Var debate 2019/20

Bluearmy said:
Which is interesting as earlier in the season, they said no clear and obvious errors existed on line calls (Offsides/Goal line)
Click to expand...
Your point needs stressing. 100% bang on observation. We were explicitly told that offside calls are no longer subjective decisions and that they are black and white and the “clear and obvious” guideline does not apply to them. Now that the mission has been achieved with the dippers winning the league, they loosen the directive.
 
ScottSinclair said:


From 7 mins is the incident. In real time you can see the ball changing direction. In the VAR replay, it looks like the only thing it really can hit is Laporte's hand.

I thought it was extremely harsh at the time, and seeing it back now, it is still something I feel should never have ruled a goal out. But I do see how VAR came to the conclusion, based on those replays. I accept that it happened, and hope it changes in the future
Click to expand...



It doesnt matter whether you or I or anyone else thinks or is sure it hit Laportes hand.


VAR officials deemed it hit Laportes hand, the VAR officials then disallowing the goal.

However, Ellerary confirmed the way the ball was handled by Laporte under the exact

wording of the law for attacking handball in the lead up to a goal isnt covered by that

law. I didnt construct the wording of the law, Ifab did. So by including videos of Laporte

handling the ball doesnt reinforce your position that VAR were correct in disallowing it.

Ellerary confirmed that in its present worded format that law shouldn't technically have

allowed VAR to disallow it.

However, he also states that VAR should stringently continue to enforce the minimalist

offsides as that is the letter of the law.The offside law & others will continue to be revised.

However, PL teams & pigmol have I believe both briefed that any changes will be from the

Summer of 2020 onwards.
 
give it to gordon said:
Yea in the 'old days' we would jump up and down like a numpty than with in seconds be brought down to earth by the ref or lineo now it can take minutes.....thankfully it wasnt around on 93:20..
Click to expand...

No but it wasn't around during the semi with Arsenal and we ended up missing out on a cup final because of it (Sane Cross/Sterling disallowed goal, incorrectly). Its needed, but for huge errors like the one mentioned, not on every miniscule fingernail as its being used today...
 
ScottSinclair said:


From 7 mins is the incident. In real time you can see the ball changing direction. In the VAR replay, it looks like the only thing it really can hit is Laporte's hand.

I thought it was extremely harsh at the time, and seeing it back now, it is still something I feel should never have ruled a goal out. But I do see how VAR came to the conclusion, based on those replays. I accept that it happened, and hope it changes in the future
Click to expand...


Never thought I'd see the day when (a City fan) would be arguing the toss about a goal incorrectly ruled out that cost us 2 points and early season momentum just to prove a very weak point against a tidal wave of disagreement which even the head of PiGMOL later agreed that the goal shouldn't have been ruled out..

Look 7 minutes in, you can see it hit his hand..

Oh look here's a line showing the Egyptian Diver was played on side by Stones,

It didn't hit Dick Van Dykes hand, look I've found a clip, not conclusive but who gives a fcuk..

Tell you what Mr Sinclair, you're stating to smell more fishy than Grimsby Docks on a hot summers day..!
 
ScottSinclair said:


From 7 mins is the incident. In real time you can see the ball changing direction. In the VAR replay, it looks like the only thing it really can hit is Laporte's hand.

I thought it was extremely harsh at the time, and seeing it back now, it is still something I feel should never have ruled a goal out. But I do see how VAR came to the conclusion, based on those replays. I accept that it happened, and hope it changes in the future
Click to expand...

It could have just as easily hit the other player,you are ignoring this compared to players with their arms up in full view thay haven't been penalised,it's very strange how you are adament about this but none of the blatant ones that have been given,dick yesterday,the one in the dipper game and the geordie one to site just 3 of them
 
karen7 said:
It could have just as easily hit the other player,you are ignoring this compared to players with their arms up in full view thay haven't been penalised,it's very strange how you are adament about this but none of the blatant ones that have been given,dick yesterday,the one in the dipper game and the geordie one to site just 3 of them
Click to expand...

Hey each to their own, but for me that hits Laporte's arm... Even our own commentator says it hits Laporte's arm on the film!
 
karen7 said:
It could have just as easily hit the other player,you are ignoring this compared to players with their arms up in full view thay haven't been penalised,it's very strange how you are adament about this but none of the blatant ones that have been given,dick yesterday,the one in the dipper game and the geordie one to site just 3 of them
Click to expand...
All 3 I have voiced my opinion on before. 2 of them I have said I personally think was the wrong decision. I don’t know why you deem Van Djiks handball as more blatant, when you can hardly call it blatant at all
gingerprince said:
It doesnt matter whether you or I or anyone else thinks or is sure it hit Laportes hand.


VAR officials deemed it hit Laportes hand, the VAR officials then disallowing the goal.

However, Ellerary confirmed the way the ball was handled by Laporte under the exact

wording of the law for attacking handball in the lead up to a goal isnt covered by that

law. I didnt construct the wording of the law, Ifab did. So by including videos of Laporte

handling the ball doesnt reinforce your position that VAR were correct in disallowing it.

Ellerary confirmed that in its present worded format that law shouldn't technically have

allowed VAR to disallow it.

However, he also states that VAR should stringently continue to enforce the minimalist

offsides as that is the letter of the law.The offside law & others will continue to be revised.

However, PL teams & pigmol have I believe both briefed that any changes will be from the

Summer of 2020 onwards.
Click to expand...

Cheers mate, very good post. But would you say the relative consistency in how they have reffed these types of situations this season helps my argument about it not being clearly «bent»?
Bill the Blue said:
Never thought I'd see the day when (a City fan) would be arguing the toss about a goal incorrectly ruled out that cost us 2 points and early season momentum just to prove a very weak point against a tidal wave of disagreement which even the head of PiGMOL later agreed that the goal shouldn't have been ruled out..

Look 7 minutes in, you can see it hit his hand..

Oh look here's a line showing the Egyptian Diver was played on side by Stones,

It didn't hit Dick Van Dykes hand, look I've found a clip, not conclusive but who gives a fcuk..

Tell you what Mr Sinclair, you're stating to smell more fishy than Grimsby Docks on a hot summers day..!
Click to expand...
Fair enough mate, I can’t be bothered getting into a «who supports who». I have been overly obsessive about situations involving us to try to prove my points, and I can see it looking a bit off.

Its more about putting my allegiance aside, to try to understand VAR’s effect on the game better
 
Last edited:
Bluearmy said:
Which is interesting as earlier in the season, they said no clear and obvious errors existed on line calls (Offsides/Goal line). It was either on or offside, over or not over the line!!
Click to expand...
I think its different people, these "clear and obvious" bods are the IFAB, the "no clear and obvious" bods are PGMOL who have been told by the PL who is going to win this year operate our referees.
 
ScottSinclair said:
All 3 I have voiced my opinion on before. 2 of them I have said I personally think was the wrong decision. I don’t know why you deem Van Djiks handball as more blatant, when you can hardly call it blatant at all


Cheers mate, very good post. But would you say the relative consistency in how they have reffed these types of situations this season helps my argument about it not being clearly «bent»?

Fair enough mate, I can’t be bothered getting into a «who supports who». I have been overly obsessive about situations involving us to try to prove my points, and I can see it looking a bit off.

Its more about putting my allegiance aside, to try to understand VAR’s effect on the game better
Click to expand...

To be honest, I don't give a shit who you support, it's not City for sure, I do know that..

I'll leave you to it now as I'd rather watch the darts..

You do come across as somebody who has a vested interest in VAR and it's application within the game, probably to suit your preferred teams agenda..

No problem with that, each to their own, I just don't understand why people have to hide their allegences under ex City players names for example, when you are so obviously biased against City on a City forum which has a large number of City fans reading and contributing to this particular thread..

I will say though, if English is your second language, you come across as well read..

I was going to guess at a journalist but they're bottom feeding ****'s.. and I'll put you a notch above that..!



Well done on your first title win in 30 years btw..!
 
ScottSinclair said:
So if I understand you correctly, by saying the law doesn't preclude it, you mean that Laporte's(lets call it) alleged handball doesn't necessarily have to rule the goal out, as it is open to interpretation whether or not said handball is a big enough offence? In that case I agree. But do you not agree that the way they actually interpreted it, also makes sense according to the law?
That is what I think, I see nothing suspicious behind it, because their decision based on what the footage shows is hard to argue against. If this was the only handball they had chalked a goal off for all season, I would see the point. But it isn't. I have seen it consistently applied all season bar a few fuck up's.

I can't remember you trying to explain this to me before, but I would like you to give me some links on the subject since you seem to have read up on it, and I can appreciate that. English is also my 2nd language so sorry if I misinterpreted any of what you said
Click to expand...

Ok. If English is not your first language, you have a pretty good mastery of it, so well done there. Here is an extract from the Law as it currently stands. I have posted it earlier in this thread or the 'Is Football Bent?' thread, and it has been discussed before.

According to the Law, Laporte must have deliberately touched the ball with his hand (he didnt) or either he himself gained possession of the ball after it touched his hand (he didn't) or he himself control the ball after it touched his hand (he didn't) for the offence of handball to have been committed. So under the Law, Laporte did not commit handball, so the goal should have stood.

Because of this, I emailed David Elleray of IFAB and asked if our referees were interpreting the Law correctly. He avoided answering directly. Instead, he explained that when asked, football players, coaches etc. confirmed that they did not think a goal should be allowed if the ball touched the hand of a member of the scoring team in the build up to the goal. This is why we have this 'what football wants' concept.

What we are left with is referees, assistant referees, VARs and their bosses becoming ever more creative in their excuses for why they are doing what they are doing. They are forever trying to justify why their decisions are based on 'what football wants' rather than just applying the Law as it is currently written.

What they should be doing is applying the strict letter of the Law, and waiting until next season to change the Law so that it actually delivers 'what football wants'.
fb03a57a0571aa47333ed38c83563a6b.jpg
 
ScottSinclair said:
Fair enough mate, I can’t be bothered getting into a «who supports who». I have been overly obsessive about situations involving us to try to prove my points, and I can see it looking a bit off.
Click to expand...

You’re welcome to your opinion even if it’s not one shared

Out of interest who exactly do you support?

As the forum rules state...Fans of other clubs are welcome, as long as they are open about who they support and have a thick skin. Masquerading as a City fan won't be tolerated.
 
Paladin said:
Ok. If English is not your first language, you have a pretty good mastery of it, so well done there. Here is an extract from the Law as it currently stands. I have posted it earlier in this thread or the 'Is Football Bent?' thread, and it has been discussed before.

According to the Law, Laporte must have deliberately touched the ball with his hand (he didnt) or either he himself gained possession of the ball after it touched his hand (he didn't) or he himself control the ball after it touched his hand (he didn't) for the offence of handball to have been committed. So under the Law, Laporte did not commit handball, so the goal should have stood.

Because of this, I emailed David Elleray of IFAB and asked if our referees were interpreting the Law correctly. He avoided answering directly. Instead, he explained that when asked, football players, coaches etc. confirmed that they did not think a goal should be allowed if the ball touched the hand of a member of the scoring team in the build up to the goal. This is why we have this 'what football wants' concept.

What we are left with is referees, assistant referees, VARs and their bosses becoming ever more creative in their excuses for why they are doing what they are doing. They are forever trying to justify why their decisions are based on 'what football wants' rather than just applying the Law as it is currently written.

What they should be doing is applying the strict letter of the Law, and waiting until next season to change the Law so that it actually delivers 'what football wants'.
fb03a57a0571aa47333ed38c83563a6b.jpg
Click to expand...

Cheers mate! That is truly a brilliant answer, and judging by some of the responses I have gotten today, maybe more than I deserve lol

Firstly, I was totally unaware of this. I was absolutely positive the letter of the law had been changed to disallow every goal with a handball, intentional or unintentional, in the build up. This is why I have been vocal about criticising the law, and not VAR for enforcing it. Now, you will of course find me in total agreement. The definition of the law that you have linked to here, is something I agree with entirely. And considering what they have done is by definition bending the laws, or even ignoring it, I of course agree that this needs to be questioned.

What I won't change my mind on though, and tbf you haven't argued with me on that point either, is linking this bending of the law to make a argument for obvious corruption. That is what I have mostly taken issue with. If this kind of selective interpretation of the law was restricted to only us, sure, but it has been the narrative for the whole league. As I said it has been consistently bad, but it has been consistent. Consistently wrong perhaps is a better phrase now. But, still I disagree with the notion that it has been used consistently wrong against us and only us.

Anyway, thanks for the informative post and cheers for the compliment:)
 
Last edited:
Apologies if I was a bit harsh ScottSinclair. You right to stick to your view, we are all Blues at the end of the day.
 
Last edited:
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