Christian Pulisic’s match-winner against Genoa has been heavily debated on social media as there was a possible handball on the American. However, as per the rules, the right decision was taken by VAR.
The ball bounced up after Pulisic’s first touch and it looked like he chested the ball, before sending it into the back of the net. However, there were some shouts for a handball, and VAR carried out a check for several minutes on the matter.
Speaking to DAZN after the game, as cited by SempreMilan.it, the former referee and current expert Luca Marelli shared his thoughts on the goal. He stated that the right decision was made as the images were inconclusive.
“Pulisic’s goal is one of football’s funny mysteries. We have seen all the images available, but there is not a single image available from which it emerges with certainty that there was a touch of the arm. We can guess it, but to intervene the VAR must be certain.
“It reminds us of what happened in Milan-Udinese two years ago. Udogie’s goal was not disallowed despite the clear feeling that he had touched it with his left arm. Even there, as there was no clear image, the goal was validated. According to the protocol, it is not possible to decide on the basis of a sensation, but only on the basis of a certainty,” he stated.
Milan will face Juventus after the international break and will be hoping to keep their spot at the top of the standings. It won’t be an easy game, though, as Theo Hernandez and Mike Maignan will be suspended.
Interesting. The referee expert on CBS said otherwise, that there clearly was a handball. But I must say, i feel like maybe only 1 angle of the many from the VAR replays maybe showed that the ball hit his bicep. At least this decision went for us. So im happy
There are 2 things at play:
1. Does it strike red zone (below armpit) or green zone (above armpit). If green zone, it is not handball.
2. Does the touch at the chest before the kick make the goal not immediately after the accidental handball? If it means not immediate then the goal cannot be ruled out by accidental handball. Goal can only be ruled out by accidental handball if the goal is scored directly by the handball or immediately after the handball.
You touching the ball with another body part doesn’t exclude the handball. You didn’t understand the rules properly. That is also immediate.
You misunderstood what I wrote. Read again, I never claim such thing.
“Does the touch at the chest before the kick make the goal not immediately after the accidental handball?”. If you ask a question like that, you don’t understand it. Maybe it was for the sake of the comment but it is exactly what I told you, I did not misunderstand anything….
Oh so the first sentence was for question number 2. I thought your first sentence was for question number 1 while the last sentence was for question number 2.
If I understand the rule, why do I ask? I ask because I don’t know whether it’s classified as immediate or not. That is why I use “IF”. There is no need to insult someone who is asking for explanation about the rule.
Yes, you should also stop being snowflake. Telling someone they didn’t understand something is an insult how?
But I can apologise for that if you think it was an insult. It just wasn’t. Anyway, you can’t break the handball by touching the ball with another body part. In that case it would be quite easy to avoid the “accidental” handball, you’d just use another body part to “cancel” it. It makes sense, right?
When someone is asking for something they don’t understand, you should not ridicule them for not understanding it. That is an insult which promote a culture where asking question is considered as stupid thing. Your “snowflake” remark is also an insult.
Ok. Anyhow, it is common sense.
It is common sense that question should be answered by answer instead of by mocking the questioner for needing to ask the question.
Ok.
Hey @Yelnets24 you shouldn’t take this guy seriously, all he knows is to be toxic with other fans without even reading the comment properly.
The CBS people who kept saying that Pulisic’s goal was a handball were looking at the WRONG VIEW. They kept showing views from the side of the field or at an angle from the goal towards Pulisic’s back before he turns, and in those views the ball and his right arm are simply projected on top of each other. It’s simply an optical illusion based on the 3D locations of the ball and his right arm being superimposed on top of each other in those projections onto a 2D image (see my example of how I can get you to think I have touched the Moon, below). There is simply no way to tell from these superimposed views whether the ball is touching his arm or is one or two or 10 inches away from his arm, simply because the two structures are SUPERIMPOSED on top of each other in a 2D image. The key is that there are actually a couple of views (in the AC Milan Youtube video highlights of the match) looking straight at the goal, and looking straight at Pulisic’s chest at the moment when the ball rises up to the level of his chest, where the ball is NOT superimposed on top of his right arm – in these views, the ball bounces only off his chest and as he turns, he bring his right arm AWAY from the ball and HIS RIGHT ARM NEVER TOUCHES THE BALL. So, all those people who kept saying this was a handball need to FIND THESE VIDEO SHOTS OF PULISIC CHESTING THE BALL CLEANLY AND TURNING WITHOUT EVER TOUCHING THE BALL WITH HIS RIGHT ARM.
Seriously, think about it. It I take a photo of me pointing at the Moon, and my finger is superimposed over the Moon on the 2D photo, are you going to then conclude that I am actually touching the Moon with my finger? The one photo you need to prove that I’m NOT touching the Moon with my finger is not the image projecting my finger over the Moon, but a different angle, as perpendicular as possible to this other projection, that shows the full distance between between my finger and the Moon.
There’s no way based on the trajectory of the ball that his chest alone could have stopped the ball like that. It’s more apparent if you look at the side view
But I can apologise for that if you think it was an insult. It just wasn’t. Anyway, you can’t break the handball by touching the ball with another body part. In that case it would be quite easy to avoid the “accidental” handball, you’d just use another body part to “cancel” it. It makes sense, right?
You should know that not every handball result in foul. In case you don’t know, if someone has accidental handball (in which they don’t make the arm bigger or the ball is deflected to their arm/hand too quick for them to avoid it), then they pass the ball, and the pass ended up as an assist, the goal stands.
The word “immediate” in the rule is ambiguous, what classifiy as immediate? By the same person, by next touch after handball, or within certain time period???
Yes, if you touch the ball by accident, and you score the goal after that it is a handball. If you touch the ball by accident and assist it is a handball. It is not time defined or anything similar, they probably take the “same attack” as something to measure if it was immediate. In any case. He didn’t touch the ball with the hand since from what I saw because it was not below armpit “line”. If it was it would be handball.
I agree it is a bit stupid to classify it like that, but it is what it is…
Vlahovic made a save with his hand when we played against Juve last season. He extended his body area, but they awarded no penalty because ‘Vlahovic couldn’t remove his hand and it was in a natural position’. So I guess it works both ways. If you cannot detach your hand and you don’t shake it around, then it is no foul.
The rules clearly stated that if a ball touches any part of an attackers hand/arm in the build up to a goal, then the goal is to be disallowed, regardless of intention by the player. It’s clear the ball touches is upper arm. It’s traveling across his chest and then stops. That’s physically impossible without the intervention of the arm. It was a handball. But like the article points out with Udogie, sometimes you get the call, sometimes you dont. This time the call went our way.
“The rules clearly stated that if a ball touches any part of an attackers hand/arm in the build up to a goal, then the goal is to be disallowed, regardless of intention by the player.”
Actually, it doesn’t. The rule stated that scoring in the opponent’s goal will be disallowed if:
• directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
• immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental
There is no “build up to a goal” phrase in the rule. The closest thing is “immediately” which is ambiguous. In fact, if after the accidental handball, the ball is passed to a teammate and the teammate score, the goal won’t be disallowed despite the fact that the handball occur in the build up to the goal.