Is it or is it not the hand of Gerard Piqué?
While the Villarreal complains about two possible penalties committed last night by the Barcelona Football Club; the complaints are especially focused on the hand of Gerard Pique when barely six minutes of the match had elapsed.
An action that, according to the circular sent by the CTA to the referees for this same season, could be considered as involuntary. That is, the decision of Soto Grado in the field like that of Munuera Montero in the VOR room they would not have been wrong.
The circular of the arbitration establishment differentiates between sanctionable and non-sanctionable hands. Among the first is the voluntary hand, which is “When a player touches the ball voluntarily with his hand or arm, for example, making a movement in the direction of the ball.” Something that does not seem to be the case last night since Piqué has no intention of touching her with his hand when he falls to the ground to cut the shot.
The second option to be sanctioned is when the “player who occupies a greater space with his arm / hand, running a risk and, as a consequence, cuts an opponent’s pass, a shot on goal, etc.”. Initially this is the scenario where it could be considered that the play of the Barça center-back is, since he cuts a shot on goal.
And this is where the key to everything that would explain the decision taken last night is. Because the letter speaks of two situations where a penalty must be signaled:
– “Hand or arm are clearly detached and away from the body.
– Hand or arm is clearly detached above the shoulder. “
And neither of the two situations occurred on the play in question. Piqué throws himself to the ground but the arm that does not rest on the ground and where the ball ends up hitting the ball, is glued to the body. This would explain that Soto Grade make the decision he made and that it was not corrected by Munuera Montero. It is clear that Piqué cuts a shot on goal but his hand never occupies a greater space.
Furthermore, the circular itself makes it clear that it will not be considered a hand offense in the following cases:
1. Hand in natural position
2. Hands close to or close to the body, which is “If the hand or arm is close to the body and is not in an unnatural position that will occupy more space.” As is the case last night in the action of Piqué.
3. Hands supported or towards the ground, which is when “if the hand is supported or on the way to support. Hand as a support tool to maintain balance. If the player falls and the hand or arm is between the body and the point of Support on the ground, but not away from the body to one side or vertically “. In this case it would be the other hand of the Barça center-back that does not intervene in the action.
Emery outraged with the referee’s decision: “The VAR was me. It’s a penalty. I see it there. Very clear!”
Then, according to the arbitration circular, the referee and the VAR referee acted correctly. Along these lines, the International Board (IFAB) is also positioned in the Laws of the Game in force this season. Specifically in number 12 where it says that it will be considered a hand “when the ball is voluntarily touched with the hand or the arm” and within these situations it is when “the hand or the arm is positioned in an unnatural way and they manage to occupy more space. “. And according to the IFAB this will be when “the player has managed to make his body occupy more space in an unnatural way when the position of his hand or arm is not a consequence of the natural movement of the body in that specific action or cannot justify said movement. With his hand or arm in that position, the player risks the ball hitting that part of his body and this constitutes an offense. ” Situation that did not occur last night in the action of Pique, which would explain why it was not sanctioned since the player does not seem to have the intention of hitting the ball with his hand.