VAR Discussion Thread - 2023/24 | PL clubs to vote on whether to scrap VAR (pg413)

Would you want VAR scrapped?

  • Total voters
    293
  • Poll closed .
Blue Mist said:
Haalands second, what the fuck was that Var delay all about?
I know they have to check it but come on, looking desperately for a hand ball !!
Even Spitty said it was a goal !
Click to expand...
Think you answered your own question there.

5live said they were looking at a possible Doku foul to not give the penalty as well.
 
Man in back of net gets hit on arm by ball as it pass over the line, no goal, if that happened I think we would’ve seen Pep have an Arteta style meltdown
 
Blue Mist said:
But it went on forever. One replay showed no handball. If they were looking for a Doku foul it is bordering on stupidity.
It is killing the game.
Click to expand...
I think the dippers kicking off has made officials over cautious when making decisions.

Let's see what they get when they play us as the apology is still being dished out to them.
 
Blue Mist said:
But it went on forever. One replay showed no handball. If they were looking for a Doku foul it is bordering on stupidity.
It is killing the game.
Click to expand...
It was really, really close to a handball. I thought initially they were looking for it touching his hand/arm as he slid past it, but it's when he's ahead of the ball that it very, very nearly catches up with the back of his elbow, while it's still a few centimetres short of fully crossing the line.

Would have been a bizarre one to result in no goal, but if it had hit his elbow then it would be the correct decision, and it was really close.
 
Unfortunately, the Laws of the Game cannot deal with every possible situation, so where there is no direct provision in the Laws, the referee should make a decision within the spirit of the game and the Laws. This should involve the officials asking the question, 'what would football expect in this situation?'

For this reason, Haaland's second goal only needed a cursory check for handball, and even if the ball had touched Haaland's hand before crossing the goal line, I'd like to think it would have still resulted in a goal.
 
bluenova said:
It was really, really close to a handball. I thought initially they were looking for it touching his hand/arm as he slid past it, but it's when he's ahead of the ball that it very, very nearly catches up with the back of his elbow, while it's still a few centimetres short of fully crossing the line.

Would have been a bizarre one to result in no goal, but if it had hit his elbow then it would be the correct decision, and it was really close.
Click to expand...
Don't talk bollocks
 
Paladin said:
Unfortunately, the Laws of the Game cannot deal with every possible situation, so where there is no direct provision in the Laws, the referee should make a decision within the spirit of the game and the Laws. This should involve the officials asking the question, 'what would football expect in this situation?'

For this reason, Haaland's second goal only needed a cursory check for handball, and even if the ball had touched Haaland's hand before crossing the goal line, I'd like to think it would have still resulted in a goal.
Click to expand...

I’ve not seen replays yet so have no idea. But if the ball touched his elbow before it fully crossed the line, the laws quite categorically say it is handball.

It would be a horrible way to have a goal disallowed. But I’m not sure too many City fans would be happy for an opposition goal to stand for the sake of the spirit of the game, if an offence was proved to have taken place?
 
Stephen230 said:
I’ve not seen replays yet so have no idea. But if the ball touched his elbow before it fully crossed the line, the laws quite categorically say it is handball.

It would be a horrible way to have a goal disallowed. But I’m not sure too many City fans would be happy for an opposition goal to stand for the sake of the spirit of the game, if an offence was proved to have taken place?
Click to expand...
It didn't touch his arm/elbow. That is the point. One replay was all they needed to see that, instead they forensically examined it in the hope of disallowing it.
When they couldnt rule it out they desperately tried to see if Doku fouled someone in the build up.

I started this discussion purely to say they take too long, they are desperate to spoil football.
 
Blue Mist said:
It didn't touch his arm/elbow. That is the point. One replay was all they needed to see that, instead they forensically examined it in the hope of disallowing it.
When they couldnt rule it out they desperately tried to see if Doku fouled someone in the build up.

I started this discussion purely to say they take too long, they are desperate to spoil football.
Click to expand...

I’m at a disadvantage, as I’m just going off that still posted and haven’t seen any TV yet. It certainly looks pretty close to his elbow and not yet over the line from that though.

But on a general point, what you describe as them desperately trying to rule it at, just sounds like them following the correct protocol. They’d first check if there was a handball as if there was, everything else would be irrelevant. When they’ve ruled that out, they go back and check there was nothing else untoward.

I think they’re all taking that little bit more time since the Liverpool, Tottering game.
 
Paladin said:
Unfortunately, the Laws of the Game cannot deal with every possible situation, so where there is no direct provision in the Laws, the referee should make a decision within the spirit of the game and the Laws. This should involve the officials asking the question, 'what would football expect in this situation?'

For this reason, Haaland's second goal only needed a cursory check for handball, and even if the ball had touched Haaland's hand before crossing the goal line, I'd like to think it would have still resulted in a goal.
Click to expand...
Indeed, it would probably be helpful if the law itself was simplified to state its purpose and the present rhetoric modified to read as examples of how this purpose should be applied.

e.g. The purpose of this law is to avoid a player’s hand making contact with the ball giving that player’s team an advantage.
This should be the first consideration of the referee. The following descriptors give examples that should guide the referee in making a judgement as to whether there has been an infringement and the nature of any penalty to be applied …….
Follows an adaption of the current wording of the law to consider what part of arm is proscribed etc…
 
Oohvonkyvonky said:
"I’m at a disadvantage, as I’m just going off that still posted and haven’t seen any TV yet"

Yes, that's a pretty big dis-advantage... Maybe watch it first, then you you'll probably not want to mention it again.
Click to expand...

Which is why I haven’t given any opinion about the decision itself either way.

My original point was to the person who said even if it did hit his arm, the goal should have stood. Which you don’t need to have seen anything to argue against.
 
Blue Mist said:
It didn't touch his arm/elbow. That is the point. One replay was all they needed to see that, instead they forensically examined it in the hope of disallowing it.
When they couldnt rule it out they desperately tried to see if Doku fouled someone in the build up.

I started this discussion purely to say they take too long, they are desperate to spoil football.
Click to expand...
Agreed 100%
 
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