Because they didn’t point that out themselves when asked and instead justified the law. It does bear a resemblance, the difference to me is that the law implies it’s the same person doing the whole action rather than the team. I think it’s another example of where the laws of the game are written in such a way they’re deliberately ambiguous (which is always what causes the subsequent arguments as people struggle with differing interpretations still being allowed)
So they said before VAR started,they have veered off their own rules already so who knows,every man and his dog said it was a pen,that was clear and obvious but Swarbrick said they looked at in in slo mo multiple times, looking to not give it clearly,they said reviews would be in real time,they are breaking their own rules all over,just for usThe handball decision isn’t based on “clear and obvious error.” The Rodri decision was.
As has been said several times on this and other threads the law is written in plain English on the IFAB website.The ref Michael Oliver got the decision right after a revue. It was handball because we gained an advantage from the handball even if it was not deliberate. However what is wrong is the laws of the game. If that had been a Spurs defender who was hit by the ball and it was then cleared that would not be handball. So is there someone out their who is right upto date with these new laws, that can explain it in plain English, as to what the rules are. As it just does not seem right to me.
Not to get sideways, but I haven’t seen or heard of the statement that “clear and obvious mistakes” were ONLY going to be reviewed in real-time, although I have seen where they confirmed they saw no “clear and obvious error” in the Rodri incident....even though Oliver wasn’t looking at the time!!!So they said before VAR started,they have veered off their own rules already so who knows,every man and his dog said it was a pen,that was clear and obvious but Swarbrick said they looked at in in slo mo multiple times, looking to not give it clearly,they said reviews would be in real time,they are breaking their own rules all over,just for us
All three.Connor Coady didn’t admit to the Ref or to VAR that it was a penalty during the game did he so that had no influence on the decision.
Pogba anticipated contact, played for it (dived), sticking out his leg and catching Coady flat footed in the process - Ref/VAR made their own decision = penalty. Rodri is strangled and then bundled to the ground - Ref/VAR decision = No penalty, simulation by Rodri.
The onfield ref has to make his call based upon what he saw of the incident at the time, the VAR has the luxury of being able to replay the incident multiple times. If I gave you 30 seconds to review the video footage then which of the two incidents is the more legitimate penalty claim? You might say both are and fair enough football is all about opinions but to try and cover up the Rodri incident and blame it on ‘looking for it/simulation’ is a blatant lie and to allow Pogba to get away with actually looking for it makes it twice as bad.
Cheating.
Institutional bias.
Corruption.
Take your pick
As has been said several times on this and other threads the law is written in plain English on the IFAB website.
http://www.theifab.com/laws/chapter/32/section/92/
It is an offence if a player:
gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
The Premier League seem to have summarised this law to mean if the ball touches any player on the hand/arm in the build up to the goal, they do reference the IFAB website for full details of the law.
- scores in the opponents’ goal
- creates a goal-scoring opportunity
The Refs, Pundits, Press etc. all seem to be ignorant of the actual law and are referencing the Premier League's "Executive Summary" rather than the Law itself.
Clear and obvious includes goals,our goal wasn't a clear and obvious mistake as no-one saw it so it should have stood on that alone,the pen he didn't see so that was a clear and obvious mistake ,anyone still confused lolNot to get sideways, but I haven’t seen or heard of the statement that “clear and obvious mistakes” were ONLY going to be reviewed in real-time, although I have seen where they confirmed they saw no “clear and obvious error” in the Rodri incident....even though Oliver wasn’t looking at the time!!!
I think we can be safe in assuming that the bar for “clear and obvious error” is going to be set awfully high for one PGMOL official to overrule the PGMOL official on the field....especially where City are concerned! No-one wants to give us any “advantage” after winning the League twice in a row, and 6 of the last 7 domestic trophies. I guess they forget the so-called Liverpool and United “eras” we all had to live through?!
Now, of course, it is all about keeping the global money-train chugging along at a faster and faster pace, which means the teams touted as having the largest GLOBAL FAN BASE have to be allowed to win something!!
I see what you are saying, but HANDBALL is not on that list. That said, the fact that Oliver didn’t see it (under the current WRONG interpretation we are all fighting against), it who knows if it would have been a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS ERROR under the current guidelines??Clear and obvious includes goals
From mike riley
VAR looks at four key areas: all goals scored; penalty kicks, whether they're awarded or not; direct red-card offences - not second yellow cards but straight reds; and any case of mistaken identity.
There will be a VAR and an Assistant VAR for each match at our hub at Stockley Park, outside London. They will look at those four key areas and can request from a replay operator any angles of incidents. The operator can provide them with replays in normal speed or in slow motion.
The officials will use that information to work out: "Is what the on-field match official team did clearly and obviously wrong in those four key areas?"
https://www.premierleague.com/news/1214130
I saw him on tv say they would look at clear and obvious decisions in real time
The ref Michael Oliver got the decision right after a revue. It was handball because we gained an advantage from the handball even if it was not deliberate. However what is wrong is the laws of the game. If that had been a Spurs defender who was hit by the ball and it was then cleared that would not be handball. So is there someone out their who is right upto date with these new laws, that can explain it in plain English, as to what the rules are. As it just does not seem right to me.
Here is where i am confused,the goal wasn't a clear and obvious mistake by the bottler but they can still disallow it for handball,why are they looking at it if it has to be clear and obvious? the rules are a nonsense that i don't think they understand either,most of them do not fit together,there are huge grey areas that shouldn't exsist in any system like thisI see what you are saying, but HANDBALL is not on that list. That said, the fact that Oliver didn’t see it (under the current WRONG interpretation we are all fighting against), it who knows if it would have been a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS ERROR under the current guidelines??
Imprecise language is causing confusion.
Obviously, I haven’t seen Riley’s comments on TV and can only go by what is written in the Laws of the Game.
It seems pretty clear to me that under the rules, the player needs to have gained possession or got the ball under control, and Laporte did neither. The ball after it his arm (if inded it did, and I am still yet to see evidence for that) could have gone anywhere. It certainly wasn't in our possession at that point and neither was it under control.100% correct yet they link the IFAB guidelines from their site. The Premier league have not just summarized they have changed the wording, they have added "accidental" to the creating a goal scoring line, when it simply isn't there on the IFAB guidelines.
IFAB have specifically took the word accidental out and gone out of their way to say the player handling/creating has to have possession/control of the ball, and THEN create a goal scoring opportunity in the Laporte incident.
And then you have another argument entirely whether Jesus had a chance straight from the arm. Jesus had to touch the ball to the side and create the space/opportunity for himself.
What if Jesus beat 4 players and scored, did Laporte still create the opportunity or did Jesus create his own opportunity by beating 4 men?
Far far too many grey areas the way it is written now.
I see what you are saying, but HANDBALL is not on that list. That said, the fact that Oliver didn’t see it (under the current WRONG interpretation we are all fighting against), it who knows if it would have been a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS ERROR under the current guidelines??
Imprecise language is causing confusion.
Obviously, I haven’t seen Riley’s comments on TV and can only go by what is written in the Laws of the Game, but in your comments, you say Riley said,
The operator can provide them with replays in normal speed or in slow motion.
The handball decision isn’t based on “clear and obvious error.” The Rodri decision was.
It seems pretty clear to me that under the rules, the player needs to have gained possession or got the ball under control, and Laporte did neither. The ball after it his arm (if inded it did, and I am still yet to see evidence for that) could have gone anywhere. It certainly wasn't in our possession at that point and neither was it under control.
Correct, and the way IFAB have written it makes sense. You don't want a player penalized for having no idea it hit his hand , and it was a complete accident, like Boley last week and Laoprte.
The way it is written is to stop the scenario of a player hand balling it, gaining control, then passing/setting up a clear goal scoring chance for a player.
The way the Premier have twisted it, makes no sense and penalizes a complete accidental handball that could have gone anywhere that the player knows nothing about.
To be honest, I think the "accidental" part is a red herring.Correct, and the way IFAB have written it makes sense. You don't want a player penalized for having no idea it hit his hand , and it was a complete accident, like Boley last week and Laoprte.
The way it is written is to stop the scenario of a player hand balling it, gaining control, then passing/setting up a clear goal scoring chance for a player.
The way the Premier have twisted it, makes no sense and penalizes a complete accidental handball that could have gone anywhere that the player knows nothing about.
Yep, still waiting for someone to offer proof. Not one single reverse camera angle.
No one?, anyone?
You are conflating the two things.Here is where i am confused,the goal wasn't a clear and obvious mistake by the bottler but they can still disallow it for handball,why are they looking at it if it has to be clear and obvious? the rules are a nonsense that i don't think they understand either,most of them do not fit together,there are huge grey areas that shouldn't exsist in any system like this