Var debate 2019/20

simon23 said:
You are clutching at straws massively.

If david siva pulls a ball back into space and aguero moves 5 yd forwards and hits it into the net who has created the goal - who gets the assist? - Silva
Click to expand...

Stats, being black & white & dumb, would give Silva the assist if it hit him in the bollocks at the halfway line & Jesus then beat 10 players & scored.

That is again, irrelevant.

This rule has been incorrectly interpreted by people trying to dumb down, what is essentially a good part of the rule.

If the ball hit Laporte, square on the arm & Jesus stays where he was, 4 yards from goal & it goes to him there, OF COURSE it would be creating a goalscoring opportunity.

The jobsworth interpretation now means that ANY handball accidental, means no goal.

So therefore play should be stopped in ANY circumstances it hits the hand. In which case, WHY THE FUCK HAVE THEY PUT IN A RULE ABOUT 'CONTROLLING' THE BALL OR 'CREATING A GOALSCORING OPPORTUNITY' ?

ANSWER: SO.THAT GOALS LIKE JESUS SCORED WON'T BE UNFAIRLY RULED OUT.

Jobsworth ****s have then fucked it up by applying it incorrectly. Now we are stuck with this shite.
 
Neville Kneville said:
Jobsworth ****s have then fucked it up by applying it incorrectly. Now we are stuck with this shite.
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone disagrees with that. I’ve not seen anyone supporting the law/rule change.

Only that under the new law, if a goal is scored straight after a handball, it’s going to be ruled out now.
 
SWP's back said:
I have to disagree, the ball ends up no where near Jesus without the touch from Laporte. As it hits him then Jesus only needs to take a touch to score and he could have hit it first time (a goal scoring opportunity).

It’s a stupid law that needs abolishing but according to the law then it’s the correct decision. I’m not sure why that’s such a controversial opinion as it’s the one held by every pundit I’ve read or listened to on podcast apart from Samuels and Castles and it’s also what PGMOL have further clarified and stuck by.
Click to expand...

It's a sad situation when all the pundits, players, journalists, referees, assistant referees, VAR officials, PGMOL, IFAB officials and fans (except for a few fans, Castles and Samuels) all fail to understand the actual rule, as laid down in plain English.

The law itself is the ultimate authority. Forget the Premier League's own interpretation (which is wrong) or their attempts at clarification (which are illegal because they require something that the actual law doesn't prescribe) or anyone's 'take' on the law, or what it was intended to mean. Just look at what it says, paraphrased below:

"If a player touches the ball with his hand or arm and that same player gains control or possession of the ball, then, and only then scores or creates a goal scoring opportunity, then the goal will not stand".

The first condition was not met, therefore the response cannot be triggered. This is a simple matter of logic.

I say well done Duncan Castles, who first highlighted the incorrect application of this law by the officials, and to Martin Samuels for following it up. It's a sad indictment of the game, when the lawmakers are going to such lengths to create fairness, but in the process are overcomplicating things and becoming blind to the actual legislation.
 
simon23 said:
disgree and ive stated why numerous times
Click to expand...

But you are still wrong.

See the IFAB presentation of changes to the laws and clarification: http://theifab.com/presentation-of-ifab-log-2019-20/

"Football does not accept:
A player gaining possesion/control of the ball from their hand/arm and then scoring or creating a goal scoring opportunity."

In your interpretation of the OR in that sentence it would mean that "Football does not accept - a goal scoring opportunity"
The player has to gain possession/control in order to create the goal scoring opportunity.

Also in the clarification presentation there are several videos used as examples which all show the player handling the ball and then scoring or shoooting.
There are no examples given where one player handles and it deflects to another, they are all where the player themselves have created the goal scoring opportunity themselves.

Go take a look....
 
SWP's back said:
I don’t think anyone disagrees with that. I’ve not seen anyone supporting the law/rule change.

Only that under the new law, if a goal is scored straight after a handball, it’s going to be ruled out now.
Click to expand...

The rule is fine.in that regard. A direct goalscoring chance from a handball is not fair.

Jesus didn't get that. He won a loose ball.

Jobsworth thinking ruining the game.
 
Bandofblues said:
But you are still wrong.

See the IFAB presentation of changes to the laws and clarification: http://theifab.com/presentation-of-ifab-log-2019-20/

"Football does not accept:
A player gaining possesion/control of the ball from their hand/arm and then scoring or creating a goal scoring opportunity."

In your interpretation of the OR in that sentence it would mean that "Football does not accept - a goal scoring opportunity"
The player has to gain possession/control in order to create the goal scoring opportunity.

Also in the clarification presentation there are several videos used as examples which all show the player handling the ball and then scoring or shoooting.
There are no examples given where one player handles and it deflects to another, they are all where the player themselves have created the goal scoring opportunity themselves.

Go take a look....
Click to expand...

That's a good point too.

The detail we are arguing, is not even relevant as Laporte didn't control the ball but it's still a goal, even without that rule.
 
Bandofblues said:
See the IFAB presentation of changes to the laws and clarification: http://theifab.com/presentation-of-ifab-log-2019-20/

"Football does not accept:
A player gaining possesion/control of the ball from their hand/arm and then scoring or creating a goal scoring opportunity."
Click to expand...
Laporte does not gain possession/control of the ball from his hand/arm.....

That’s where it ends, from then on it doesn’t matter what happened because Laporte did not commit an offence.
 
Paladin said:
It WASN'T handball. The argument about whether or not it created a goalscoring opportunity is totally irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Then someone should tell the refs. They are clearly looking for any handball in the buildup to a goal, "accidental or not" has been repeated from the start of the season by every pundit.

Refs and VARs, should be required to pass a test on all the rule changes, before the start of every season.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
haha no one knows the rules, except those in charge, exactly what they wanted
Click to expand...
Ffs they don’t even know the rules,I’ve a bad feeling about today’s game mentioned it in last weeks pre match spurs thread VAR would play a part,feel every one of our games will be under microscopic examination compared to all the rest,we are fighting not just teams in the league,but officials and now VAR as well..
 
Neville Kneville said:
The other thing is, the rules they posted in the M.E.N. the other day, suggested that all of these decisions come under the 'clear and obvious' rule.

Is that the case or just them being their fucking useless selves ?
Click to expand...
That’s their “get out of jail card” . They’ll use it when they don’t have any option to screw city .
 
deano ou812 said:
Ffs they don’t even know the rules,I’ve a bad feeling about today’s game mentioned it in last weeks pre match spurs thread VAR would play a part,feel every one of our games will be under microscopic examination compared to all the rest,we are fighting not just teams in the league,but officials and now VAR as well..
Click to expand...

Let's hope we don't get fucked over, just to make it feel like it is actually worth investing emotion into football this season.
 
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