Var debate 2019/20

[dobobobo]

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.

Where did I state I was wanting to decision to be changed? You are the one stating you know fact but provide no proof. You're just another gobshite on the Internet. :)

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

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!

Why? I’ve seen the game both at the stadium and on tv now. The evidence is there. I don’t need to prove it happened as the goal was disallowed as the ball hit Laporte’s arm.

If you need to check it again, watch the game or wait for MOTD2.

No one on any show that has covered the game has even tried to suggest it didn’t hit his arm, as it clearly did.

For whatever reason, you and ctid1894 can’t or won’t accept that.

That’s your right to do so. It doesn’t change anything though, so your argument is moot.

 

[daztrueblue91]

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!

Are you saying that the ball did not hit Laporte's arm?

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

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.

It’s been said from the start of the season that any handball in the lead up to a goal would result in the goal being disallowed.

The Wolves goal against Leicester is the other example where the goal didn’t stand as it inadvertently hit Boly’s arm.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Where did I state I was wanting to decision to be changed? You are the one stating you know fact but provide no proof. You're just another gobshite on the Internet. :)

Why are you bothering to debate a meaningless point?

 

[Dribble]

VAR is shite.

Shockingly bad. A mid glowingly stupid idea.

Football is meant to be a fast flowing sport involving humans and a ball; it's not formula fucking one. It's not cricket or gridiron.

Goal line tech is fine: it's quick, accurate and black and white. It was a minor enhancement to the officiating the game.

VAR is a huge change in the rules of a game that has developed very nicely for over a 100 years and did not require a quantum shift in how it is officiated.

In my 50 years of watching the game, this is the worst thing that has ever happened to it.

I get VAR in specific circumstances, but having seen it when it matters involving the team I love, there's more holes in this 'Black & white' system that in a sieve.

Discussions are ongoing about decisions having to be clear & obvious. In terms of offside, it's clear the technology can't provide 'black & white' answers because of the frame rate issues highlighted last week.

In terms of handball in the box, there has to be a clear advantage in the same phase as the offence, otherwise we arrive at the car crash we've had these last two weekends.

This isn't good.

 

[danielwood5]

It’s been said from the start of the season that any handball in the lead up to a goal would result in the goal being disallowed.

The Wolves goal against Leicester is the other example where the goal didn’t stand as it inadvertently hit Boly’s arm.

Who's been saying that? That isn't what the Laws of the Game say so whoever had been saying it is just plain wrong.

 

[Tricky_Trev]

It’s been said from the start of the season that any handball in the lead up to a goal would result in the goal being disallowed.

The Wolves goal against Leicester is the other example where the goal didn’t stand as it inadvertently hit Boly’s arm.

But I’ve pasted the rules above and it doesn’t say that. I don’t care what people have said in the media, I’m looking at the actual laws of the game. Laporte would have needed to gain control of the ball after it hitting his arm and then created a goalscoring opportunity. That is the laws of the game. And it didn’t happen, so it was a legitimate goal.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

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!

I’m here* to state what happened and suggest you are getting your knickers in a twist over something that happened yesterday.

Watch the video of the goal if you want to see the ball hit Laporte’s arm clearly, or you could post a still of the video from the wrong angle to try to back up a meaningless point that helps nothing or anybody.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

But I’ve pasted the rules above and it doesn’t say that. I don’t care what people have said in the media, I’m looking at the actual laws of the game. Laporte would have needed to gain control of the ball after it hitting his arm and then created a goalscoring opportunity. That is the laws of the game. And it didn’t happen, so it was a legitimate goal.

The referees like Gallagher and Swarbrick have both said it. Forget the media. That is how the rules are being used.

 

[kaz7]

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.

Sky looked at the replays and couldn't tell if it hit his arm so hardly 99%

 

[Barcon]

[/QUOTE]

It’s been said from the start of the season that any handball in the lead up to a goal would result in the goal being disallowed.

The Wolves goal against Leicester is the other example where the goal didn’t stand as it inadvertently hit Boly’s arm.

The definition of handball has been posted on here. No handball was committed.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Sky looked at the replays and couldn't tell if it hit his arm so hardly 99%

Ok Karen. Pick a number and put a % after it that suits your opinion.

No one has even tried to dispute it hit his hand apart from a few people on here.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

The definition of handball has been posted on here. No handball was committed.

The referees interpret the rules/laws. They have said that any handball by an attacker in the lead up to a goal will result in that goal being disallowed.

 

[citymad]

It hit both Ericksens and Eric's arm so who deflected it ? and surely they cancel each other out.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

It hit both Ericksens and Eric's arm so who deflected it ? and surely they cancel each other out.

It doesn’t matter as a defensive player who accidentally handles the ball isn’t committing a foul, whereas the attacker is.

That is where the rule is stupid.

 

[kaz7]

Ok Karen. Pick a number and put a % after it that suits your opinion.

No one has even tried to dispute it hit his hand apart from a few people on here.

You'd better speak to sky then and pep who watched it back before commenting

 

[Barcon]

The referees interpret the rules/laws. They have said that any handball by an attacker in the lead up to a goal will result in that goal being disallowed.

You are just repeating yourself when you know that I already read what you posted as I quoted your post. The referee has interpreted the law incorrectly.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

You'd better speak to sky then and pep who watched it back before commenting

I’ll leave it thanks. It’s happened. I can’t change it.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

You are just repeating yourself when you know that I already read what you posted as I quoted your post. The referee has interpreted the law incorrectly.

That is what the referees came out and said. You might disagree with it, but that is how they are interpreting the rules this season.