What is immediately ? Mahrez would still have had his goal ruled out just because it is wide open to interpretation. The handball rule should have been left well alone. I dont like VAR but it would have ruled out the Boley goal against us which is the one cited as the reason for the stupid change.
The solution is quite simple; far too simple for the cretin who runs PGMOL. The same principles should apply to an attacking player as apply to a defender, with one addition.
If the attacker's hand or arm makes a move towards the ball or is in an unnatural position, then it's handball. In addition, if the ball goes directly into the net off an attacking player's arm or hand then the goal is disallowed, regardless of the circumstances.
there are some slides here which explain the new laws with video examples of what would and wouldn't be ruled handball.
And yes, Jesus's goal v Spurs would still be ruled out because it "immediately" lead to a goal. It's one of the examples they use.
But it does appear that Mahrez's goal against liverpool would have stood, as apparently it isn't "immediate" when a player then has to dribble or pass the ball a further distance to create the goal scoring opportunity.
Ffs ,immediate could mean anything ,just be clear as was intended,you can't score with your hand ala bolly,they cited that as a reason for va r ,accidental should be fine in the build up even if it aids the goal,it is an accident,the obvious handball are obvious
More bollocks to be manipulated depends who is on it
This is actually something which has the potential to be somehow worse, because as bad as the old rule was it in theory was objective. Now we're back to referee interpretation, so we're going to have the problems we had before VAR.
Unless they're very very clear with what immediate means. Which I doubt.