Var debate 2019/20

[I'm Blue]

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".

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.

 

[Metalartin]

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've just given you two examples of refs saying just that. So it's not a goal.

 

[PepInYourStep]

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]

Not sure, mate. @aguero93:20 posted it.

That’s the post I was on about in my post.
Seems to back up what the 2 refs I’ve heard say the goal shouldn’t have stood.

 

[BosnianBlue]

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.

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.

 

[Pingu the Penguin]

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.

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.

 

[jay_mcfc]

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.

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.

 

[teddykgb]

We went over this intentional party earlier in the season when Sergio slid and the ball went in

 

[I'm Blue]

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.

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?

 

[Metalartin]

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.

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.