Var debate 2019/20

I thought of a situation last night which sums up how stupid this rule is. Say Raheem Sterling is through on goal in the last minute and rounds the keeper. As he does so the ball bounces off the keeper and onto Sterling’s chest. It brushes his arm but he has beaten the keeper and has an open goal.

What does he do? If he’s felt the ball brush his arm he knows the goal will be disallowed if he puts the ball in the net. He’d be better off turning round and trying to kick the ball off the goalkeeper so it goes out for a corner.

I realise this is all hypothetical but it’s feasible!
 
hammocity said:
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.
Click to expand...

Even the Wolves defender who gave the penalty away said it was a penalty. It dilutes the argument when people use examples that are not true.
Unless you think the Wolves defender is in on it -;)
 
asahartford1 said:
Even the Wolves defender who gave the penalty away said it was a penalty. It dilutes the argument when people use examples that are not true.
Unless you think the Wolves defender is in on it -;)
Click to expand...

So you dont think Pogba was looking for it?
Mr Swarbrick has clearly indicated that VAR will not give penalties where the player is ‘looking for it’.

All anyone wants is fairness and transparency and we most certainly have neither at the moment.
 
asahartford1 said:
Even the Wolves defender who gave the penalty away said it was a penalty. It dilutes the argument when people use examples that are not true.
Unless you think the Wolves defender is in on it -;)
Click to expand...
Look at it again, he throws himself at Coady before any contact, without the dive there’s no contact.
 
Bandofblues said:
So you dont think Pogba was looking for it?
Mr Swarbrick has clearly indicated that VAR will not give penalties where any player wearing a shirt from the blue spectrum is ‘looking for it’.

All anyone wants is fairness and transparency and we most certainly have neither at the moment.
Click to expand...

I think the RDGAHMeedya didn't quote Swarbrick verbatim.
 
Kennedy_probably_has said:
I thought of a situation last night which sums up how stupid this rule is. Say Raheem Sterling is through on goal in the last minute and rounds the keeper. As he does so the ball bounces off the keeper and onto Sterling’s chest. It brushes his arm but he has beaten the keeper and has an open goal.

What does he do? If he’s felt the ball brush his arm he knows the goal will be disallowed if he puts the ball in the net. He’d be better off turning round and trying to kick the ball off the goalkeeper so it goes out for a corner.

I realise this is all hypothetical but it’s feasible!
Click to expand...

Yes I'm surprised nobody has asked the refs to make a public statement answering the question, "What could Jesus have done when he received the ball to allow City to score a valid goal ? ". If the answer is "Nothing, the team gained possession from a handball ". Then what would be the point of playing on?
 
I read the handball rules in the aftermath of the Spurs game, and I think they were incorrectly applied.

This is perfect territory for the football media to take up with PGMOL, the FA, FIFA, etc but of course, they are not interested.

I don't understand why Pep has not been more critical of VAR given Manchester City's experience. As the leading coach in football, if he came out against it, then it would be significant, and others would probably follow too.

I noticed that VAR tried their best to disallow the Neves equaliser against Man Utd.
 
Given the crucial importance of the new Law 12, why have the media and others not scrutinised the way it has been applied ?

The argument, since Saturday, is that the decision to rule out the winning City `goal` was correct by the letter of the new law, setting aside views about the actual law itself. However a growing number do not agree with this initial consensus.

The new Rule 12 states:

"It is an offence if a player: gains possession / control of the ball after it has touched their hand / arm and then scores in the opponents’ goal or creates a goal-scoring opportunity".

The question is -after the ball had touched Laporte`s arm, did he gain possession / control of the ball and then create a goal scoring opportunity?

The answer rests on the meaning of the words possession / control and create. After it touched Laporte`s arm and instantaneously moved onwards, at no stage was he in possession of, nor did he control, the ball. Therefore he could not then create.

It was Jesus (not Laporte) who gained possession / control. It was not then a simple tap in but he still had a lot of creating to do before the goal was scored.

The `goal` should have stood based on the letter of the new Law 12.
 
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
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.