Var debate 2019/20

[daztrueblue91]

That’s completely false as the cameras being used to record the games work at a frame rate, so it’ll be impossible to be as conclusive as goal line technology. Improvements in camera technology will lower the margin of error but it’ll never eradicate it, unless there’s a big revolution in the technology.

It will still be extremely accurate and much more so than the view of a linesman.

Also, isn’t lowering the margin of error exactly what VAR has been brought in for?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Show it then, looking at the freeze frame Gundogan has on Instagram/Twitter the only arm out is the Spurs defender. Laporte's is down by his side, if the ball hits his arm show the freeze frame because Ilkay clearly hasn’t seen it either.

I don’t need to. I know it hit his hand. There’s not much we can do about it apart from moan that the law is stupid.

I don’t know why you are even trying to suggest it didn’t hit his hand.

It did. It was spotted and was disallowed because of the new ruling.

What good does your crusade to try and make out it didn’t hit his hand actually do, apart from increase your blood pressure.

 

[eversince 76]

It’s not about decisions going our way or not. It’s about when the VAR needs to interfere. In hockey or rugby the VAR has been used for a couple of years and much to the success of the sport. Why football needed to differ I haven’t got a clue other than protecting the cash cows. Why not let the captain or manager request a VAR check two times per 45 minutes? And they need to tell the ref why they want a check. Spurs never knew about a possible handball and therefore would probably not have been able to put in a request. While we could have requested for a VAR check for holding Rodri back.

And other than a possible agenda against us, we will suffer more VAR decisions than any other PL team. Because we score loads of more goals than any other team. For starters.

Anyway VAR investigating every detail is taking away the joy in football. So far for the sport being entertainment.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Fine, I've done it myself. I only post based on fact. How exactly do you know for certain it touched Laporte? Unless players wear tops with sensors there is no proof for the likes of Sterling's offside vs West Ham and now this.

By looking at the video. It’s far clearer than taking a random still that doesn’t show the context.

Even if it didn’t hit his arm, why are you bothering wasting energy on it?

It’s happened.

 

[ctid1894]

It will still be extremely accurate and much more so than the view of a linesman.

Also, isn’t lowering the margin of error exactly what VAR has been brought in for?

If decisions are made to include the margin of error absolutely yes, however Sterling was adjudged 2.4cm offside, the margin of error is currently 38.8cm and that’s only if the correct freeze frame is used which Andy Gray on Bein proved wasn’t the case.

As long as we have consistency no one will complain but VAR technology is being “selectively used” to manipulate results rather than to reduce errors.

 

[ctid1894]

I don’t need to. I know it hit his hand. There’s not much we can do about it apart from moan that the law is stupid.

I don’t know why you are even trying to suggest it didn’t hit his hand.

It did. It was spotted and was disallowed because of the new ruling.

What good does your crusade to try and make out it didn’t hit his hand actually do, apart from increase your blood pressure.

So no proof, exactly as I thought.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

So no proof, exactly as I thought.

You don’t have any either. You have a still taken without context which you are debating with.

99% of people saw it happen. Saw the replay and thought, yeah, it has hit his arm, but he didn’t mean it and it should be a goal.

However, the rules now state it should be disallowed and that is what happened.

You’re now on a crusade to make yourself feel even worse than we already are by trying to argue it didn’t hit his arm.

Even if you convinced everyone in the world that it didn’t, what are you trying to achieve? It doesn’t change anything.

 

[daztrueblue91]

If decisions are made to include the margin of error absolutely yes, however Sterling was adjudged 2.4cm offside, the margin of error is currently 38.8cm and that’s only if the correct freeze frame is used which Andy Gray on Bein proved wasn’t the case.

As long as we have consistency no one will complain but VAR technology is being “selectively used” to manipulate results rather than to reduce errors.

That’s what I’ve said all along.

If the freeze frame closest to when the pass is made is used at all times then VAR can work for offsides. If they continue to mix it up then it’s a waste of time.

The real issue with VAR at the minute is the selective use of it. They either have to check all possible penalty appeals or none at all.

 

[ctid1894]

You don’t have any either. You have a still taken without context which you are debating with.

99% of people saw it happen. Saw the replay and though, yeah, it has hit his arm, but he didn’t mean it and it should be a goal.

However, the rules now state it should be disallowed and that is what happened.

You’re now on a crusade to make yourself feel even worse than we already are by trying to argue it didn’t hit his arm.

Even if you convinced everyone in the world that it didn’t, what are you trying to achieve? It doesn’t change anything.

You can’t proof something didn’t happen, it’s like proving you’re not racist. If you look at my posts last night I’m actually not bothered but I still haven’t seen conclusive proof either way. People are just taking it as the ball having hit his arm because of the FA’s “VAR is 100% correct” narrative and not disputing it.

We now know the FA’s narrative is factually incorrect, as Sterling’s assist to Jesus proved beyond doubt last weekend.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

You can’t proof something didn’t happen, it’s like proving you’re not racist. If you look at my posts last night I’m actually not bothered but I still haven’t seen conclusive proof either way. People are just taking it as the ball having hit his arm because of the FA’s “VAR is 100% correct” narrative and not disputing it.

We now know the FA’s narrative is factually incorrect, as Sterling’s assist to Jesus proved beyond doubt last weekend.

Lol ok.

I’ll leave you to your crusade.

Good luck blue.

 

[ctid1894]

Lol ok.

I’ll leave you to your crusade.

Good luck blue.

So still no proof, bye.

 

[Gordyola]

They’ve clearly been stealing my maths equations from last week.

Can’t blame them, don’t there’s anyone at the Mail capable of it

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

So still no proof, bye.

I don’t need convincing. You’re on a crusade that ultimately is meaningless.

 

[ctid1894]

I don’t need convincing. You’re on a crusade that ultimately is meaningless.

Bye.

 

[dobobobo]

I don’t need to. I know it hit his hand. There’s not much we can do about it apart from moan that the law is stupid.

I don’t know why you are even trying to suggest it didn’t hit his hand.

It did. It was spotted and was disallowed because of the new ruling.

What good does your crusade to try and make out it didn’t hit his hand actually do, apart from increase your blood pressure.

Oh! Hello God!

Whilst I have your attention, even thoughthere is trouble in Syria, and plastic floating in the sea, can I ask why you haven't enabled humans to invent wearible body sensors? I mean that's the best way to assist us all, right?

 

[cookster]

Henry Winter's twitter feed is a micro example of the handball issue. Ex player's and Journos mostly saying its a farce.

 

[citymad]

Still fuming and disgusted at what is happening to our game. Two games in and we've been fucked over twice. The way we play this precision game of ours i can see us suffering more than most and out title defence will taken out of our hands. I'm sure Pep will have this in mind and try and coach players to time runs better.We may even see a change in the way we play which is an utter shame because when we're on our game no team in the world can stop us.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Oh! Hello God!

Whilst I have your attention, even thoughthere is trouble in Syria, and plastic floating in the sea, can I ask why you haven't enabled humans to invent wearible body sensors? I mean that's the best way to assist us all, right?

What on earth are you on about?

Have a camomile tea and take some deep breaths.

The ball hit Laporte’s arm. The goal was disallowed due to the crazy new rules.

You cannot change that decision, however much you try to disprove it happened.

 

[dobobobo]

By looking at the video. It’s far clearer than taking a random still that doesn’t show the context.

Even if it didn’t hit his arm, why are you bothering wasting energy on it?

It’s happened.

Hahaha then post a video then, but you won't.

You're hear to argue, it's clear to see. I've been away from this forum for years because of people like you. I have better things to do, Cya!

 

[Tricky_Trev]

I’ve no idea what you did or didn’t do.

“Pics or it didn’t happen” is a pointless statement as it did happen. Pretty much everyone bar a few posters in here are agreed that it did happen.

It’s the law that is crazy, not the decision that was made as it hit his arm totally accidentally.

But it should have stood, even looking at the new rules.

“It is an offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving their hand/arm towards the ball
• gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then: a) scores in the opponent’s goal or b) creates a goalscoring opportunity
• scores in the opponent’s goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper”

That’s the law. Please tell me which bullet point Laporte breaks, because the answer is none of them. Clearly bullets 1 and 3 are irrelevant, it all hinges on the 2nd one. But he did not “gain possession/control” of the ball AFTER it has touched his arm. So there is no infringement of the laws there either.

Debating whether it did or didn’t hit his arm is the wrong discussion to be having. It doesn’t matter whether it did or didn’t, there’s still no reason to disallow it, even by the letter of the law.

We were shafted, pure and simple.