Var debate 2019/20

Florida Blue said:
The whole kicker to the wording used by IFAB is they used 2 different explanations to the 1. the ball going in directly off the hand/arm and 2. creating a chance off the hand/arm.

If they wanted the Laporte incident to be handball all they had to say was the same wording as scoring " you cannot create/assist a goal with the arm/hand even if it's accidental or deflected by accident"

They didn't for a reason, , they specifically worded the rule scoring directly from the hand and creating a chance from handball differently, they specifically put in the ball must be under control /possession and THEN creates a goal scoring opportunity.

They could easily have said ' if you score or create a chance off the arm it's handball whether accidental or not" That's NOT what they did. Hence the confusion.
Click to expand...
It's almost like they've purposely created confusion to hide something.
 
Florida Blue said:
The word THEN makes it 2 passages of play to me. Control/possession first, THEN he passes or heads it to Jesus. That is the reason it is on 2 different lines and has it's own separate bullet point.

The IFAB ruling imo , was made to stop Laporte handling it, and THEN he passes it to Jesus. NOT the way it it transpired, being penalized for a deflection he had no clue about going to Jesus. That would make way more sense that the ruling the Prem have decided to use.
Click to expand...

I get what your saying but their response would be that “Spurs didn’t get control” so in other words we retained possession after it brushed Laportes finger.
Either way the game has gone and we dropped points, so until we start compiling vids, statements, comments, and pics of xxxx with hookers (not rugby playing type) and our very costly legal team get their dark side on and hit them with a smokin gun, we’re not gettin em back.
We’re all sharing that pain :-(
 
Florida Blue said:
Not imo because it says he has to control it and THEN create an opportunity, its 2 things, 2 phases.

If it hit his arm, ball goes down on ground then he passes it to Jesus, yes that is handball, but he didn't have possession/control, no 50/50 header is, you can say the Spurs defender had possession/control then in that situation.
Click to expand...
I understand exactly what you mean, however I understand what IFAB meant (I think), albeit their grasp of the English language leaves a lot to be desired.
 
We all thought var would make the game fairer and hinder the dippers in particular due to all their dodgy decisions last season. How wrong could we be!

Forget the handball goal, I can see with hindsight why it was disallowed even if the wording of their own rule is subject to conjecture. What has proved it beyond doubt is the Rodri non penalty and the comments from the officials afterwards. If they can rule that is not a penalty and worse still try to say Rodri somehow maneuvered himself into being grabbed around the neck, then fell over to gain an advantage, when all the evidence is there for the world to see he didn't, then nothing has changed. Decisions are going to be manipulated to suit whatever agenda they have.
 
Dribble said:
City agreed that ANY hand/arm contact by an attacking players in the box which results in a goal, whether accidentally or not will be ruled out.

The ball accidentally hit Laporte's arm & deviated to Jesus. That is fact. The issue I have is phases. Considering how much work & how many players Jesus had to pass to score, was this in the same phase as the handball or not? That's the issue I have, along with why a ball accidentally hitting a defender isn't penalised too?

Also, a ball hits Llorente in the CL, it's not a handball. The ball hits Otamendi in the CL, it's handball?? Same rule, same competition, different interpretations.

VAR is fucked until all this is sorted.
Click to expand...

It is irrelevant whether City agreed it or not. Under the actual law, as written by FIFA, it was not handball.
 
paulchapo said:
We all thought var would make the game fairer and hinder the dippers in particular due to all their dodgy decisions last season. How wrong could we be!

Forget the handball goal, I can see with hindsight why it was disallowed even if the wording of their own rule is subject to conjecture. What has proved it beyond doubt is the Rodri non penalty and the comments from the officials afterwards. If they can rule that is not a penalty and worse still try to say Rodri somehow maneuvered himself into being grabbed around the neck, then fell over to gain an advantage, when all the evidence is there for the world to see he didn't, then nothing has changed. Decisions are going to be manipulated to suit whatever agenda they have.
Click to expand...
Said this when they decided to bring in VAR. I'm surprised they didn't say the video feed was down for the Rodri penalty claim. I'm sure they'll keep that excuse in the bag for when they need it.
 
So basically it’s gonna be one set of rules for certain teams and another set for other teams,or simply put they pick and choose what THEY deem as a pen and which aren’t...
 
I've sent this to info@sportsjournslists.co.uk. Don't know if I'll get a response but I'd like to think one of them would be willing to take it up

I apologise in advance but I would like to seek assistance from the sports journalists in highlighting the incorrect implementation of the revised laws of rule 12 regarding handball in relation to goal scoring.

There appears to be a general acceptance in both the printed and television media since the introduction of VAR that the decisions made by VAR officials is correct in relation to the law regarding handball leading to a goal, when in fact the decisions that have been made so far are a mis-interpretation by those implementing the decisions.

The laws were introduced as a direct consequence of 3 incidents last season by Willy Boly, Sergio Aguero and Nathan Redmond whereby all three players scored goals directly from hand or arm ball.

The laws were written thus, please read them and please note that the law relates to the player committing the offence and not the team

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 is usually an offence if a player:

  • touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
    • the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger
    • the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close.

Except for the above offences, it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:

  • directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)
  • directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close
  • if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally bigger
  • when a player falls and the hand/arm is between the body and the ground to support the body, but not extended laterally or vertically away from the body
The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their
penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but there is no disciplinary sanction.
There has been two goals ruled out this season as an infringement of the above rules and yet there has been NO infringement.
The wolves goal should have been allowed as the ball struck Boly's upper arm from a header by Dendonker , part three section 2 (directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close)

The Man City goal was another phase of play, Gabriel Jesus had to collect the ball by quickly reacting to the deflection, moving the ball into an area to shoot from, and shooting past 4 defenders, a team mate and an opposition goalkeeper.

Why are these decisions to rule out perfectly good goals being accepted as lawful fact by the press. Do you not read the rules, is that not your job, to educate yourself and question?

Why is nobody in the press challenging the interpretation of these rules by VAR and the referees?.Why is nobody in the media challenging these decisions in relation to the rules? Why are referees not being challenged regarding their interpretation of the rules? Why is their opinion and it is an opinion being accepted unquestionably?

The rules specifically are related to the player and not the team. Why are the decisions going factually unchallenged by the press?

Another point is everybody believes that the introduction of VAR was to make the game fair, open and accountable for mistakes.

I don't know anybody or seen or heard any opinion other than, Michael Oliver or Neil Swarisbrick that the Rodri, Lamela penalty was anything other than a penalty, even Dermot Gallagher was struggling to deny it was a penalty. What is the point of VAR if the whole world can see what has happened and yet those that make the decisions decide otherwise?

Furthermore has anyone in the press highlighted why after keeping the ball from 3 Spurs players for the best part of 30 seconds in an exceptional piece of individual brilliance that Bernardo Silva having been elbowed to the neck by Danny Rose whilst attempting to head the ball was deemed to be the offender and have a free kick awarded against him. (you'll find this in first half injury time)

So why are the game officials being allowed to dictate goals allowed or disallowed according to their misinterpretation of the rules without challenge by the press?
Why is their misinterpretation being accepted as fact?
Why are you not challenging them?
Why does nobody in the press read the rules of the game and be in a position to ensure that everything is above board, which is the reason for VAR after all?

Don't expect a reply but hope to be shocked.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
Said this when they decided to bring in VAR. I'm surprised they didn't say the video feed was down for the Rodri penalty claim. I'm sure they'll keep that excuse in the bag for when they need it.
Click to expand...

I watched the rags game last night. While I obviously wanted Wolves goal to be allowed,the so called offside looked more offside, or at least equal to the Sterling offside at West Ham.

In my opinion it was a great goal, the same as ours at West Ham and neither should be under scrutiny for millimetres.

If they scrutinize every goal long enough I am sure an excuse could be found to disallow 99% of them if they wanted. That's another thing that worries me.

This last point may now being churlish but why did it take so long to reach the decision to disallow Saturday's goal? The var ref had seen something, he knew what he was looking for, it would be seconds to confirm and relay the information. It took so long we all thought the check, if there was one, had been completed and was fine. The cynic in me would say someone was deriving great pleasure in watching us celebrate while smugly knowing they were about to wipe that joy out. That of course may be me being churlish as I said.
 
paulchapo said:
I watched the rags game last night. While I obviously wanted Wolves goal to be allowed,the so called offside looked more offside, or at least equal to the Sterling offside at West Ham.

In my opinion it was a great goal, the same as ours at West Ham and neither should be under scrutiny for millimetres.

If they scrutinize every goal long enough I am sure an excuse could be found to disallow 99% of them if they wanted. That's another thing that worries me.

This last point may now being churlish but why did it take so long to reach the decision to disallow Saturday's goal? The var ref had seen something, he knew what he was looking for, it would be seconds to confirm and relay the information. It took so long we all thought the check, if there was one, had been completed and was fine. The cynic in me would say someone was deriving great pleasure in watching us celebrate while smugly knowing they were about to wipe that joy out. That of course may be me being churlish as I said.
Click to expand...
I think they do enjoy f*cking us over, but I think the VAR deliberation for that goal was them searching for a reason not to give the goal, or which interpretation of the rules could be used to disallow the goal.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
I think they do enjoy f*cking us over, but I think the VAR deliberation for that goal was them searching for a reason not to give the goal, or which interpretation of the rules could be used to disallow the goal.
Click to expand...

In the stadium we didn't even know it was going to a review, but apparently all goals are.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
Might as well not celebrate anything until VAR has had its say. The game is gone.
Click to expand...

That's it in a nutshell. The whole point of the game is to score goals, more than your opponent. While we can appreciate great play leading up to it without a goal at the end it isn't the same. Everything is about that pent up tension and utter joy being released the moment the ball hits the net. If we have to wait two minutes to celebrate it then the magic is lost. We may as well follow the game at home an teletext.
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
Might as well not celebrate anything until VAR has had its say. The game is gone.
Click to expand...
I’ve said the City players should score, all run over to the VAR screen in the stadium, and just stand there waiting for a decision.

Even if it is a goal, they should just walk back to their position on the field after the decision!

A silent protest that SHOULD wake people up to the ruination of what is supposed to be the supreme joy of the game!
 
paulchapo said:
I watched the rags game last night. While I obviously wanted Wolves goal to be allowed,the so called offside looked more offside, or at least equal to the Sterling offside at West Ham.

In my opinion it was a great goal, the same as ours at West Ham and neither should be under scrutiny for millimetres.

If they scrutinize every goal long enough I am sure an excuse could be found to disallow 99% of them if they wanted. That's another thing that worries me.

This last point may now being churlish but why did it take so long to reach the decision to disallow Saturday's goal? The var ref had seen something, he knew what he was looking for, it would be seconds to confirm and relay the information. It took so long we all thought the check, if there was one, had been completed and was fine. The cynic in me would say someone was deriving great pleasure in watching us celebrate while smugly knowing they were about to wipe that joy out. That of course may be me being churlish as I said.
Click to expand...

wolves goal was backpass, that can't be an offside
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top