Var debate 2019/20

[ChicagoBlue]

I might add, this is simply the essence of the laws of the game since 18 whenever it was. That your not allowed to use your hands to control the ball. It's as simple as that really, IMO.

Define “control the ball,” because no one, least of all VAR, appears to understand what that means!

 

[ChicagoBlue]

The authorities have got to look at those 2 decisions and realize THE CONCEPT OF VAR definitely did not work on that day.

Fixed it for you, because “THEY” thought it worked just fine!!

 

[Florida Blue]

To be honest, I think the "accidental" part is a red herring.

Do we want a situation where a player in the box unwittingly has the ball strike his hand, but he turns around and finds it conveniently sitting there at his feet, so he nonchalantly pokes it home for a goal, with the defenders powerless to do anything?

I would we do not. Accidental handballs should also be an infringement in such circumstances. And this is IMO why their is no mention in the rules of whether it's accidental or not. It does not matter.

What matters is, did the player get the ball under control, or gain possession. In the example I give, he did, and therefore it should be flagged as handball. If the ball hits him and bounces off randomly somewhere, he did not, and it is not handball.

This latter description is what happened with Laporte. (If indeed it hit his arm at all.)

I see your point but imo if it's at his feet he's under control of it. In that scenario, if attacker handles and scores, yes it's handball.
Laporte had a 50/50 header which he had no control over, could have gone anywhere. If he was in any way in control he would have headed it, not handled it.
That's why the IFAB rules are different for the scorer and the player creating a goal scoring opportunity. It's 2 phases of play. gain control/ then create an opportunity.

They could have simply said " if you accidentally score or accidentally set up a chance with your hand/arm then it's handball"

They have gone out of their way and put in the extra wording for creating a goal scoring opportunity for a reason. Otherwise it makes no sense to do it.

 

[kaz7]

You are conflating the two things.

Clear and obvious error and handball are two SEPARATE & DISTINCT VAR ISSUES.

Well that is not what he said,he included goals in the clear and obvious mistake catagory,the handball rule is a complete mess,it didn't need changing to favour the defending team,they said they didn't want goals scored with hands,that is understandable and correct,it's like they have added the rest of it to justify using var,it's the handball rule that is creating all the problems,they did not stick to their own rules as if it hit eric he didn't have it under control or gain an advantage,if it had hit the defender which i think it did then it's not a penalty,the way we are getting done over has made me so mad i'm not even looking foward to the next game

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

I see your point but imo if it's at his feet he's under control of it. In that scenario, if attacker handles and scores, yes it's handball.
Laporte had a 50/50 header which he had no control over, could have gone anywhere. If he was in any way in control he would have headed it, not handled it.
That's why the IFAB rules are different for the scorer and the player creating a goal scoring opportunity. It's 2 phases of play. gain control/ then create an opportunity.

They could have simply said " if you accidentally score or accidentally set up a chance with your hand/arm then it's handball"

They have gone out of their way and put in the extra wording for creating a goal scoring opportunity for a reason. Otherwise it makes no sense to do it.

I wonder how soon they will convene a meeting with the PiGMOL reps to try and explain to those bent / stupid fuckers ?

 

[ballinio]

And that is THE most annoying thing most of all. The VAR didn't give a clear and obvious penalty on Rodri , where players appealed, thousands of fans appealed, us watching 1000s of miles away on TV appealed, our manager appealed who saw it and he was 50 yards away.

Yet it called a handball than not a single opposition player appealed for, a single Spurs fan saw or anybody on the coaching staff appealed for.

The authorities have got to look at those 2 decisions and realize VAR definitely did not work on that day.

It did the job they wanted it to , worked just fine ...we’re 2 points down

 

[Bandofblues]

Looking back at the Sky footage there is a view from a camera in the corner where the kick was taken - sky clock shows 92:18.
Not conclusive to me who handles it. Could be either of them or even spurs man first and then Laporte. Not got HD , maybe that shows it clearer.

And yet we are supposed to accept it as fact that Laporte handled first, in fact lots of blues appear to have already accepted it as fact without any conclusive evidence. Repeat something often enough and it becomes true by default?

With the Spurs handball in the champions league the first impression was that it had come off his hip, it was only afterwardthat footage with the handball emerged and which allegedly wasn’t shown to the ref - so the onfield decision stood. In the league game it seems VAR has made the opposite decision and assumed that it came off Laporte without any conclusive evidence.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I see your point but imo if it's at his feet he's under control of it. In that scenario, if attacker handles and scores, yes it's handball.
Laporte had a 50/50 header which he had no control over, could have gone anywhere. If he was in any way in control he would have headed it, not handled it.
That's why the IFAB rules are different for the scorer and the player creating a goal scoring opportunity. It's 2 phases of play. gain control/ then create an opportunity.

They could have simply said " if you accidentally score or accidentally set up a chance with your hand/arm then it's handball"

They have gone out of their way and put in the extra wording for creating a goal scoring opportunity for a reason. Otherwise it makes no sense to do it.

I'm confused. Regards your opening sentence, that's what I said!

Regards your 2nd sentence, I agree.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Define “control the ball,” because no one, least of all VAR, appears to understand what that means!

Well to me it's pretty clear. If after you've touched it, you are able to play the ball (when without touching it you would not have been able to) then you have brought it under control.

 

[edinburgh123]

As has been said several times on this and other threads the law is written in plain English on the IFAB website.

http://www.theifab.com/laws/chapter/32/section/92/

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

The Premier League seem to have summarised this law to mean if the ball touches any player on the hand/arm in the build up to the goal, they do reference the IFAB website for full details of the law.

The Refs, Pundits, Press etc. all seem to be ignorant of the actual law and are referencing the Premier League's "Executive Summary" rather than the Law itself.

The rule actually has a further explanation which states: - .... "Greater clarity is needed for handball, especially on those occasions when 'non-deliberate handball' is an offence. The re-wording follows a number of principles football does not accept a goal being scored by a hand/arm (even if accidental). Football expects a player to be penalised for handball if they gain possession/control of the ball from their hand/arm and gain a major advantage e.g. score or create a goal scoring opportunity."
And it is that last bit I think that is the problem the bit that states "or create a goal scoring opportunity". This slight deviation in wording from the key rule is important, because although the English language suggests the example is related to gaining possession it is being misread as factual (i.e. if a player gains possession and as such creates a goal scoring opportunity is totally different to if the ball hits your hand and creates a goal scoring opportunity - English language means it is stating the former but it is being misunderstood as the latter). Anyone with a modicum of English language skills knows the 'e.g' are examples based upon the previous statement (therefore the player MUST gain control) but this example is being used on its own
Nothing will happen unless we can get one member of the press to start a proper review of the above statements and get it high profile rather than a message board