You've misunderstood or I've not asked the question well enough. I just mean what advantage did we gain? Was the ball deflected sufficiently by the contact to create an advantage? If it had not touched Laporte, would a Spurs player have beaten Jesus to the ball?It's not really a 'why'. It's a 'it did'.
If it came off his thigh, then it wouldn't fall under handball.
(unless I've misunderstood the question)
Is that who you support?don't wish to argue with you but some people love the football violence . ( all over football ) Some live for it . I know quite a few wanderers supporters that care more about ti than the actual football . it's a tribal thing i guess .
That is your interpretation, and is reasonable.
It appears not to be the interpretation of PGMOL.
The team does not handle the ball . It would make no sense to put in the law the word team . look at IFAB and the laws of the game and see how many times the word TEAM is used opposed to the word player .
A player gains possession for the team . A player gains control of the ball for themselves . i'm 100% sure you understand but you appear to be attempting to over complicate what is a simple rule .
HANDLING THE BALL
It is an offence if a player:
- gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
- creates a goal-scoring opportunity
I think the goal would be allowed. The ball-to-hand has not created anything, certainly not a goalscoring opportunity.
Mostly though, this is applying the attacking handball law to a defensive handball, which is
I think the goal would be allowed. The ball-to-hand has not created anything, certainly not a goalscoring opportunity.
Mostly though, this is applying the attacking handball law to a defensive handball, which is nonsensical.
I don't believe they can overrule the ref on a subjective call like a potential foul . IF the ref is adamant that he saw the incident and he's happy with his call then VAR aren't there to overrule him.
In the world cup those incidents were often checked on the pitch side tv but the premier league or ref union don't want every decision to take 5 minutes to review so we end up playing for 3 hours .
Every supporter i have spoken with from different clubs agree it was a pen. Let's hope it's a lesson learned .
Is that who you support?
It’s not the creation of a goal scoring opportunity, but the lack of control/possession!It's this deliberately murky bit that can be hidden behind. Creating a goal-scoring opportunity for whom? I would always read that it is a gso for the person whose arm the ball inadvertently brushed against, but now it's been given that Laporte gave Jesus an opportunity it can be dragged back to God knows what incident. I think they have looked for anything iffy whilst the ball was bobbling around and found Laporte loitering with intent. I would bet the cheating bastards would redefine that bit when it comes to a Rag or Dipper arm.
No because it involved us being on the end of it,could you imagine the stink caused by the media if it was the rags or scousers,they’d have wanted Oliver and the VAR ref suspended with immediate effect ..People are PARAPHRASING THE LAW, but you can’t do that, as it is very, very specific in when it is and is NOT a handball.
- THIS IS A KEY POINT!!!
In this case, the law was “created” because Llorente scored directly from the contact, which is a different section of that rule.
In short, people are NOT APPLYING THE RULE CORRECTLY....TO THE POINT OF CREATING VERBIAGE THAT ISN’T EVEN IN THE LAW!
I can’t believe no-one in the media is picking up on this?! Is it because they’re too lazy to actually read the law itself?
That doesn’t apply to this rule. It’s the fact that a goal was scored that creates an instant review.But it was not clear and obvious so the review should not have happened.
With regards to your first paragraph, how did your team have a red card overturned, (changed to a yellow) last season when VAR stepped in
im trying hard to steer clear of “agenda” and to just speak about the MISAPPLICATION of the new law, due to pundits believing it says something it doesn’t, while ignoring the STATED PRETEXT.No because it involved us being on the end of it,could you imagine the stink caused by the media if it was the rags or scousers,they’d have wanted Oliver and the VAR ref suspended with immediate effect ..
You've misunderstood or I've not asked the question well enough. I just mean what advantage did we gain? Was the ball deflected sufficiently by the contact to create an advantage? If it had not touched Laporte, would a Spurs player have beaten Jesus to the ball?
hopefully it stops stuff like this:
Because they are corrupt. The law as quoted often in this thread is quite clear that even 'if' the ball hit Laportes hand the goal should have stood
People are PARAPHRASING THE LAW, but you can’t do that, as it is very, very specific in when it is and is NOT a handball.
- THIS IS A KEY POINT!!!
In this case, the law was “created” because Llorente scored directly from the contact, which is a different section of that rule.
In short, people are NOT APPLYING THE RULE CORRECTLY....TO THE POINT OF CREATING VERBIAGE THAT ISN’T EVEN IN THE LAW!
I can’t believe no-one in the media is picking up on this?! Is it because they’re too lazy to actually read the law itself?