the offsides offense is no more.
Like I said, I think this was probably the right call (and the less controversial one) but I still have questions…
3. Handball, penalty (3:22)
A good handball call after the VAR review, I think.
The talking heads mention that they don’t like the angle given by the video assistant. That it makes the hand look farther away from the body and doesn’t give the angle of the hand being more naturally behind the body.
Here’s the angle shown to the CR from behind the goal…
Looks like a handball!
And here’s the angle they wanted the video assistant to show the CR to review (they never did, apparently)…
Still looks like a handball!
My take: I think even if both angles were given the CR is giving this penalty. The arm is away from the body, regardless of whether it’s in front or behind it!
4. Foul, penalty (4:16)
This is not the right call, in my opinion.
I think it’s clear that the player goes down easily and is looking for this call.
The giveaway is that if contact is made, it’s to the left calf of the attacker. The attacker’s first reaction after contact is made is to lift up their right leg and go down.
Clearly an unnatural reaction to contact
My take: This seems like pretty basic simulation and a cautionable offense, in my book. But given the call on the field was a penalty, it probably can’t be overturned as a “clear and obvious” error.
5. No foul, corner (4:49)
This is a great phantom foul call by the CR, in my opinion. There may be some knee-to-knee contact but it was minimal and not enough to call a foul here.
I describe this contact more as “brushing” than true contact.
My take: Although I think the CR got this call correct, I think her positioning could have been better.
As you can see from the screenshot below, she’s directly behind the play which makes it really difficult to see any contact made. On top of that, her vision is blocked by another attacker and potentially a second defender.
CR1 is probably the best position to be in if she could have started pulling around back outside towards her diagonal. But given she came from the top side of the field, she might have stayed outside closer to her AR to be in a CR2 position.
CR1 is better because it puts the action between the CR and AR but I still think even CR2 is better than where she was when the potential foul happened.
6. Trip, penalty (5:29)
Not much to say here except it’s a pretty clear trip!
Didn’t even look like the defender was attempting to play the ball!
My take: I really like how the CR played advantage here. With the attacker staying on their feet, it was great for her to hold her whistle and see if he might have an opportunity to score. Anyway, clear trip and penalty.
Note: I hate how the team that gave up the penalty is crowding the CR while she’s announcing her call. And people keep wondering why we’re seeing so many player/official incidents happen…
7. No push, goal kick (5:57)
This is a penalty shout for an extended-arm push by the defender. I think this was called correctly as a no-call.
Not enough for me!
My take: Clearly the challenge didn’t happen from behind as the defender pushes the attacker’s chest.
Even though the arm was extended, I think contact was just made while the attacker was slightly off-balance preparing to shoot. The push itself does not exert enough force to be a foul, in my opinion.
8. No push, goal (6:36)
I think again, this is a good no-call! Given the push (7 above) wasn’t called in the same game, this is good consistency from the officiating crew.
My take: So like 7 above, there is a push that does affect a player on the opposing team. But the contact is so minimal in this case, even more so than 7, that this is a proper no-call.
9. (7:31)
Also not much to say here except that VAR got the call right. The foul definitely happened outside the penalty area.
My take: Another CR position that could have been better, in my opinion. If the referee had gotten to CR1, they would have had a better angle on the play and I think been able to tell it was outside the box. Another lesson that teaches us to get outside!
10. No call, goal (7:47)
I love this call! You really need video for this one because you’ll need to determine if the ball was still when the player kicked it for the restart to be legitimate.
Here’s a very unhelpful screenshot…
My take: To bring a restart ball because the ball was kicked while it was still moving, I think that movement has to be fairly obvious. You need to be 100% sure it was moving to call it back. In this case, I think the ball has stopped but is definitely within the margin of error that you’d allow play to continue.
11. Foul, DFK for defending team (8:45)
I think this is a really tough call to make! Of everything I’ve reviewed today, this one has me watching it over and over again trying to see if I agree with the call.
This is the screenshot that has me on the fence. It just looks like an easy tripping call and penalty.
But I get the idea that the defender is entitled to their space and if you interpret this as a step to get position and shield the ball (and not a trip) then the DFK for the defending team is the correct outcome.
My take: I think the reason I’m having a hard time with this call is that I’ve never examined a play like this before. I think this is why video study is so, so important for referees. You can easily expand the number of plays and outcomes you see far outside what you’ll see just working games. I think the smartest move here is to internalize this positioning by the defender so it pops back up in my brain when I see it on the field and can make the same call.
I’m also going to agree with the call on the field. What helped me make up my mind is the way the defender is facing. I think in most cases, a trip would mean the defender was going into the challenge facing the defender. But that’s not what’s happening here! Clearly the defender is in a shielding position which is the determining factor for me.
12. DOGSO foul, red card & DFK (9:16)
Great call by the officiating team here! Everything here is spot on for me.
The last defender holds the attacker in a clear DOGSO situation. So the red card is correct.
The pen/no-pen call is a little more nuanced. A hold that starts outside the penalty area and continues into the penalty area is a penalty! But the hold does stop before the attacking player enters the penalty area so the resulting DFK is also the correct call.
My take: The best part about this is the 3rd team communication! Here’s what I think happened: the CR takes a few moments before giving the red card because he’s listening to the VAR or AR tell him or agree that it was a DOGSO. Then he takes a few more seconds to point towards the spot. Most likely what happened here was VAR told him to call the penalty because VAR is allowed to review if a penalty call happened outside the box. It must have taken insane concentration for the CR to listen and trust his team while surrounded by yelling players. Love it!
Know a soccer ref? Feel free to share this with them 💙
Thanks for reading RefJourney! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.
