Var debate 2019/20

[kaz7]

Garth Crooks: "VAR's decision to disallow Gabriel Jesus' injury-time goal based on the new law, introduced this season, regarding handball, was nothing short of laughable. The law is an ass but more worryingly the game is in danger of becoming a joke." [via @BBCSport]

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

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.

But I still cannot accept that so-called experienced refs with Heaven knows how many hours of in-service explanation from Old Mother Riley can arrive at a PL game of such importance and deliver the worst example of misapplication. This stuff doesn't happen. They are experts! They know the LotG backwards, upwards, inside out. Oh, hang on a tick, I wonder if they know them the right way round?

 

[ChicagoBlue]

So it's not just a shit rule, it's a shit rule badly written .... my doesn't that surprise me anymore?

I don’t think it is THAT badly written, but it IS being both misquoted and misapplied...per the letter of the law they have written!

There was no possession or control of the ball, so anything that subsequently relies on that pretext becomes irrelevant.

It is an “IF, THEN” statement, where the IF didn’t occur, so there cannot be a THEN.

The conditional nature of the law is not being applied. People, mainly uneducated and apparently unwilling to read the ACTUAL LAW INSTEAD OF PARAPHRASING IT, are literally misstating what the law says, because they believe that the new law says ANY HANDBALL THAT RESULTS IN A GOAL IS A HANDBALL...THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE AS WRITTEN IN THE LAW, BECAUSE IT REQUIRES CONTROL/POSSESSION OF THE BALL AS A PRETEXT TO ANY SUBSEQUENT ACTION, and that doesn’t occur!

 

[Blue Mist]

That's the perfect question and should be asked. So at what point after an accidental handball are you allowed to score?

Yes, that question needs asking at a higher level than BM because according to some on here it would be disallowed, 40 odd passes but it started with the ball brushing someones hand (allegedly)

 

[flook]

• • THIS IS A KEY POINT!!!

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.

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?

thank you for summarising, I've said exactly this in about 10 posts but some people on here appear to be as lazy as the journalists

 

[jayfx]

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 ..

I do be

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 ..

I do believe there'd be much more of a fuss if this had happened against united or Liverpool.

I'd like to see our players just sit down and sit for the ref to give the go ahead, before celebrating goals against Bournemouth. Make a point that VAR ising the excitement.

 

[Blue Mist]

you've lost me on that . i have no idea to what you're referring .

Well as you are the only person in England that does not know what RAWK is I assume you are a Rag. You said in relation to fouls VAR would not overturn a referees decision. when your lot played n the FA Cup last season a Rag was red carded only for VAR to over rule it and change it to yellow. I am sure you saw it on television, one billion others did.

 

[Bunchofdickovs]

Garth Crooks: "VAR's decision to disallow Gabriel Jesus' injury-time goal based on the new law, introduced this season, regarding handball, was nothing short of laughable. The law is an ass but more worryingly the game is in danger of becoming a joke." [via @BBCSport]

Probably next to the last person ( behind me apparently) to ask to make sense of anything . Always good for a giggle though !

some of his gems..

"35% of black players are non white."

"Make no mistake, mistakes will be made."

"Football’s football. If that weren’t the case it wouldn’t be the game that it is."

"Having watched a replay, there’s absolutely no doubt; it’s inconclusive."

 

[ChicagoBlue]

But I still cannot accept that so-called experienced refs with Heaven knows how many hours of in-service explanation from Old Mother Riley can arrive at a PL game of such importance and deliver the worst example of misapplication. This stuff doesn't happen. They are experts! They know the LotG backwards, upwards, inside out. Oh, hang on a tick, I wonder if they know them the right way round?

I think this is a case of a new law being seen to say something it doesn’t.

The “IF THEN” has been removed, to where it is being applied to ANY HANDBALL, not just those that result in control or possession.

A simple example...

A player is running for a cross, it ACCIDENTALLY hits his arm and,

A) goes directly into the goal, or

B) falls at his feet. He immediately passes the ball to another player, who scores, or

C) deflects to another player on his team who scores a goal.

Goal or no goal???

A) No goal! Simple, as you can no longer score DIRECTLY from a handball, no matter how innocuous.

B) No goal! Simple, because no matter how innocuous the handball, if it allows you to bring the ball under control or into your possession, even a subsequent pass for a goal deems the goal illegal.

C) GOAL!!! The ball did not go directly into the goal AND at no time was the ball either in possession or control of the player committing the handball, therefore the “handball” is NOT COVERED BY THIS NEW LAW AND IS BOTH INCIDENTAL AND ACCIDENTAL CONTACT ON THE PLAY. The requirement for control or possession negates this from being construed as a handball.

Jesus scores GOAL C. Llorente scored goal A.

 

[Bunchofdickovs]

Well as you are the only person in England that does not know what RAWK is I assume you are a Rag. You said in relation to fouls VAR would not overturn a referees decision. when your lot played n the FA Cup last season a Rag was red carded only for VAR to over rule it and change it to yellow. I am sure you saw it on television, one billion others did.

I'm still lost! because i agree with the goal being disallowed but that the ref should have given a penalty for the foul at the corner ? that makes me a supporter of another team ?

i don't agree with pitch invasions and violence . so that makes me a shit house supporter ?

edit :

i typed in rawk after i felt assured it wasn't an an acronym for a type of porn or romance ( swalk for example )

 

[ChicagoBlue]

thank you for summarising, I've said exactly this in about 10 posts but some people on here appear to be as lazy as the journalists

Me, too!!!

I’m answering posts as I find them and honestly don’t have the time (or energy!) to read and respond to every misstatement!

 

[kaz7]

Probably next to the last person ( behind me apparently) to ask to make sense of anything . Always good for a giggle though !

some of his gems..

"35% of black players are non white."

"Make no mistake, mistakes will be made."

"Football’s football. If that weren’t the case it wouldn’t be the game that it is."

"Having watched a replay, there’s absolutely no doubt; it’s inconclusive."

Why did you tell blues to stop moaning and show some class?

 

[Blue Mist]

I'm still lost! because i agree with the goal being disallowed but that the ref should have given a penalty for the foul at the corner ? that makes me a supporter of another team ?

i don't agree with pitch invasions and violence . so that makes me a shit house supporter ?

edit :

i typed in rawk after i felt assured it wasn't an an acronym for a type of porn or romance ( swalk for example )

Now type in RLPD, if you don't get an answer from google come back to me.

 

[Bunchofdickovs]

Why did you tell blues to stop moaning and show some class?

i answered that in an earlier post

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 .


edit : saw you edited your post .

i said show class because of what people are/were suggesting . Getting games abandoned etc. That doesn't help in the slightest . IF next week or month the same decisions go for us ? would we find it acceptable that the other teams supporters got the match abandoned etc ?

will it help to play in front of an empty stadium or be deducted points ? nope .

whinge / moan or whatever but show a bit of class by not resorting to stupidity .

 

[kaz7]

i answered that in an earlier post

You should have posted it in the violence thread then it would have made more sense

 

[mancity2012_eamo]

From the Reuters report on the IFAB meeting, my comments in italics

IFAB’s annual general meeting in Aberdeen ruled that intent would no longer be a factor in situations involving goals or goal-scoring opportunities from next season. The law change should stop situations where a goal is scored off a player’s arm or hand.

“A goal scored directly from the hand/arm (even if accidental) didn't happen and a player scoring or creating a goal-scoring opportunity after having gained possession/control of the ball from their hand/arm didn't gain control or possession of the ball (even if accidental) will no longer be allowed,” IFAB said in a statement.

This reinforces the actual rule as neither the rules nor the report mention TEAM at all

You seem to be inserting a word and meaning to suit your own agenda and covering that with a generic "ooh it's obvious possession means team", when in reality a law should not be open to (mis)interpretation of who or what it actually applies to

This.
They went to the bother of changing the rule and this is the specific wording they came up with.

Someone coming out with, “this is what they mean”, is being totally subjective.
Would probably have a great future in PGMOL.

 

[Bunchofdickovs]

You should have posted it in the violence thread then it would have made more sense

Well we live and learn . I thought i had posted it in the same thread because i saw similar posters names but then i did have a few pages open . It seems that there are like minded people here that disagree on that kind of action which is a good thing . What i find though is the people that spout nonsense about pitch invasions etc are the ones that spout it all over social media . Gives the wrong impression .

 

[Blue Mist]

Well we live and learn . I thought i had posted it in the same thread because i saw similar posters names but then i did have a few pages open . It seems that there are like minded people here that disagree on that kind of action which is a good thing . What i find though is the people that spout nonsense about pitch invasions etc are the ones that spout it all over social media . Gives the wrong impression .

Well you are new to the forum after all, it takes some time to get used to it and it is a different set up to most other forums

 

[GeorgeR]

Maybe this has been pointed out earlier but I looked on the FA website and found a document explaining the changes.
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules...ootball-11-11/2019-2020-law-changes-explained

It lists accidental the ‘handball’ situations which will result in a free kick including this one:
a player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity.

which as others have pointed out is clearly separating the handball from the player gaining control/possession.
Added to that even Duncan Castles thinks it was the wrong call.

 

[gingerprince]

If, KDB blasts a shot into packed penalty area and it hits aguero on the arm and rebounds back to the halfway line,

Where Eddie then blasts into the net from just inside his own half, would that be a goal or disallowed under the rule.

Obviously a goal wasnt scored directly following agueros contact, eg it didnt rebound into the goal. Now, normally

a ref wouldn't send a player off for a foul around halfway line particularly if he thought other defensive players could

be between the player & the goal, eg he or she would give a yellow as it wouldnt be deemed a goal scoring opportunity.

As Eddie is in his own half with probably all eleven opposition players in front of him, it's not a goalscoring opportunity,

So when does it become a goal scoring opportunity,?

When a goal is scored, as obviously it was an opportunity as he scored or by the same criteria they use to deem red not yellow