Var debate 2019/20

[Bunchofdickovs]

you're inserting your own words here, nowhere does it say gain possession for the team, team is not mentioned. Laporte does not gain possession, it's arguable, though irrelevant, that he affects possession for the team, to paraphrase Danny Murphy (again) and to echo the view of every single ex-pro tv pundit of whatever flavour, there is no way on any football pitch in the world that that goal should have been disallowed.

he does gain possession for the team not affect as the ball is in the air no one at that moment is in control of the ball . To gain control with the hand would mean the player then has it under their own spell and can control what happens to the ball . He regains possession, from the ball hitting his arm accidentally , for his team, not for himself, otherwise he would be in control of the ball, the need for the word possession would be useless.

as an example: if the ball hits a players hand, which isn't directly down by his/her side, in the middle of the pitch , the ball rolls to a teammate, although it's not intentional, the whistle is blown because he/she has gained an unfair possession of the ball for the team.

you tackle someone, divert the ball away with the same action , ball goes to your teammate . The stats will say you regained possession of that ball but you're never actually in control of that ball.

It's clear what the law means in a team sport unless you're looking for a loophole.

 

[rnblade]

One of these days we are going to put away all this sitters and chances and we will then be accused of being disrespectful.
YCMIU

 

[flook]

he does gain possession for the team not affect as the ball is in the air no one at that moment is in control of the ball . To gain control with the hand would mean the player then has it under their own spell and can control what happens to the ball . He regains possession, from the ball hitting his arm accidentally , for his team, not for himself, otherwise he would be in control of the ball, the need for the word possession would be useless.

as an example: if the ball hits a players hand, which isn't directly down by his/her side, in the middle of the pitch , the ball rolls to a teammate, although it's not intentional, the whistle is blown because he/she has gained an unfair possession of the ball for the team.

you tackle someone, divert the ball away with the same action , ball goes to your teammate . The stats will say you regained possession of that ball but you're never actually in control of that ball.

It's clear what the law means in a team sport unless you're looking for a loophole.

No it isn't. The rule is, and I've underlined the bits you need to put into a sentence to cut through all the irrelevant (in this instance) crap:

HANDLING THE BALL

It is an offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
• 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
• scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper

It says specifically "player". If you can show me anywhere it says team in here I'll concede the point, otherwise

 

[Blue Mist]

I personally think that if there enough complaints from fans, not just us, VAR will be binned.
I just can't see it lasting.

It is being used throughout Europe (and beyond) there is no way it will be sacked off, what is interesting is PIGMOL are not even following the official rules, they have made up their own version. If I was a cynic I would say they had consulted a certain Mr Gill before finalising their version, but that of course would be wrong.

 

[flook]

Yes they are with var when it leads to a goal.

sorry mate thats bollocks, VAR is there to uphold the laws of the game, not to introduce new or different ones

 

[Blue Mist]

Slag blues off ? what? because i don't agree that pitch invasions and violence are acceptable and believe it will do the club more harm than good ? it's idiotic behaviour .

Two posters perhaps a few more have mentioned pitch invasions, I'm with Karen and very suspicious why you have joined now. maybe legit or maybe like VAR you have other reasons.

 

[VOOMER]

he does gain possession for the team not affect as the ball is in the air no one at that moment is in control of the ball . To gain control with the hand would mean the player then has it under their own spell and can control what happens to the ball . He regains possession, from the ball hitting his arm accidentally , for his team, not for himself, otherwise he would be in control of the ball, the need for the word possession would be useless.

as an example: if the ball hits a players hand, which isn't directly down by his/her side, in the middle of the pitch , the ball rolls to a teammate, although it's not intentional, the whistle is blown because he/she has gained an unfair possession of the ball for the team.

you tackle someone, divert the ball away with the same action , ball goes to your teammate . The stats will say you regained possession of that ball but you're never actually in control of that ball.

It's clear what the law means in a team sport unless you're looking for a loophole.

Is quite on Rawk?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Why do you think City gained an advantage from the ball brushing Laporte's arm? And I mean as a consequence of it being his arm that it brushed as opposed to (say) his thigh.

It's not really a 'why'. It's a 'it did'.
If it came off his thigh, then it wouldn't fall under handball.

(unless I've misunderstood the question)

 

[MillionMilesAway]

A summary of what we were penalised for in one phrase: "If a player gains control or possession of the ball after it has hit his hand, and he then scores or creates a goalscoring opportunity, then this is an offence".

Laporte didn't gain control or possession of the ball, therefore there was no offence committed.

That is your interpretation, and is reasonable.
It appears not to be the interpretation of PGMOL.

 

[waspish]

sorry mate thats bollocks, VAR is there to uphold the laws of the game, not to introduce new or different ones

Read this and get back to me.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-s...ged-for-goal-scoring-situations-idUKKCN1QJ0EC

 

[Bunchofdickovs]

No it isn't. The rule is, and I've underlined the bits you need to put into a sentence to cut through all the irrelevant (in this instance) crap:

HANDLING THE BALL

It is an offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
• 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
• scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper

It says specifically "player". If you can show me anywhere it says team in here I'll concede the point, otherwise

The team does not handle the ball . It would make no sense to put in the law the word team . look at IFAB and the laws of the game and see how many times the word TEAM is used opposed to the word player .

A player gains possession for the team . A player gains control of the ball for themselves . i'm 100% sure you understand but you appear to be attempting to over complicate what is a simple rule .

 

[MillionMilesAway]

He was a 'failed ref' deemed not good enough at one point and got his job back on appeal.

Maybe, don't know about that, but currently he's a top level ref who's reffed nearly 40 PL matches in the last 2 seasons. That seems reasonable to run VAR.

Even if he can't make it Chelsea on time!

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Another question. If the knew that VAR was being introduced why did they feel the need to change the rules regarding handball?

If VAR had been in operation last season then Boly's goal would have been disallowed as well as Aguero's third against Arsenal so why the need to change the laws.

I don't know, but it's FIFA rules that have changed, not just ours so there must have been enough call.
I think the reason was to eliminate the concept for intent/deliberate action when judging ball striking a trailing arm. The logic in doing so seems better than the way it's been done.

 

[Bunchofdickovs]

Two posters perhaps a few more have mentioned pitch invasions, I'm with Karen and very suspicious why you have joined now. maybe legit or maybe like VAR you have other reasons.

It's far more than two posters (other threads) and some have accepted that violence whilst not totally okay is understandable ! People take their children to games . It's completely the message and because of a decision or two that's gone against .

I'm not putting everyone in the same bracket - far from it - but that's not on .

 

[kaz7]

Slag blues off ? what? because i don't agree that pitch invasions and violence are acceptable and believe it will do the club more harm than good ? it's idiotic behaviour .

That is not the post i am refering to so don't duck behind that one,no-one wants violence,why would you tell us to stop moaning and show class?

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Imagine this scenario: The attacking team takes a corner, the ball comes off a defenders arm (deemed unintentional) so no penalty given. The defending team them break the length of the field to score. Should that be given or should it be disallowed? Have they gained an advantage as a result of the handball?

I think the goal would be allowed. The ball-to-hand has not created anything, certainly not a goalscoring opportunity.

Mostly though, this is applying the attacking handball law to a defensive handball, which is nonsensical.

 

[Bunchofdickovs]

Is quite on Rawk?

i have never been on rawk . what's that ?

 

[manimanc]

It is being used throughout Europe (and beyond) there is no way it will be sacked off, what is interesting is PIGMOL are not even following the official rules, they have made up their own version. If I was a cynic I would say they had consulted a certain Mr Gill before finalising their version, but that of course would be wrong.

There's defo something that isn't right about it.
It just doesn't sit right.
Let's see how the season pans out.
If everyone else gets these decisions for/against them then fair enough .

 

[Bunchofdickovs]

That is not the post i am refering to so don't duck behind that one,no-one wants violence

don't wish to argue with you but some people love the football violence . ( all over football ) Some live for it . I know quite a few wanderers supporters that care more about ti than the actual football . it's a tribal thing i guess .


edit : saw you edited your post .

i said show class because of what people are/were suggesting . Getting games abandoned etc. That doesn't help in the slightest . IF next week or month the same decisions go for us ? would we find it acceptable that the other teams supporters got the match abandoned etc ?

will it help to play in front of an empty stadium or be deducted points ? nope .

whinge / moan or whatever but show a bit of class by not resorting to stupidity .

 

[flook]

Read this and get back to me.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-s...ged-for-goal-scoring-situations-idUKKCN1QJ0EC

yes I've read that, it's an explanation of the new rules, not a new rule for VAR, and it has (I believe) no bearing on how the rules should be applied, the rules are as have been posted numerous times on this thread, indeed on the last few pages.

IF, and it's a big IF, this explanation is indeed the official interpretation of the rules, then the rules are incredibly poorly worded, because this isn't what they say