Var debate 2019/20

ballinio said:
Fucked it off 2 years ago because of the corrupt officials , now we’ve got corrupt VAR...but the main thing is it kills the joy of a goal celebration(which is what we go for) stone dead. This is in the premier league next season so after 40 years watching football Leicester v City will be my final game , VAR is the final nail in the coffin of the game I used to love.....changed forever .
Click to expand...
Ditto.
 
DTeacher said:
Sick of pointing it out.
Some are stupid and some are disingenuous....
Click to expand...

To be fair what that article says is that the laws of the game are vague (they are), and it also says that the reason the Ref allowed the Boly goal was because he hadn't spotted it hit the hand. Had he spotted it he could have inferred that it was deliberate (it was outstretched, and the last body part to touch the ball before it went in) and could have disallowed the goal. I think that's different gravy from tonight's decision. Next year's rule puts it beyond doubt tho, which is good.
 
The issue with VAR isn’t really the decision itself for me, it’s more the impact it has on match going fans. That was just bizarre, going from that big a high to that big a low so quickly and it all happening not due to something in front of our eyes, but something happening that was blind to everyone in the stadium.

I get that football is all about global appeal and is big business nowadays. The most important audience has to always be those who are going to the effort and cost of being physically there though and they deserve better than to reducing it to essentially waiting for a result to come in on teletext.
 
BosnianBlue said:
Obviously the semantics is in it being the part of body who scores and it's not the case here.

I know it hurts but any of you wanting that t be ruled out would be furious if it was City's goal and got canceled. I certainly would. It was the tiniest of touch and it didn't went in from the hand.
Click to expand...

Of course we would, it's football and tribalism. Doesn't mean we'd be right.

He attacked a ball that came in from thirty yards away and scored after the ball hit his arm. He had plenty of time to move his arms.
 
Pingu the Penguin said:
To be fair what that article says is that the laws of the game are vague (they are), and it also says that the reason the Ref allowed the Boly goal was because he hadn't spotted it hit the hand. Had he spotted it he could have inferred that it was deliberate (it was outstretched, and the last body part to touch the ball before it went in) and could have disallowed the goal. I think that's different gravy from tonight's decision. Next year's rule puts it beyond doubt tho, which is good.
Click to expand...
First off he said even if it wasn't deliberate it would still be ruled out. That was the whole point of pointing out it's already inferred within the existing rules.
And
Different gravy how? The ref saw it hit his hand you think?

The rules are being changed not because it's allowed as the offside rule already implies you aren't allowed to make use of it in a goal.

Shouldn't have stood. People are just wumming here. Haha :)
 
Last edited:
Metalartin said:
That's defending a shot at goal though. We are talking about scoring a goal at the other end. Which the link I showed you "clears up".
Click to expand...
That’s not what the referees are saying though.
If an attacking playing scores a goal that has hit his arm, deliberately or not. It’s not a goal.
If the refs are saying that’s the case, then it’s not a goal.
 
I'm Blue said:
That’s not what the referees are saying though.
If an attacking playing scores a goal that has hit his arm, deliberately or not. It’s not a goal.
If the refs are saying that’s the case, then it’s not a goal.
Click to expand...
I've just given you two examples of refs saying just that. So it's not a goal.
 
We aren't far away from VAR decisions being put to twitter vote in real time. UEFA already rig the CL draw to maximise TV audiences (which is a fucking joke when you actually stop and think about the integrity of a cup competition) so it's only going one way.
 
I'm Blue said:
That’s not what the referees are saying though.
If an attacking playing scores a goal that has hit his arm, deliberately or not. It’s not a goal.
If the refs are saying that’s the case, then it’s not a goal.
Click to expand...

Nope. The refs are saying if he scores the goal with his hand, deliberately or not, it's not a goal. But are also saying he has not scored the ball with his hand. It maybe or probably touched his hand, but very slightly and that touch didn't send the ball to the goal. It was the slightest of the touches that didn't change anything in the outcome of where the ball ended. That's the difference some of you don't want to see.
 
Metalartin said:
First off he said even if it wasn't deliberate it would still be ruled out.
And
Different gravy how? The ref saw it hit his hand you think?

The rules are being change not because it's allowed as the offside rule already implies you aren't allowed to make use of it in a goal.

Shouldn't have stood. People are just wumming here.
Click to expand...

No intention to WUM from me mate, just got a different view on it to you that's all. He's talking about inferring that content from one rule applies to another, as the rules are vague. That's his view and legitimate. He also refers to incidents where the ball goes in direct off the arm, which isn't the case for this one. Next year that's definitely ruled out, which is frutrating for us but probably better for football as the rule is clearer.
 
BosnianBlue said:
Nope. The refs are saying if he scores the goal with his hand, deliberately or not, it's not a goal. But are also saying he has not scored the ball with his hand. It maybe or probably touched his hand, but very slightly and that touch didn't send the ball to the goal. It was the slightest of the touches that didn't change anything in the outcome of where the ball ended. That's the difference some of you don't want to see.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how big or small the touch was. It hit his elbow, clear as day. It resulted in him scoring from his next touch so you could say he gained control from the ball hitting his arm.
 
We went over this intentional party earlier in the season when Sergio slid and the ball went in
 
BosnianBlue said:
Nope. The refs are saying if he scores the goal with his hand, deliberately or not, it's not a goal. But are also saying he has not scored the ball with his hand. That's the difference some of you don't want to see.
Click to expand...
What I heard was if it hit the hand first it doesn’t matter if he scores with his hip, foot or anything else?
So no goal regardless?
 
Pingu the Penguin said:
No intention to WUM from me mate, just got a different view on it to you that's all. He's talking about inferring that content from one rule applies to another, as the rules are vague. That's his view and legitimate. He also refers to incidents where the ball goes in direct off the arm, which isn't the case for this one. Next year that's definitely ruled out, which is frutrating for us but probably better for football as the rule is clearer.
Click to expand...
Oh I see it didn't go directly off the hand I get what you meant now. But yeah he made use of the arm quite clearly and the intent was cleared up so it's not really relevant if it goes straight in or not. A change in direction however slight can be the difference between a goal and a save.

My point was that the rule change is not because it's currently allowed, so people shouldn't be pointing out "ah next year it will be different", they already rule it out when they see it 99% of the time. In my view the ref wasn't given the angles he should have been and that's why he didn't rule it out. He shrugged.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top