FA Cup Final 15/May, Chelsea v Leicester

[ChicagoBlue]

its uses to be the rules ?

when you gain the advantage from hand ball because you missed controlled it is wrong even with VAR
if it was city losing in the final to it you can bet most would be saying the same thing

Then they, too, would be wrong.
Sorry.

Blue-tinted specs are fine, but rules is rules!

One of the problems is the rules are changing so quickly when it comes to what is and is not handball!

 

[SWP's back]

A source? How about the Laws of the Game/FA Handbook 2020/1?

Law 11 - Offside (thefa.com)

...the MOMENT the ball is played/touched*
*The first point of contact of the 'play' or 'touch' of the ball should be used

Yeah we are aware of that. We are talking about the frame that’s used for var. it’s always the one that shows that contact HAS been made.

 

[SWP's back]

Nah mate, just memory, that’s what I’ve always thought it was. If it is the one that is when ball is leaving foot then hairy muff I’ll hold hands up and say it was right.

It’s not necessarily the one which shows it’s ‘left’ the foot but it’s always (supposedly) the frame that shows contact has actually been made (which usually shows the ball still in contact with the foot but is also usually blurred due to the speed a ball is kicked.

 

[goalmole]

Yeah, me too.

In fact, I don’t know what others see in Linekar to moan about him.

Agree, seems quite a pleasant person to me.

 

[buckshot]

I was thinking about the match way back when where Geovanni scored the only goal and beat the scum. Schmeichel and Wes Brown were on the pitch that day.

 

[Len Rum]

shit is a team like Chelsea scoring a equalizer in the last min despite being offside and it being allowed to stand.

The offside rule was ever meant to rule out 'goals' like that one scored by Chelsea.
Also in the absence of VAR the minute analysis would never have happened and the decision would have been accepted as 'tight' or 'close' and people would have accepted it and moved on.
The fact that it was Chelsea who suffered matters not one jot.
Next time it will be the underdog.

 

[BlueHammer85]

The offside rule was ever meant to rule out 'goals' like that one scored by Chelsea.
Also in the absence of VAR the minute analysis would never have happened and the decision would have been accepted as 'tight' or 'close' and people would have accepted it and moved on.
The fact that it was Chelsea who suffered matters not one jot.
Next time it will be the underdog.

Then it’s the rules you should be angry about. Not VAR.

Maybe the rules should be changed to ‘you’re allowed to be a bit offside’ then I’m sure that will please everyone

 

[Zabbasbeard]

Yeah, me too.

In fact, I don’t know what others see in Linekar to moan about him.

I've never got the Lineker detractors either. Each to their own of course, but he's always come across as an affable, grounded bloke to me. Liked him as a player even if he administered most of that horrible 4-0 hammering at Goodison in the mid 80s.The only time he really annoyed me was when Steve Redmond put a good tackle on him and he went down a bit too easily - he'd clearly learned a thing or too in Catalunya!

 

[Grassland Blue]

i can understand your points about accidental and incidental ? but if you gain advantage its should be hand ball. it did lead to the goal and chelsea would have got the ball back. the leicester player could not control the ball properly and that should be written into the rules if the miss control of the ball and its lost but you gain advantage with the hand ball then its hand ball

Before VAR - "It was never a pen!"
With VAR - "It was never a pen!"
So what has changed exactly?
The debates over handball, offsides etc. still continue.

 

[Lovebitesandeveryfing]

The offside rule was ever meant to rule out 'goals' like that one scored by Chelsea.
Also in the absence of VAR the minute analysis would never have happened and the decision would have been accepted as 'tight' or 'close' and people would have accepted it and moved on.
The fact that it was Chelsea who suffered matters not one jot.
Next time it will be the underdog.

There is the most glaring bad faith by all supporters on this question. It becomes impossible to have any worthwhile debate. If it happens to be a team they don't like (that is to say, nearly all others) then a player being offside by a toe is just fine and dandy, and everybody's chortling. If it's their team they roll around on the floor like a dog with rabies.
It is quite right that it is the rule as it stands, and not VAR, that makes all this happen. But the technology of VAR has made it possible to apply the rule rigidly and give decisions that are so fine that they are not visible to the naked eye, even when it's been freeze framed. I've studied that picture of Chilwell ‘offside’, and even with the lines, staring at it, I cannot see what is meaningfully offside. The law should be changed so that offside means having gained a decisive advantage. A common sense rule, in my opinion, would be the width of the attacking player's body, photographed side on.
The law as it stands is an ass. And it's bad for the game.