Var debate 2019/20

[Chi-town blues]

Proof if needed of the corruption.

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

Spot on. I won’t be surprised if they over turn Southampton’s goal against dippers with jazzy improvised rule that comes out of Neil’s cvnt .

 

[penguins4kompany]

So why was it reviewed then?

I think to check if the ball was passed forward, in which case he may have been marginally offside- but it went sideways so it was,okay.Close one,therefore warranted the var check.

 

[Dribble]

It is irrelevant whether City agreed it or not. Under the actual law, as written by FIFA, it was not handball.

As I said earlier, the fact their grasp of English is shit doesn't detract from what IFAB meant. The ball hit Laporte's hand in the area, so as per my interpretation of what they meant, it was handball.

I don't like it either, but it is what it is.

 

[Zenmanc]

I've sent this to info@sportsjournslists.co.uk. Don't know if I'll get a response but I'd like to think one of them would be willing to take it up

I apologise in advance but I would like to seek assistance from the sports journalists in highlighting the incorrect implementation of the revised laws of rule 12 regarding handball in relation to goal scoring.

There appears to be a general acceptance in both the printed and television media since the introduction of VAR that the decisions made by VAR officials is correct in relation to the law regarding handball leading to a goal, when in fact the decisions that have been made so far are a mis-interpretation by those implementing the decisions.

The laws were introduced as a direct consequence of 3 incidents last season by Willy Boly, Sergio Aguero and Nathan Redmond whereby all three players scored goals directly from hand or arm ball.

The laws were written thus, please read them and please note that the law relates to the player committing the offence and not the team

HANDLING THE BALL

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

It is usually an offence if a player:

• touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
  • the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger
  • the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)

The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close.

Except for the above offences, it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:

• directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)
• directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close
• if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally bigger
• when a player falls and the hand/arm is between the body and the ground to support the body, but not extended laterally or vertically away from the body

The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their
penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but there is no disciplinary sanction.
There has been two goals ruled out this season as an infringement of the above rules and yet there has been NO infringement.
The wolves goal should have been allowed as the ball struck Boly's upper arm from a header by Dendonker , part three section 2 (directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close)

The Man City goal was another phase of play, Gabriel Jesus had to collect the ball by quickly reacting to the deflection, moving the ball into an area to shoot from, and shooting past 4 defenders, a team mate and an opposition goalkeeper.

Why are these decisions to rule out perfectly good goals being accepted as lawful fact by the press. Do you not read the rules, is that not your job, to educate yourself and question?

Why is nobody in the press challenging the interpretation of these rules by VAR and the referees?.Why is nobody in the media challenging these decisions in relation to the rules? Why are referees not being challenged regarding their interpretation of the rules? Why is their opinion and it is an opinion being accepted unquestionably?

The rules specifically are related to the player and not the team. Why are the decisions going factually unchallenged by the press?

Another point is everybody believes that the introduction of VAR was to make the game fair, open and accountable for mistakes.

I don't know anybody or seen or heard any opinion other than, Michael Oliver or Neil Swarisbrick that the Rodri, Lamela penalty was anything other than a penalty, even Dermot Gallagher was struggling to deny it was a penalty. What is the point of VAR if the whole world can see what has happened and yet those that make the decisions decide otherwise?

Furthermore has anyone in the press highlighted why after keeping the ball from 3 Spurs players for the best part of 30 seconds in an exceptional piece of individual brilliance that Bernardo Silva having been elbowed to the neck by Danny Rose whilst attempting to head the ball was deemed to be the offender and have a free kick awarded against him. (you'll find this in first half injury time)

So why are the game officials being allowed to dictate goals allowed or disallowed according to their misinterpretation of the rules without challenge by the press?
Why is their misinterpretation being accepted as fact?
Why are you not challenging them?
Why does nobody in the press read the rules of the game and be in a position to ensure that everything is above board, which is the reason for VAR after all?

Don't expect a reply but hope to be shocked.

Ugh. I fell asleep twice through that and blacked out once.

 

[citymad]

Perhaps if fans of all the clubs started to boycott games they might reconsider these stupid rules that is ruining the sport we all love. Or maybe asking fans not to celebrate any goal as a way of protesting ?

 

[Florida Blue]

As I said earlier, the fact their grasp of English is shit doesn't detract from what IFAB meant. The ball hit Laporte's hand in the area, so as per my interpretation of what they meant, it was handball.

I don't like it either, but it is what it is.

If they wanted the Laporte situation to be called handball they could have easily and clearly worded it that way in the guidelines, like they have when scoring a goal direct by your hand/arm ie it doesn't matter if accidental or not. But they didn't, they must have done this for a reason. They took the word accidental out and replaced it with a much more detailed description "player gains control/possession after it touches their hand/arm and THEN creates a goal scoring opportunity," making a it a completely different way of looking at it.

You can't get a more clear indication of the different guidelines for each situation. They are completely different when they don't have to be.

They could have simply said "you can't score direct off your arm/hand OR create a goal scoring opportunity with your arm/hand whether accidental or not" if that was their goal.

 

[RadcliffeRick]

at 7,43. There is a good chant that should go round all grounds......if not already done so!

 

[Gordyola]

As I said earlier, the fact their grasp of English is shit doesn't detract from what IFAB meant. The ball hit Laporte's hand in the area, so as per my interpretation of what they meant, it was handball.

I don't like it either, but it is what it is.

David Elleray IFAB Technical Director responsible for writing the laws of the game David attended Oxford University where he obtain his master degree, he became a teacher and head of geography at Harrow I doubt very much that he lacks a grasp of English

 

[toffee balls]

As I said earlier, the fact their grasp of English is shit doesn't detract from what IFAB meant. The ball hit Laporte's hand in the area, so as per my interpretation of what they meant, it was handball.

I don't like it either, but it is what it is.

If only it was that simple. If it had hit Ericsson’s hand and Gabby missed, it’s not a penalty and won’t be reviewed.

So , where is the cut off point between a defender accidentally using his arm and intentionally doing so.
Both KDB and Gundog were perplexed by that rule.

 

[portisheadblue]

As I said earlier, the fact their grasp of English is shit doesn't detract from what IFAB meant. The ball hit Laporte's hand in the area, so as per my interpretation of what they meant, it was handball.

I don't like it either, but it is what it is.

It might be “their grasp of English” as only one of the 7 members is English ... three others are Welsh, Scottish and from Northern Ireland. Not sure about the other 3.

The Laws of the Game including Law 12 are not well written but they clearly show the LaPorte event was not, yes not, handball.

Also the LotG do not include things like tactical foul or phase of play nor do they differentiate attackers from defenders under Law 12

The FA Web site is easy to access just google FA Law 12