The way I read it is that since it starts with “if a PLAYER... gains possession/control AFTER the ball hitting his arm” it would mean that Laporte would have had to (accidentally) gain possession of the ball himself, not the team, but himself. I don’t know. I don’t think it’s particularly clear, and there are enough grey areas to allow goals for some teams and disallow them for others.Cheers for that.
I think we all agree that the first bullet point and last bullet point are not what's at question here?
It's the middle one that is....and it's the use of the word "or" that is the issue.....
The ball hits Laportes arm....it does create (non deliberately) a goal scoring opportunity. He never has control or is in possession (laporte) either of the ball or what happens with his arm (and ball).... the key bit is that we (the team) have gained possession from a handball ( non deliberate). I still read it as the ref has called it right and I always ask myself would I have given handball if i saw it during the match ( i know the ref didnt .....and I'm not a qualified ref either) but being completely honest I would have given handball as its hit his arm (and it doesn't have to be deliberate- though this is the bit I believe is completely wrong with the law as it stands) and the attacking team have retained possession because of it and a goal scoring opportunity has arisen.
What needs to change is that it must be deliberate use of the hand to create a goal scoring opportunity. However we then get the arguments about how you prove intent which in a lot of cases is difficult so from another point of view I can see why they have tried to go so black and white on it
Think it was quite clear what you meant pal...someone just tried to interpret your post in a mischievous manner.No, I am saying your opinion of something can change when you have more accurate information about that something.
Just because Pep *has* been a huge backer of VAR (the concept) doesn’t mean he’ll *always* be a huge backer of VAR (the reality).
Absolutely right, it's the sense of injustice.
We battered them and won 3-2, either with the last minute goal or the early penalty. Neither should have gone to VAR, or both should. We were cheated out of a deserved victory by a stupid system and dreadful (or corrupt) officiating.
They reckon VAR will improve things, but honestly I cannot see how. The way I see it, the opportunity for injustices like this are increased not diminised by VAR... not to mention it ruining the game.
The problem with the last part of your post is that would then make it subjective. What is significant to one ref wouldn't be to another. Back to square one. We"re understandably cheesed off because it denied us the win. Imagine it happening up the other end and giving us a defeat!I think the law is being interpreted on the basis that because the ball travelled directly from Laporte’s arm to Jesus then it must have created a goal scoring opportunity. But the ball barely deviated on its way to Jesus. It seems to me that the correct question should be “Did the ball only arrive at Jesus’s feet because It touched Laporte’s arm?”. I think the law needs to be clarified so that there needs to be a significant deviation in the trajectory, speed or bounce of the ball for it to count as creating a goal scoring opportunity.
Cheeky! :-)Handball my arse!
Arsene and Stevie Wonder I believe....No accountability so they can screw us over.
Who was the var official today. Anybody know?
What's clear is teams are now targeting our near post from corners. Spurs twice, Brighton, also.
Ederson is useless coming for the high whipped in ball and our zonal marking means a block and run across the first defender is giving them a real chance.
It's not a height issue, clearly, considering Moura is hardly a giant.
More a case of standing in fixed positions and opponents being able to getting a running jump.
....or blatantly corrupt!It wasn't handball under the new law. Incompetent VAR referee who doesn't know the basics of his own profession.