You use all those words but necessarily in the right order ;-)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Var debate 2019/20
- Thread starter Chi-town blues
- Start date
kaz7
Well-Known Member
Plus too much swearing lolYou use all those words but necessarily in the right order ;-)
squirtyflower
Well-Known Member
With the greatest respect (sic), you’re talking bollocksMate, decisions go against all teams. There’s no conspiracy set up to stop City.
Last season, Liverpool could point to a red card not given to Kompany in the biggest game of the season amongst other decisions...
I think they get it wrong a lot, and sometimes some sides go through tougher spells with decisions, but to suggest they’re acting differently to stop City winning the league is mad.
deano ou812
Well-Known Member
Don’t they all...With the greatest respect (sic), you’re talking bollocks
At the start of the season I naively thought VAR would be of benefit to the PL. Injustices and errors would be corrected, cheating stopped and punished etc. When our late winner against Spurs was disallowed, I thought it was because of an incorrect understanding and interpretation of the law as written, and this was pointed out to IFAB.
The Technical Director of IFAB, David Elleray, didn't deny that disallowing Jesus' goal was not permitted under The Laws of the Game. Instead, he said that when they asked them, managers and players did not feel that a goal should be scored if the ball had touched an attacker's hand. In other words, the concept of 'what football wants' has now been introduced.
Instead of 'what football wants', read 'what Scudamore wants', 'what the PL wants', 'what PGMOL wants', 'what the sponsors want', 'what the bookies want', or any other outside agent. Suddenly the whole competition becomes corruptible.
PGMOL are so arrogant that they have seen fit to ignore their governing body, and apply their own take on a number of football laws and clarifications. Their versions contravene The Laws. For example, they have so far refused to use the pitch side monitors, despite them being there at every game and their correct usage being described in The Laws. Why don't they use the monitors? Because it would slow the game down.
A couple of things occur to me. Firstly, name me one company or industry that carries out market research by interviewing its own managers and employees, whilst at the same time ignoring its paying customers. Only football does this, and it is scandalous.
The second is that IFAB are condoning this very loose interpretation of their laws. Imagine contesting a speeding ticket for driving at 35mph. The council admits that yes, the road sign did say 40mph, but it should have said 30. The 40mph sign was put up by mistake. Therefore the fine still stands, because the council meant it to say 30mph. This is exactly what the PL and PGMOL are doing. IFAB's poorly worded law should not give carte blanche to PGMOL to apply its own version of the law, using the excuse that it is 'what football wants'.
'Football' should carry out a survey amongst its fans to find it what they actually want. I can guarantee, it isn't remotely like what they are currently serving us with.
The Technical Director of IFAB, David Elleray, didn't deny that disallowing Jesus' goal was not permitted under The Laws of the Game. Instead, he said that when they asked them, managers and players did not feel that a goal should be scored if the ball had touched an attacker's hand. In other words, the concept of 'what football wants' has now been introduced.
Instead of 'what football wants', read 'what Scudamore wants', 'what the PL wants', 'what PGMOL wants', 'what the sponsors want', 'what the bookies want', or any other outside agent. Suddenly the whole competition becomes corruptible.
PGMOL are so arrogant that they have seen fit to ignore their governing body, and apply their own take on a number of football laws and clarifications. Their versions contravene The Laws. For example, they have so far refused to use the pitch side monitors, despite them being there at every game and their correct usage being described in The Laws. Why don't they use the monitors? Because it would slow the game down.
A couple of things occur to me. Firstly, name me one company or industry that carries out market research by interviewing its own managers and employees, whilst at the same time ignoring its paying customers. Only football does this, and it is scandalous.
The second is that IFAB are condoning this very loose interpretation of their laws. Imagine contesting a speeding ticket for driving at 35mph. The council admits that yes, the road sign did say 40mph, but it should have said 30. The 40mph sign was put up by mistake. Therefore the fine still stands, because the council meant it to say 30mph. This is exactly what the PL and PGMOL are doing. IFAB's poorly worded law should not give carte blanche to PGMOL to apply its own version of the law, using the excuse that it is 'what football wants'.
'Football' should carry out a survey amongst its fans to find it what they actually want. I can guarantee, it isn't remotely like what they are currently serving us with.
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
"Elleray, didn't deny that disallowing Jesus' goal was not permitted under The Laws of the Game."
Did he actually answer, or did he not answer?
I had the impression he just explained the thinking without specifically referring to what the laws allowed.
Did he actually answer, or did he not answer?
I had the impression he just explained the thinking without specifically referring to what the laws allowed.
He said he couldn't comment on specific incidents. Here are some direct quotes:"Elleray, didn't deny that disallowing Jesus' goal was not permitted under The Laws of the Game."
Did he actually answer, or did he not answer?
I had the impression he just explained the thinking without specifically referring to what the laws allowed.
Me, 27 August 2019
I would like clarification of the new handball rule in the light of the disputed Wolves and Manchester City goals in recent games in the English Premier League.
The goals were both disallowed by VAR, following review, based on this part of Law 12:
"Handling the ball
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
- creates a goal-scoring opportunity"
In both the above cases, the player whose arm the ball touched (Boly and Laporte) did not gain possession of the ball, or gain control of the ball. Therefore, as this pre-condition was not met in either case, the two conditions that led to an offence being committed cannot have resulted.
On this basis, my belief is that the two match referees have interpreted the law incorrectly. The two VARs have interpreted the law incorrectly, and their boss, Neil Swarbrick who issued a statement explaining the reasons for the disallowed goals has also interpreted the law incorrectly. There is every possibility that Mike Riley, the head of referees in England has not understood the law correctly, and that every referee they have trained has an incorrect understanding of the new law.
Do you agree that the law, as laid down by IFAB, is being interpreted incorrectly, or is there another explanation?
David Elleray, 6 October 2019
We are sorry you did not get our original reply which stated that it is the policy of The IFAB not to comment in specific decisions or matches.
Best wishes
David Elleray
Technical Director of The IFAB
Me, 6 October 2019
Thanks David
OK, so disregarding the actual incidents, I still feel the law is being interpreted incorrectly. Do you agree with my interpretation of the law, or is it possible to give handball after the ball touches the arm or hand of a teammate, but that teammate does not gain possession or control of the ball?
David Elleray, 11 October 2019
Many apologies for the slow reply - VAR is taking a great deal of time as you might imagine.
The view of the technical experts is that the situation you describe falls within the 'spirit/intention' of the Law and thus should be penalsied - the purpose of the change was that coaches/players etc... were very clear that they did not believe a goal should result from the ball having made contact (even accidental) with the hand/arm of an opponent as a goal should only 'result' from use of the rest of the body.
Best wishes
David
David Elleray
Technical Director of The IFAB
This 'spirit/intention' of the Law is where the problem lies. It becomes someone's subjective opinion, instead of an absolute. This subjectivity can be applied differently to each team, depending on some background hidden agenda.
MillionMilesAway
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the detailed reply. I just thought that the "didn't deny" phrasing could lead to inference that he was avoiding this particular one, rather than the quote above that he wasn't commenting on individual events.
I agree that the consistency is a problem, and with VAR, it is very difficult to offer a valid explanation why it would be for handball which isn't subjective - was it Newcastle who had a goal given after the ball clearly hit an arm?
Wolves had a goal disallowed early on where it hit someone's arm and fell to a teammate, and I do think it is obvious that the law is intended to cover this type of thing.
I agree that the consistency is a problem, and with VAR, it is very difficult to offer a valid explanation why it would be for handball which isn't subjective - was it Newcastle who had a goal given after the ball clearly hit an arm?
Wolves had a goal disallowed early on where it hit someone's arm and fell to a teammate, and I do think it is obvious that the law is intended to cover this type of thing.
Bill the Blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 28 Jul 2013
- Messages
- 2,795
- Location
- Here and There, mostly Here..
- Team supported
- The only football team to come from Manchester!
1001 pages on VAR in 8 months... tells me that it's been a complete success..!
It's achieved everything it was implemented to do, fuck us over big style whilst giving the biggest leg up to the Dippers and Rags as they are not good enough to play with the rules and win stuff on merit..!
VAR has f'kin ruined the game of football ..!
****'s!
It's achieved everything it was implemented to do, fuck us over big style whilst giving the biggest leg up to the Dippers and Rags as they are not good enough to play with the rules and win stuff on merit..!
VAR has f'kin ruined the game of football ..!
****'s!
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader
Well-Known Member
VAR rules must be changed. The games should be controlled by the referee. VAR is picking and choosing where it wants to inflict itself and that's taking away from the game. Maybe the managers can be given "challenge flags" like they use in American Football. When a manager wants to challenge the referee, he can throw the flag. VAR interrupting every single goal is not good for the game. Give the game back to the referees.
I'm intrigued as to which coin they use for the VAR toss up. We have a double headed coined especially reserved for our games, and Oliver is already screaming tails!