Var debate 2019/20

cookster said:


Proof if needed of the corruption.

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

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 .
 
Paladin said:
It is irrelevant whether City agreed it or not. Under the actual law, as written by FIFA, it was not handball.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Colin Bell (genuine name) said:
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.
Click to expand...
Ugh. I fell asleep twice through that and blacked out once.
 
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 ?
 
Dribble said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Dribble said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Dribble said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Dribble said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:
simon23 said:
(snipped)

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.
Click to expand...

I think the reference to the bolded part is out of context.
It is in the laws, but follows the descriptions of what is handball, and is also after the line:

• The following will not usually be a free kick, unless they are one of the above situations:

So, it only applies if the earlier ones (all the scoring off an arm stuff) does not apply. In Laporte's case, one of the earlier ones were judged to have happened, and the ricohcet line is irrelevant.

It's more to cover a sliced kick into the ground which then ricochets back onto a hand.
 
bobbyowenquiff said:
The key fact is under the IFAB handball rules the goal can't be disallowed. The VAR officials are NOT following the IFAB rules. They have been given conflicting advice from the FA. This will have to be resolved.
Click to expand...

It all comes down to whether there is a statement somewhere of how this is being applied and what is intended to be covered.

Anyone can have an interpretation of the laws, but the only one that matters is what the refs are told to apply.
 
Dribble said:
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.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't have been handball under any interpretation, because the criteria for it to be handball were not met. Different phases of play are irrelevant and just serve to confuse the situation. The one simple fact of the matter is that Laporte did not gain possession or control of the ball, therefore it wasn't handball. I don't understand why this needs elaboration or further explanation.
 
I think already it is obvious that we will get decisions when 2/3 up so as not affecting the result
But the critical ones that really affect the result we have zero chance
They will then refer to the others and say there is no agenda
As for the Rodri explanation by swarbrick, what a cock
Just admit you got it wrong and we would accept it. Don’t make shit up to support the indefensible
 
I’m just waiting for a Rodri type incident happening to Salah or Rashford during a tight game. Over at Candlefield they scream like little girls for every decision, they will go into overdrive when Salah dives and VAR will replay the passage enough times to find minimal contact and give a penalty. Pogba on Monday night threw himself at Coady before contact came from the foot, without the lunge he wasn’t having a foul, clear dive but the media has just washed over it. Higginbottom even said “he’s done fantastic to win the penalty” and no one in the media has challenged it.
 
MillionMilesAway said:
Not quite.
If the player is behind the ball, then the law states that that is fine always

However, I think It is possible for a player to be in front of the ball, the ball to be played backwards, and the said player to run back and receive the ball. If he is in an offside position when the ball is played backwards, he's offside regardless of where he is when he gets the ball.

e,g, a short corner is played by player 1 (P1) to Player 2 (P2). P2 is obviously onside here.
P1 remains still in the quadrant, and is now in an offside position and in front of the ball (but not committing an offence at the time)
P2 knocks the ball five yards back up the touchline towards the halfway line.
P1 runs back and gets the ball, becoming active, and is flagged offside as he was in an offside position when the ball is played.

Bit nerdy, I know.
Click to expand...

fair enough, but that didn't happen in the case we're talking about
 
portisheadblue said:
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
Click to expand...

sorry bud you can't criticise someone elses' grasp of English then write that :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top