Var debate 2019/20

[Dribble]

ive just read the link that you have posted and Ive copied and pasted the two bits that relate to the incident we are talking about.

The following ‘handball’ situations, even if accidental, will be a free kick:

• a player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity
• football expects a player to be penalised for handball if they gain possession/control of the ball from their hand/arm and gain a major advantage e.g. score or create a goal-scoring opportunity

Ive posted this before but the use of the word "or" to me means that the goal was rightfully disallowed. The "or" word means that the player doesn't have to have been in control because its one "or" the other situation; either in control or creates a goal scoring opportunity (obviously a player could both gain control by handball and then create a goal scoring opportunity as well)

(Just wondering if anyone has noticed the grammatical error in the first bullet point on the actual document as well - "has touches" should read "has touched") so even this document isn't correct!


On the complete flip side what would be interesting to know (and only Laporte himself would know this) is if the ball glanced off his head first because if it did then this sentance (taken diretly fromt he premiership webiste but is also present to on the IFAB one) coms into play and says our goal should of been allowed:

So a handball will not be awarded if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/nearby.

I think its impossible to get this perfect... for me the closest to perfect you can get is to take accidenta handball out of the equation but then its up to the ref to judge intention (which is exactly why the rule was changed to take the question of intent out of it for refs....but there are some situations where intent (or not) is clear and the Laporte one would be one such situation.

Brilliant summary & agreed. I highlighted the bold parts days ago, but many of us are refusing to contemplate that we agreed to the new rule, & to the letter of the law, the deflection from Laporte, created the goal scoring opportunity for Jesus.

However, I still maintain that we should concentrate our fire on clarification of the wording & what constitutes a new phase of play. VAR has a bloody long way to go yet!

 

[cookster]

Proof if needed of the corruption.

They contradict each other. Last I heard they weren't reviewing in slow motion. Bent

 

[kaz7]

Head of VAR at Stockley Park, Neil Swarbrick on the Rodri penalty decision: “It was a coming-together of two players and it was looked at. The arm was around the top of the body, fractionally. If you look at that in slow motion, multiple times, it’s exaggerated..."

Neil Swarbrick: “He’s [Rodri] felt some contact. Can he win the header? No he can’t. It was ‘I’ve gone down looking for a penalty’. That’s how the referee read the incident." [via @SunSport]

I want to throttle this twat and see if he falls to the ground or not

 

[Dribble]

We agreed on VAR yes, BUT the ruling isn't being carried out correctly in this incident, which cost us 2 points.
The wording is not open to interpretation, the Prem use a completely different explanation to IFAB, they throw in the word "accidental" when it's not in the IFAB ruling. And that makes a massive difference. It can hit a persons hand, that is the whole point. It's only if he controls it after the handball and creates a chance is it handball.
Agreed the defender and attacker should be equally punished.

Start tying arms behind players backs to stop all the nonsense.

Again, this is why clarification is needed. The ruling also says, 'and creates a goal scoring opportunity'. Unfortunately, if Laporte hadn't touched the ball, its flight trajectory would have sent the ball to the player stood in front of Jesus. The deflection created a goal scoring opportunity for Jesus 'eventually', but was it in the same phase of play? I don't think it was, so the goal should have stood for that reason alone.

 

[Florida Blue]

Brilliant summary & agreed. I highlighted the bold parts days ago, but many of us are refusing to contemplate that we agreed to the new rule, & to the letter of the law, the deflection from Laporte, created the goal scoring opportunity for Jesus.

However, I still maintain that we should concentrate our fire on clarification of the wording & what constitutes a new phase of play. VAR has a bloody long way to go yet!

Agreed and the wording actually makes it 2 phases, so it should have been a goal.

The player has to have control/possession and THEN (2nd phase) create a goal scoring opportunity.

 

[Florida Blue]

Again, this is why clarification is needed. The ruling also says, 'and creates a goal scoring opportunity'. Unfortunately, if Laporte hadn't touched the ball, its flight trajectory would have sent the ball to the player stood in front of Jesus. The deflection created a goal scoring opportunity for Jesus 'eventually', but was it in the same phase of play? I don't think it was, so the goal should have stood for that reason alone.

I agree but it says " creates a goal scoring opportunity" AFTER he's supposed to have control/possession of the ball, he never did, IF he had control of the situation he would have headed it and not handled it.


This post from earlier sums it up perfectly......



It is an offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
• gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
  • scores in the opponents’ goal
  • creates a goal-scoring opportunity
• scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper

(I added the emphasis).

So the law requires that A player (singular) gains control after it has touched THEIR arm AND THEN creates a goal scoring opportunity.

In other words, for this rule to come into play it has got to be the player whose arm the ball touches that gains control of the ball, and that same player has then got to create the opportunity to score or score himself. If the ball had come off Aymeric’s arm, accidentally, but he had trapped it and passed it to Jesus to score, the rule would be engaged. Because the ball touches his arm, but Aymeric does not gain control of the ball, the rule was not engaged. That is according to the clear, unambiguous words of the rule.

The law says nothing about a player from the same team gaining control, and if that’s what IFAB had intended it would have been perfectly easy for them to say so in the new rule. It makes perfect sense to say that an accidental ricochet where a player from the same team is on the receiving end is not the same as that player taking advantage of his own accidental handball. If the rule was ambiguous I can see why you might look at what it designed to prevent to understand what it was supposed to mean, but where the wording of the rule is clear as it is here, you don’t need to go any further than the rule itself.

 

[Dribble]

I though the deflection was off the attackers arm as it appeared to contact both simultaneously?

I have to luxury of slow motion mate. It took me 2 days to calm down enough before I could bring myself to watch the incident again, but I didn't need to use slow motion to see the ball properly deflected off Laporte.

The trajectory of the ball without the deflection, would have sent it to the player stood in front of Jesus on the edge of the box. I can't argue that. But as I've said, our argument should be which phase was the goal scoring passage of play in? The original phase, or a new phase seeing as Jesus had so much to do to score.

 

[cookster]

Head of VAR at Stockley Park, Neil Swarbrick on the Rodri penalty decision: “It was a coming-together of two players and it was looked at. The arm was around the top of the body, fractionally. If you look at that in slow motion, multiple times, it’s exaggerated..."

Neil Swarbrick: “He’s [Rodri] felt some contact. Can he win the header? No he can’t. It was ‘I’ve gone down looking for a penalty’. That’s how the referee read the incident." [via @SunSport]

I want to throttle this twat and see if he falls to the ground or not

Its beyond pathetic after 2 games. These ****s will never accept being wrong.

 

[Dribble]

Agreed and the wording actually makes it 2 phases, so it should have been a goal.

The player has to have control/possession and THEN (2nd phase) create a goal scoring opportunity.

OR 'Create a goal scoring opportunity' which it technically did. Lol :-)

The law is an ass, & needs sorting asap, because I wholly agree that the goal was a separate phase from the initial cross.

 

[Dribble]

I agree but it says " creates a goal scoring opportunity" AFTER he's supposed to have control/possession of the ball, he never did, IF he had control of the situation he would have headed it and not handled it.


This post from earlier sums it up perfectly......



It is an offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
• gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
  • scores in the opponents’ goal
  • creates a goal-scoring opportunity
• scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper

(I added the emphasis).

So the law requires that A player (singular) gains control after it has touched THEIR arm AND THEN creates a goal scoring opportunity.

In other words, for this rule to come into play it has got to be the player whose arm the ball touches that gains control of the ball, and that same player has then got to create the opportunity to score or score himself. If the ball had come off Aymeric’s arm, accidentally, but he had trapped it and passed it to Jesus to score, the rule would be engaged. Because the ball touches his arm, but Aymeric does not gain control of the ball, the rule was not engaged. That is according to the clear, unambiguous words of the rule.

The law says nothing about a player from the same team gaining control, and if that’s what IFAB had intended it would have been perfectly easy for them to say so in the new rule. It makes perfect sense to say that an accidental ricochet where a player from the same team is on the receiving end is not the same as that player taking advantage of his own accidental handball. If the rule was ambiguous I can see why you might look at what it designed to prevent to understand what it was supposed to mean, but where the wording of the rule is clear as it is here, you don’t need to go any further than the rule itself.

Yes, but isn't a deflection a form of 'control'? Much the same as a save, block or pass? It's one action which influences what the ball does next which may or may not affect the outcome???

 

[brummie blue]

Proof if needed of the corruption.

They contradict each other. Last I heard they weren't reviewing in slow motion. Bent

Are they serious? VAR is a complete and utter mess, making comments like that when most impartial football watching media, pundits and fans consider it a penalty and to compound it they allow the Pogba dive to stay as a penalty in last nights game, VAR is supposed to look at clear and obvious errors, and the was som error by the ref to give it .

 

[simon23]

The key words are THEN and AFTER..... a player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity.

So he first has to gain control/possession ( which he never had at any point, it was a 50/50 header) then AFTER he then creates the goal scoring opportunity. Which would mean another touch to Jesus. None of that happened.

the word then is nullified by the word "or"...Laprte inadvertently created a goal scoring opportunity with his arm...you dont have to control a ball before you pass it (with any part of the body)....a first time pass you are never in conrtol of (or you could argue you are contoling the ball by passing it on......you are just changing the direction of flight/speed of the ball. Laporte inadvertently passed to Jesus with his arm.

 

[jimmygrimblesboots]

read all the expanations of VAR and i have come to the conclusion that we will get f*cked over every single week , and certain other clubs will benefit from decisions , its a back handed compliment , we are light years ahead of every club even the Dipper media darlings , we are on a different level altogether. The Premier league along with PGMOL will do everything in their power to keep the title race competitive , because Klopp and his merrymen are certainly nowhere near good enough , their caveman route one football is just a slight more refined version of Wimbledon's crazy gang , in fact Vinny Jones would look a cultured ballplayer in comparison to Henderson or Milner.

 

[Florida Blue]

Yes, but isn't a deflection a form of 'control'? Much the same as a save, block or pass? It's one action which influences what the ball does next which may or may not affect the outcome???

Not imo because it says he has to control it and THEN create an opportunity, its 2 things, 2 phases.

If it hit his arm, ball goes down on ground then he passes it to Jesus, yes that is handball, but he didn't have possession/control, no 50/50 header is, you can say the Spurs defender had possession/control then in that situation.

 

[Florida Blue]

the word then is nullified by the word "or"...Laprte inadvertently created a goal scoring opportunity with his arm...you dont have to control a ball before you pass it (with any part of the body)....a first time pass you are never in conrtol of (or you could argue you are contoling the ball by passing it on......you are just changing the direction of flight/speed of the ball. Laporte inadvertently passed to Jesus with his arm.

The word OR should not be in there, my bad, it isn't in the IFAB guidelines which is this...

 

[Rolee]

Neil Swarbrick is head of VAR? They taking the piss?

 

[Florida Blue]

Not imo because it says he has to control it and THEN create an opportunity, its 2 things, 2 phases.

If it hit his arm, ball goes down on ground then he passes it to Jesus, yes that is handball, but he didn't have possession/control, no 50/50 header is, you can say the Spurs defender had possession/control then in that situation.

The word THEN makes it 2 passages of play to me. Control/possession first, THEN he passes or heads it to Jesus. That is the reason it is on 2 different lines and has it's own separate bullet point.

The IFAB ruling imo , was made to stop Laporte handling it, and THEN he passes it to Jesus. NOT the way it it transpired, being penalized for a deflection he had no clue about going to Jesus. That would make way more sense that the ruling the Prem have decided to use.

 

[paulchapo]

Head of VAR at Stockley Park, Neil Swarbrick on the Rodri penalty decision: “It was a coming-together of two players and it was looked at. The arm was around the top of the body, fractionally. If you look at that in slow motion, multiple times, it’s exaggerated..."

Neil Swarbrick: “He’s [Rodri] felt some contact. Can he win the header? No he can’t. It was ‘I’ve gone down looking for a penalty’. That’s how the referee read the incident." [via @SunSport]

I want to throttle this twat and see if he falls to the ground or not

He can't win the header as he is in a half bloody nelson the blind bastard!

 

[Florida Blue]

The whole kicker to the wording used by IFAB is they used 2 different explanations to the 1. the ball going in directly off the hand/arm and 2. creating a chance off the hand/arm.

If they wanted the Laporte incident to be handball all they had to say was the same wording as scoring " you cannot create/assist a goal with the arm/hand even if it's accidental or deflected by accident"

They didn't for a reason, , they specifically worded the rule scoring directly from the hand and creating a chance from handball differently, they specifically put in the ball must be under control /possession and THEN creates a goal scoring opportunity.

They could easily have said ' if you score or create a chance off the arm it's handball whether accidental or not" That's NOT what they did. Hence the confusion.

 

[Burtonblue]

I checked it again mate, & there was a definite deflection right to Jesus, accidental or not. My issue is, with all the work Jesus had to do, was the goal scored in the same phase as the handball?

Spot on!
Ridiculous decision.