Decided to get the Monday VAR thread out early this week, to fully explain Aston Villa's disallowed goal:
- No option but to disallow the goal
- What the wording of Law 12 means
- Why the "save" element has confused people
- Why the Newcastle goal is different
- Other incidents
Here's the video of what happened. I'd advise waiting for all tweets on this before asking questions - everything will be covered.
There is a misconception that a goalkeeper must have two hands on the ball to be in control.
Here are the relevant sections of Law 12 relating to a goalkeeper being in possession. I'll use this a few times and highlight certain clauses to explain what it means.
Let's start with the section that means the goal cannot possibly be allowed to stand.
So, as of this point, it is against the Laws of the Game for Kasper Schmeichel to "be challenged by an opponent" because having one hand on the ball, which is on the ground, is deemed being in control of the ball.
Jacob Ramsey has to be penalised with a direct free-kick.
Some said it's "not a clear and obvious error," but it absolutely is.
Michael Oliver gave the goal because he thought Ramsey got to the ball before Schmeichel. But it was the other way around, and therefore a goal simply cannot be allowed to stand.
It is 100% a VAR overturn.
Here is a section of referee guidance which explains that if any part of the hand or arm, even just the fingertips, is in contact with the ball on the ground, the goalkeeper is in possession.
And therefore he cannot be challenged for the ball.
NB: No mention of a save.
But this guidance is not new. The section I posted in the previous tweet is from guidelines issued in April 2010, but it predates.
Keeper possession was rewritten because of several incidents in the 1990s, including this infamous Gary Crosby goal.
Now to explain the section of the Law which has been totally misunderstood - the rebound/save element.
And with good reason. Many of the Laws are not written clearly, and as I often say you cannot correctly referee a football match just from reading the Laws of the game.
Everyone has applied this clause to try and fit the Schmeichel incident. You can't. You must consider the whole clause.
If you say Schmeichel doesn't have control with one hand after a save, you are also saying a keeper doesn't have control after a save if holding with BOTH.
So the attempted interpretation to allow Ramsey's goal would mean goalkeeper could be challenged at any point after they have made a save.
Schmeichel could have the ball in two hands and Ramsey could still kick it.
So what does it actually mean?
The clause actually sets out when a goalkeeper is in control of the ball, and when they aren't, for the purposes of touching the ball a second time.
It is defining when a goalkeeper can touch the ball again after releasing it.
The Law says that a keeper is in control "by touching it with any part of the hands or arms".
When making a save, a keeper usually touches it "with any part of the hands or arms".
Without the clause, a keeper couldn't touch the ball again after a save before another player has.
So, without the clause "if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save" he would not be able to touch the ball again before another player.
The clause literally allows Schmeichel to touch the ball again, it doesn't say he can't be in control.
Here is another section from the referee guidelines.
It specifically describes how the clause on the rebound/save is about a goalkeeper being able to handle the ball again before its touched by another player.
It is NOT to prevent him from having control of the ball.
So:
- The save clause allows Schmeichel to touch the ball a second time
- Control is established as soon as the hand is on top of the ball, even for half a second
- The save and control of the ball aren't related to create an exemption for Ramsey to kick the ball
Here's a similar example from MLS.
New York Red Bulls vs. New York City FC.
- The keeper makes a hash of a save.
- Stops it on the line
- Striker kicks it in from under his hand
- Goal is disallowed by the referee
Though there is a little quirk to this story, as the goal was eventually allowed for the goal being the ball just over the line when the keeper stopped it.
But it was disallowed initially for the act of the striker.
MLS doesn't have goal-line tech.
The difference between Schmeichel and Nick Pope is quite obvious.
The Law states that "a goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball".
But Pope isn't challenged by the player he collides with.
At no point is Fabian Schar challenging the goalkeeper. Pope runs into him, loses control of the ball, and it falls to Callum Wilson to score.
There is no foul here, as we have seen with several other similar incidents this season (Sanchez, Pickford).
Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall wanted a penalty after this challenge by Douglas Luiz.
The Premier League set out that this kind of minimal contact on the top of the foot should not be given as a penalty this season, so there was no chance of a VAR review.
Emmanuel Dennis went down in the area under this contact from Rodri, but again the guidance is that contact and an attacker's motives are key.
Delayed fall + contact didn't cause the player to go down.
Last season this may well have been a penalty, certainly not this season.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Why don't leagues have a chip in the ball for semi-automated VAR offside?
🖥️ Tech by Kinexon
⚽️ Centre-mounted chip in ball developed & patented by Adidas
❌ No league uses Adidas
Adidas would need to share/licence, or other ball companies find an alternative to house chip.
Who are the ball manufacturers for the different leagues?
Premier League (Nike this season, Puma from 2025-26)
LaLiga (Puma)
Bundesliga (Derbystar)
Serie A (Puma)
Ligue 1 (Kipsta)
Kinexon has worked with Adidas, Derbystar and Puma so far.
It's not easy to overcome, as Kinexon went through 1000s of prototypes until it achieved a ball that was actually FIFA-approved, in weight and the counterweight and the balance, and that provided good results.
So it's not as simple as saying "put a chip in the ball".
🔷 How many places in Champions League for Serie A
🔷 What happens to place in UCL for the UEL titleholders
🔷 What happens to seeding for the 2024-25 UCL, 👀 Barcelona
Pull up a chair a moment.
1. How many places will Serie A get in the Champions League?
We know Italy will have 5 teams in the UCL next season as they have one of the 2 extra places for league performance.
Atalanta are 5th. If they finish 5th, and 5th only, Italy will have 6 teams in the UCL.
AS Roma are guaranteed to finish in 6th, so they are left waiting on Atalanta's final position.
If Atalanta finish 5th, AS Roma will be in the UCL.
If Atalanta finish 3rd or 4th, AS Roma will be in the UEL.
Atalanta sit two points outside the top 4 with a game in hand.
Sick of keepers holding the ball for 30-40 seconds to waste time or slow down play?
The [unenforced] law says a keeper can only hold the ball for 6 seconds. Any longer and it's an indirect FK to the opposition.
We now have details of The IFAB trial to change it.
Thread. 👇
As well as wasting time, a goalkeeper holding the ball for too long is considered an unfair tactic because the opposing team has no possibility to regain possession.
That's because a goalkeeper cannot be challenged when in control of the ball with the hand(s).
A keeper holding the ball for more than 6 seconds should be punishable by an indirect free kick.
However, we have got to the stage where this is rarely enforced by referees, which in recent years has been exploited tactically.
Mauro Icardi's offside in Galatasaray vs. Manchester United gives us a good illustration of how semi-automated technology will be more accurate and reliable - yet may lead to more goals being disallowed.
This was ruled out on the field, but stay with me.
There's a common misconception that handball starts at the bottom of the sleeve.
This isn't the case.
It's the arm point level with the armpit - if you had it by your side - around the whole arm.
Basically, the area of the arm which can't increase body size if you move it.
The starting point for offside (and handball) is therefore an imaginary line on the arm.
With the old tech, the point on the attacker and defender is plotted manually by the VAR and operator.
This obviously has to cause inconsistencies, and it's why there's a tolerance level.
This is what happened with the Luis Diaz "goal" which Liverpool had disallowed vs. Tottenham.
There will be a deeper dive in the Monday VAR thread, but in simple terms the VAR took the wrong onfield decision - it led to the goal being disallowed.
So the VAR, Darren England, checked offside thinking the onfield decision was "goal."
It was a quick offside check because it was clear Diaz was onside, so he told the referee "check complete".
In telling the ref "check complete" he is saying the onfield decision was correct.
So the "human error" by the VAR team is getting the onfield decision wrong. Not by failing to draw lines etc.
The lines were drawn and Diaz was clearly onside.
The huge, quite unbelievable error was misunderstanding the onfield decision.
So the dust has settled on the first VAR audio show of the year with Howard Webb.
Time for a little old-school VAR thread to go through it.
I'll include the video clips.
We got 2 of the 3 big errors in the Premier League this season - the penalty not given against Andre Onana vs. Wolves + the offside goal Man City scored against Fulham.
It didn't include Alexis Mac Allister's red card, which has been the main point of complaint in my comments.
It would have been better to include that Mac Allister red, especially as it was overturned on appeal.
But then if you include Mac Allister, you drop something else (Zaroury?). And you absolutely have to include the examples of good process to show where VAR works.