You use all those words but necessarily in the right order ;-)Bravo,wish i could post that
You use all those words but necessarily in the right order ;-)Bravo,wish i could post that
Plus too much swearing lolYou use all those words but necessarily in the right order ;-)
With the greatest respect (sic), you’re talking bollocksMate, decisions go against all teams. There’s no conspiracy set up to stop City.
Last season, Liverpool could point to a red card not given to Kompany in the biggest game of the season amongst other decisions...
I think they get it wrong a lot, and sometimes some sides go through tougher spells with decisions, but to suggest they’re acting differently to stop City winning the league is mad.
Don’t they all...With the greatest respect (sic), you’re talking bollocks
He said he couldn't comment on specific incidents. Here are some direct quotes:"Elleray, didn't deny that disallowing Jesus' goal was not permitted under The Laws of the Game."
Did he actually answer, or did he not answer?
I had the impression he just explained the thinking without specifically referring to what the laws allowed.
Me, 27 August 2019
I would like clarification of the new handball rule in the light of the disputed Wolves and Manchester City goals in recent games in the English Premier League.
The goals were both disallowed by VAR, following review, based on this part of Law 12:
"Handling the ball
It is an offence if a player:
gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
- scores in the opponents’ goal
- creates a goal-scoring opportunity"
In both the above cases, the player whose arm the ball touched (Boly and Laporte) did not gain possession of the ball, or gain control of the ball. Therefore, as this pre-condition was not met in either case, the two conditions that led to an offence being committed cannot have resulted.
On this basis, my belief is that the two match referees have interpreted the law incorrectly. The two VARs have interpreted the law incorrectly, and their boss, Neil Swarbrick who issued a statement explaining the reasons for the disallowed goals has also interpreted the law incorrectly. There is every possibility that Mike Riley, the head of referees in England has not understood the law correctly, and that every referee they have trained has an incorrect understanding of the new law.
Do you agree that the law, as laid down by IFAB, is being interpreted incorrectly, or is there another explanation?
David Elleray, 6 October 2019
We are sorry you did not get our original reply which stated that it is the policy of The IFAB not to comment in specific decisions or matches.
Best wishes
David Elleray
Technical Director of The IFAB
Me, 6 October 2019
Thanks David
OK, so disregarding the actual incidents, I still feel the law is being interpreted incorrectly. Do you agree with my interpretation of the law, or is it possible to give handball after the ball touches the arm or hand of a teammate, but that teammate does not gain possession or control of the ball?
David Elleray, 11 October 2019
Many apologies for the slow reply - VAR is taking a great deal of time as you might imagine.
The view of the technical experts is that the situation you describe falls within the 'spirit/intention' of the Law and thus should be penalsied - the purpose of the change was that coaches/players etc... were very clear that they did not believe a goal should result from the ball having made contact (even accidental) with the hand/arm of an opponent as a goal should only 'result' from use of the rest of the body.
Best wishes
David
David Elleray
Technical Director of The IFAB
VAR rules must be changed. The games should be controlled by the referee. VAR is picking and choosing where it wants to inflict itself and that's taking away from the game. Maybe the managers can be given "challenge flags" like they use in American Football. When a manager wants to challenge the referee, he can throw the flag. VAR interrupting every single goal is not good for the game. Give the game back to the referees.