Var debate 2019/20

[Tricky_Trev]

Which is interesting as earlier in the season, they said no clear and obvious errors existed on line calls (Offsides/Goal line)

Your point needs stressing. 100% bang on observation. We were explicitly told that offside calls are no longer subjective decisions and that they are black and white and the “clear and obvious” guideline does not apply to them. Now that the mission has been achieved with the dippers winning the league, they loosen the directive.

 

[gingerprince]

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

It doesnt matter whether you or I or anyone else thinks or is sure it hit Laportes hand.


VAR officials deemed it hit Laportes hand, the VAR officials then disallowing the goal.

However, Ellerary confirmed the way the ball was handled by Laporte under the exact

wording of the law for attacking handball in the lead up to a goal isnt covered by that

law. I didnt construct the wording of the law, Ifab did. So by including videos of Laporte

handling the ball doesnt reinforce your position that VAR were correct in disallowing it.

Ellerary confirmed that in its present worded format that law shouldn't technically have

allowed VAR to disallow it.

However, he also states that VAR should stringently continue to enforce the minimalist

offsides as that is the letter of the law.The offside law & others will continue to be revised.

However, PL teams & pigmol have I believe both briefed that any changes will be from the

Summer of 2020 onwards.

 

[alexmcity]

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

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

 

[Bluearmy]

Yea in the 'old days' we would jump up and down like a numpty than with in seconds be brought down to earth by the ref or lineo now it can take minutes.....thankfully it wasnt around on 93:20..

No but it wasn't around during the semi with Arsenal and we ended up missing out on a cup final because of it (Sane Cross/Sterling disallowed goal, incorrectly). Its needed, but for huge errors like the one mentioned, not on every miniscule fingernail as its being used today...

 

[Bill the Blue]

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

Never thought I'd see the day when (a City fan) would be arguing the toss about a goal incorrectly ruled out that cost us 2 points and early season momentum just to prove a very weak point against a tidal wave of disagreement which even the head of PiGMOL later agreed that the goal shouldn't have been ruled out..

Look 7 minutes in, you can see it hit his hand..

Oh look here's a line showing the Egyptian Diver was played on side by Stones,

It didn't hit Dick Van Dykes hand, look I've found a clip, not conclusive but who gives a fcuk..

Tell you what Mr Sinclair, you're stating to smell more fishy than Grimsby Docks on a hot summers day..!

 

[kaz7]

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

It could have just as easily hit the other player,you are ignoring this compared to players with their arms up in full view thay haven't been penalised,it's very strange how you are adament about this but none of the blatant ones that have been given,dick yesterday,the one in the dipper game and the geordie one to site just 3 of them

 

[Bluearmy]

It could have just as easily hit the other player,you are ignoring this compared to players with their arms up in full view thay haven't been penalised,it's very strange how you are adament about this but none of the blatant ones that have been given,dick yesterday,the one in the dipper game and the geordie one to site just 3 of them

Hey each to their own, but for me that hits Laporte's arm... Even our own commentator says it hits Laporte's arm on the film!

 

[saintquin]

Nothing wrong with VAR!
Wink, wink, smiley thing.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50944416

 

[ScottSinclair]

It could have just as easily hit the other player,you are ignoring this compared to players with their arms up in full view thay haven't been penalised,it's very strange how you are adament about this but none of the blatant ones that have been given,dick yesterday,the one in the dipper game and the geordie one to site just 3 of them

All 3 I have voiced my opinion on before. 2 of them I have said I personally think was the wrong decision. I don’t know why you deem Van Djiks handball as more blatant, when you can hardly call it blatant at all

It doesnt matter whether you or I or anyone else thinks or is sure it hit Laportes hand.


VAR officials deemed it hit Laportes hand, the VAR officials then disallowing the goal.

However, Ellerary confirmed the way the ball was handled by Laporte under the exact

wording of the law for attacking handball in the lead up to a goal isnt covered by that

law. I didnt construct the wording of the law, Ifab did. So by including videos of Laporte

handling the ball doesnt reinforce your position that VAR were correct in disallowing it.

Ellerary confirmed that in its present worded format that law shouldn't technically have

allowed VAR to disallow it.

However, he also states that VAR should stringently continue to enforce the minimalist

offsides as that is the letter of the law.The offside law & others will continue to be revised.

However, PL teams & pigmol have I believe both briefed that any changes will be from the

Summer of 2020 onwards.

Cheers mate, very good post. But would you say the relative consistency in how they have reffed these types of situations this season helps my argument about it not being clearly «bent»?

Never thought I'd see the day when (a City fan) would be arguing the toss about a goal incorrectly ruled out that cost us 2 points and early season momentum just to prove a very weak point against a tidal wave of disagreement which even the head of PiGMOL later agreed that the goal shouldn't have been ruled out..

Look 7 minutes in, you can see it hit his hand..

Oh look here's a line showing the Egyptian Diver was played on side by Stones,

It didn't hit Dick Van Dykes hand, look I've found a clip, not conclusive but who gives a fcuk..

Tell you what Mr Sinclair, you're stating to smell more fishy than Grimsby Docks on a hot summers day..!

Fair enough mate, I can’t be bothered getting into a «who supports who». I have been overly obsessive about situations involving us to try to prove my points, and I can see it looking a bit off.

Its more about putting my allegiance aside, to try to understand VAR’s effect on the game better

 

[cleavers]

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!!

I think its different people, these "clear and obvious" bods are the IFAB, the "no clear and obvious" bods are PGMOL who have been told by the PL who is going to win this year operate our referees.