Var debate 2019/20

[ctid1894]

Again, the law is stupid, but it was followed correctly because the ball hit Laporte's arm and went to Jesus who scored. I do not agree with the law, but it states a goal will be disallowed under those circumstances. So we are not 2 points down at all.

Another poster conveniently forgetting a clear penalty incident involving Rodri to suit a false narrative of not losing points. Fucking pathetic.

 

[squirtyflower]

Please go on....

You are wrong

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Well if they interpret that for every incident in a similar way, then we haven't been hard done by. I suppose that will become clear as more incidents involving a hand/arm are reviewed.

EDIT

a player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity

I assume you refer to the above rule when saying it was a perfectly good goal. It depends how you read it.

I see it as...

If a player gains control/possession and then scores OR
If it touches their hand/arm and creates a goal-scoring opportunity

So it was disallowed due to the second part, which seems pretty clear to me

Are you here just to troll people?

 

[Paladin]

It is only about control/possession if Laporte scores the goal. He didn't, but the touch, however slight it was creates the opportunity for Jesus to score, that is why it was disallowed. You keep saying that won't be applied to goals scored by our rivals, but as of yet, no incidents like that have happened to our rivals, so that is only your opinion at the moment.

Your understanding of this is incorrect. For one thing, the extract that says “a player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their arm" contains a typo, and has been replaced with a newer version.
Also, the part that says "football expects a player to be penalised for handball..." is not the actual rule, but an explanation of why the rule is being updated. You have to look at the actual rule to see that it is being interpreted incorrectly.
So, with apologies for repeating myself, here again is the actual rule.

The offence is committed when the ball touches the hand or arm of a player, and then that same player gains possession or control of the ball. The ball touched Laporte's arm, but he did not gain control or possession of the ball. Therefore he did not commit the offence. Therefore he should not have been penalised. Therefore it was a goal and we have been robbed of two points.

 

[kaz7]

Well if they interpret that for every incident in a similar way, then we haven't been hard done by. I suppose that will become clear as more incidents involving a hand/arm are reviewed.

EDIT

a player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity

I assume you refer to the above rule when saying it was a perfectly good goal. It depends how you read it.

I see it as...

If a player gains control/possession and then scores OR
If it touches their hand/arm and creates a goal-scoring opportunity

So it was disallowed due to the second part, which seems pretty clear to me

I feel like i am in an episode of Twin Peaks!

 

[flook]

Your understanding of this is incorrect. For one thing, the extract that says “a player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their arm" contains a typo, and has been replaced with a newer version.
Also, the part that says "football expects a player to be penalised for handball..." is not the actual rule, but an explanation of why the rule is being updated. You have to look at the actual rule to see that it is being interpreted incorrectly.
So, with apologies for repeating myself, here again is the actual rule.

The offence is committed when the ball touches the hand or arm of a player, and then that same player gains possession or control of the ball. The ball touched Laporte's arm, but he did not gain control or possession of the ball. Therefore he did not commit the offence. Therefore he should not have been penalised. Therefore it was a goal and we have been robbed of two points.

it's crystal clear isn't it, yet there are quite a few on here who struggle to understand it, and more importantly, those in charge of games fail to understand it too

 

[Blue Til Death]

Well if they interpret that for every incident in a similar way, then we haven't been hard done by. I suppose that will become clear as more incidents involving a hand/arm are reviewed.

EDIT

a player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity

I assume you refer to the above rule when saying it was a perfectly good goal. It depends how you read it.

I see it as...

If a player gains control/possession and then scores OR
If it touches their hand/arm and creates a goal-scoring opportunity

So it was disallowed due to the second part, which seems pretty clear to me

The handball you refer to is also disputed, it was a dragonflies chuff of a touch if at all and that did not create a goal scoring opportunity, Jesus had to control the ball, go round a few spud defenders the slot it into the top corner, thus making a nonsense of the paragraphs above. Subjective I know but I don't see how it can be seen any other way after watching it countless times... We got shafted and are 2 points poorer as a result....

 

[squirtyflower]

Your understanding of this is incorrect. For one thing, the extract that says “a player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their arm" contains a typo, and has been replaced with a newer version.
Also, the part that says "football expects a player to be penalised for handball..." is not the actual rule, but an explanation of why the rule is being updated. You have to look at the actual rule to see that it is being interpreted incorrectly.
So, with apologies for repeating myself, here again is the actual rule.

The offence is committed when the ball touches the hand or arm of a player, and then that same player gains possession or control of the ball. The ball touched Laporte's arm, but he did not gain control or possession of the ball. Therefore he did not commit the offence. Therefore he should not have been penalised. Therefore it was a goal and we have been robbed of two points.

Now copy Simon in as he also struggles with the concept of the laws of the game

 

[citizen_maine]

Now copy Simon in as he also struggles with the concept of the laws of the game

Great. Just what we need, another twenty pages of going around in circles

 

[Paladin]

it's crystal clear isn't it, yet there are quite a few on here who struggle to understand it, and more importantly, those in charge of games fail to understand it too

There are certainly some who still misunderstand. However, to give them the benefit of the doubt, this is a long thread, and they may have missed some of the debate. Hopefully, the screen shot will help clarify the matter in some people's minds.

Edit. As a former referee, I was taught to focus on the seventeen laws of the game, not all the additional opinions and views that come as added extras.