Var debate 2019/20

[Cellarite]

Do we know 100% it touched laporte hand from the pictures I have seen it could touch the defender or laporte. I havent seen anything that shows that 100% abit like VVD last night ! We all thought VVD handled the ball apart from VAR who weren't sure lol

Add to that Tinker Taylor telling the Wolves players that it was too far back to be classed as the build up to the goal and we have another perfect example of a decision being made specifically to fit.

 

[ScottSinclair]

Do we know 100% it touched laporte hand from the pictures I have seen it could touch the defender or laporte. I havent seen anything that shows that 100% abit like VVD last night ! We all thought VVD handled the ball apart from VAR who weren't sure lol

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

 

[ballinio]

JUST GET FUCKING RID!

I DON'T GIVE A FUCK IF REFEREES GET SOME DECISIONS WRONG, I JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO CELEBRATE A GOAL WHEN IT'S SCORED WITHOUT HAVING TO WORRY ABOUT WHETHER THERE'S A MINOR INFRACTION IN THE PREVIOUS 5 FUCKING MINUTES THAT MAY LEAD TO THE GOAL BEING RULED OUT.

100%

 

[gingerprince]

The recent Mahrez penalty decision was indicative of how VAR, in general, are officiating our games.

The onfield referee can easily make mistakes, as they are human and have to be best positioned etc.

However, the VAR team dont have those issues. An initial replay showed infrigement as clear as day.

In fact, Riley himself, earlier in the season, actually highlighted that the almost identical infringement

on David Silva not given by VAR was x1 of only I think x4 decisions that should have clearly been ruled

by VAR as a penalty, but of course it wasnt..

VAR team must then have took two minutes plus to somehow find an infringement or something they

could possibly adjudicate as an infringement by us in the lead up to the penalty infringement. Due to

time taken, it seemed they must have gone back to the kick off time. Similar to positioning of David Ellary

after Laporte handball versus Spurs. Yes, he says, I agree that VAR shouldn't have disallowed Jesus goal

when pressed on specific wording of attacking handball leading to a goal, as law doesnt actually cover what

happened in that incident. However, on offside they state that the law states that its offside,however minimal,

as that's the law, so it should be officiated exactly as to the law....but that wasnt the case with Laporte/Jesus

incident. In addition, previous year CL game on Llorente goal. Whatever your views on that and whether the CL

KO stages were told to referee both defensive handball &attacking handball or just defensive handball on new

laws then what is absolute fact is VAR officials only gave onfield referee the opportunity to review images that

were biased to give the onfield referee the only option to him of allowing the goal. VAR never gave the onfield

referee the alternate images that gave a wholly different outlook to that passage of play so no other option or

decision could be made by him.

 

[give it to gordon]

It just doesnt seem right that VAR rule a goal out when even the defending team see nothing wrong with the goal. Like yesterday not one dipperpool player appealed for off side. To me it's wrong that some bloke in his shed rules it out when 22 players didnt see nor the 3 officials

 

[Bluearmy]

I did already address this point in the original post you responded to. Liverpool have had several favourable decisions influencing the final result, City haven't up to the Wolves game. Is that difficult to grasp?

So you agree both sides have had decisions for and against!! Cheers

 

[ScottSinclair]

Why are you talking about the Law as if you are an authority on it? It has already been explained to you that the Law does not preclude the Jesus goal after the ball touched Laporte's hand. Don't just ignore this information as if it doesn't exist. Do yourself a favour, read up on it, and then your arguments will be much better informed.

The Law is precisely that. It can't be wrong. It is the application of the Law that is wrong. And this skewed application has led to clarifications, explanations, interpretations, confusion, obfuscation, excuses, lies and corruption.

We see the chief at IFAB claiming this is what football wants. It isn't. The powers want a different PL winner, and they will achieve that. The cost though, is any goodwill built up over many years. Fans falling out of love with the game, turning against other fanbases and even their own fans.

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

 

[Bluearmy]

This point is hard to argue against, though now the damage has been done it appears we are getting some "levelling" up, which in my view makes it even worse.

So is that deliberate or the famous "levelling themselves out across a season"...!! :) Dons helmet!!

 

[Bluearmy]

VAR Makers say its use "should not be forensic"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50944416

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!!

 

[Tricky_Trev]

Add to that Tinker Taylor telling the Women lives players that it was too far back to be classed as the build up to the goal and we have another perfect example of a decision being made specifically to fit.

There are enough grey areas in the VAR laws to twist anything any way they want it. Which is why they won’t change it. Or if they do, it will be in a similarly subjective and vague manner.