So go on please do explain why you think a player with arms around his neck being pushed to the floor may not be considered a penalty?depends upon your opinion of shafted . Also i didn't say stop moaning but rather just explained why the handball is correct . I can see why the penalty wasn't given by VAR but still believe its a penalty .
you keep repeating the same thing but you do not understand that difference between gaining possession of the ball and gaining control of the ball . The law differentiates between the two .
Gaining control = The player has now got the ball under their control.
Gaining Possession = The player has gained or kept possession of the ball for their team .
The ball hits his arm and therefore falls to Jesus (kept possession following the cross ) . Jesus then scores .
Goal disallowed because of an unfair advantage from the ball hitting his arm .
Wrong those are not the var rules those were game rules
Another issue with VAR is the concept of phases of play. If a goal is disallowed because of an earlier offence then why was this not given when the foul took place? Rugby has an advantage rule determined by the referee. As far as I am aware this has never been the case in football.
Which then comes back to the Jesus goal. He did not score directly from the alleged handball (I still have not seen a conclusive photo as evidence) so when would any advantage be over?
from what i understand the hand ball rule is slightly different depending on whether you are attacking or defending.
this is going to cause more arguments!
Completely different,any attacking player it hits regardless of where their arms are any goal is disallowed,any defender it hits has to have their arms outside of a normal silloitte(sp,still can't spell it),so more goals disallowed and less penalties given,a football man has come up with that rule,it's laughable,the game is about scoring goalsfrom what i understand the hand ball rule is slightly different depending on whether you are attacking or defending.
this is going to cause more arguments!
Regardless of whether the handball decision was correct or not I do think there’s something fundamentally wrong with the VAR system. When this all seeing eye can rule a goal out for something nobody in the stadium, players, officials or fans could see, but is unable to do anything about a rugby tackle in the penalty area then something is clearly wrong. The foul on Rodri was as clear and obvious an error as you’re likely to see.
From what we’ve seen already, and I’ll admit I’m sympathetic to the whole agenda conversation, but this system as I suspected it would be is open to manipulation in terms of how and when it is used.
We got shafted on Saturday, and we can’t even have a go the referee because he had fuck all to do with it.
VAR should have been a system that was fair and we could all trust, unfortunately the operators are every bit as questionable as they always have been.
Which law though.
I think these rules are up to date, if not someone can enlighten me.
HANDLING THE BALL
It is an offence if a player:
- deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
- 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
- scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
It is usually an offence if a player:
The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close.
- touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
- the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger
- the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
Except for the above offences, it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:
- directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)
- directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close
- if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally bigger
- when a player falls and the hand/arm is between the body and the ground to support the body, but not extended laterally or vertically away from the body
I'm assuming the interpretation used was the first highlighted bit.
I find that highly subjective. It comes under the 'then' clause which assumes he gained control of the ball. He didn't.
Looking at the exception highlighted. I don't believe it is even conclusive that the ball hit his arm. maybe the upper arm, who knows but it certainly wasn't him making his body bigger.
It's all subjective even with their new rules.
And as for the penalty. Well...