Var debate 2019/20

I thought of a situation last night which sums up how stupid this rule is. Say Raheem Sterling is through on goal in the last minute and rounds the keeper. As he does so the ball bounces off the keeper and onto Sterling’s chest. It brushes his arm but he has beaten the keeper and has an open goal.

What does he do? If he’s felt the ball brush his arm he knows the goal will be disallowed if he puts the ball in the net. He’d be better off turning round and trying to kick the ball off the goalkeeper so it goes out for a corner.

I realise this is all hypothetical but it’s feasible!
 
hammocity said:
I’m just waiting for a Rodri type incident happening to Salah or Rashford during a tight game. Over at Candlefield they scream like little girls for every decision, they will go into overdrive when Salah dives and VAR will replay the passage enough times to find minimal contact and give a penalty. Pogba on Monday night threw himself at Coady before contact came from the foot, without the lunge he wasn’t having a foul, clear dive but the media has just washed over it. Higginbottom even said “he’s done fantastic to win the penalty” and no one in the media has challenged it.
Click to expand...

Even the Wolves defender who gave the penalty away said it was a penalty. It dilutes the argument when people use examples that are not true.
Unless you think the Wolves defender is in on it -;)
 
asahartford1 said:
Even the Wolves defender who gave the penalty away said it was a penalty. It dilutes the argument when people use examples that are not true.
Unless you think the Wolves defender is in on it -;)
Click to expand...

So you dont think Pogba was looking for it?
Mr Swarbrick has clearly indicated that VAR will not give penalties where the player is ‘looking for it’.

All anyone wants is fairness and transparency and we most certainly have neither at the moment.
 
asahartford1 said:
Even the Wolves defender who gave the penalty away said it was a penalty. It dilutes the argument when people use examples that are not true.
Unless you think the Wolves defender is in on it -;)
Click to expand...
Look at it again, he throws himself at Coady before any contact, without the dive there’s no contact.
 
Bandofblues said:
So you dont think Pogba was looking for it?
Mr Swarbrick has clearly indicated that VAR will not give penalties where any player wearing a shirt from the blue spectrum is ‘looking for it’.

All anyone wants is fairness and transparency and we most certainly have neither at the moment.
Click to expand...

I think the RDGAHMeedya didn't quote Swarbrick verbatim.
 
Kennedy_probably_has said:
I thought of a situation last night which sums up how stupid this rule is. Say Raheem Sterling is through on goal in the last minute and rounds the keeper. As he does so the ball bounces off the keeper and onto Sterling’s chest. It brushes his arm but he has beaten the keeper and has an open goal.

What does he do? If he’s felt the ball brush his arm he knows the goal will be disallowed if he puts the ball in the net. He’d be better off turning round and trying to kick the ball off the goalkeeper so it goes out for a corner.

I realise this is all hypothetical but it’s feasible!
Click to expand...

Yes I'm surprised nobody has asked the refs to make a public statement answering the question, "What could Jesus have done when he received the ball to allow City to score a valid goal ? ". If the answer is "Nothing, the team gained possession from a handball ". Then what would be the point of playing on?
 
I read the handball rules in the aftermath of the Spurs game, and I think they were incorrectly applied.

This is perfect territory for the football media to take up with PGMOL, the FA, FIFA, etc but of course, they are not interested.

I don't understand why Pep has not been more critical of VAR given Manchester City's experience. As the leading coach in football, if he came out against it, then it would be significant, and others would probably follow too.

I noticed that VAR tried their best to disallow the Neves equaliser against Man Utd.
 
Given the crucial importance of the new Law 12, why have the media and others not scrutinised the way it has been applied ?

The argument, since Saturday, is that the decision to rule out the winning City `goal` was correct by the letter of the new law, setting aside views about the actual law itself. However a growing number do not agree with this initial consensus.

The new Rule 12 states:

"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 or creates a goal-scoring opportunity".

The question is -after the ball had touched Laporte`s arm, did he gain possession / control of the ball and then create a goal scoring opportunity?

The answer rests on the meaning of the words possession / control and create. After it touched Laporte`s arm and instantaneously moved onwards, at no stage was he in possession of, nor did he control, the ball. Therefore he could not then create.

It was Jesus (not Laporte) who gained possession / control. It was not then a simple tap in but he still had a lot of creating to do before the goal was scored.

The `goal` should have stood based on the letter of the new Law 12.
 
Manchester1894 said:
Taken the tinfoil hat off. We're not targeted at all, we create more chances than anyone else so we may see more of our attacks reviewed. The other end (fouls/handballs) is always going to be a coin toss. People don't like change. The system will improve and get better imo. In the meantime accept it's not perfect but refs were worse than VAR. Forget goals, red card reviews will be EXTREMELY crucial to us this season.
Click to expand...
Oh great, can't wait.
 
Florida Blue said:
If they wanted the Laporte situation to be called handball they could have easily and clearly worded it that way in the guidelines, like they have when scoring a goal direct by your hand/arm ie it doesn't matter if accidental or not. But they didn't, they must have done this for a reason. They took the word accidental out and replaced it with a much more detailed description "player gains control/possession after it touches their hand/arm and THEN creates a goal scoring opportunity," making a it a completely different way of looking at it.

You can't get a more clear indication of the different guidelines for each situation. They are completely different when they don't have to be.

They could have simply said "you can't score direct off your arm/hand OR create a goal scoring opportunity with your arm/hand whether accidental or not" if that was their goal.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but I've seen the version with 'OR' posted on here several times over the last few days.

This is why there needs to be official clarification & synergy between what IFAB states & the FA states.

Like I said there was one irrefutable fact in all of this.... The ball hit Laporte & deviated into his path. We can continue splitting hairs over and/or, but doing so detracts from the major points of phases, clarification & synergy of the rules from all the governing bodies.
 
Gordyola said:
David Elleray IFAB Technical Director responsible for writing the laws of the game David attended Oxford University where he obtain his master degree, he became a teacher and head of geography at Harrow I doubt very much that he lacks a grasp of English
Click to expand...
Someone earlier pointed out a grammatical error in the rulings. Go figure....
 
toffee balls said:
If only it was that simple. If it had hit Ericsson’s hand and Gabby missed, it’s not a penalty and won’t be reviewed.

So , where is the cut off point between a defender accidentally using his arm and intentionally doing so.
Both KDB and Gundog were perplexed by that rule.
Click to expand...
Exactly!

This is another issue raised several times, with no explanation given to clarify why it's one rule for an attacker & another for a defender.

Same scenario, different ruling. Why?
 
hammocity said:
Look at it again, he throws himself at Coady before any contact, without the dive there’s no contact.
Click to expand...

Listen to the Wolves defender,

"I thought I would get the ball, but it bounced over my leg and I caught him yes it was a penalty "

Difficult to argue against that.
 
Bandofblues said:
So you dont think Pogba was looking for it?
Mr Swarbrick has clearly indicated that VAR will not give penalties where the player is ‘looking for it’.

All anyone wants is fairness and transparency and we most certainly have neither at the moment.
Click to expand...

I wasn't commenting on the incident but I heard the defender say it was a definite penalty.
 
portisheadblue said:
It might be “their grasp of English” as only one of the 7 members is English ... three others are Welsh, Scottish and from Northern Ireland. Not sure about the other 3.

The Laws of the Game including Law 12 are not well written but they clearly show the LaPorte event was not yes not handball.

Also the LotG do not include things like tactical foul or phase of play nor do they differentiate attackers from defenders under Law 12

The FA Web site is easy to access just google FA Law 12
Click to expand...
I've read both versions mate. Everyone is pissed why accidental handball in the area only applies to attackers. It's a silly rule which is bound to piss people off.

However, using a broad brush stroke, the new ruling states a handball by the attacker. I don't think anyone is denying he didn't touch the ball with his hand, nor that this action deviated the flight of the ball to Jesus. These are facts.

This issue now become one of interpretation of their badly written rules which are not clear. Does anyone know definitively what constitutes a different phase?

We'll end up looking silly if we don't accept the clear handball & the bsll's deviation. Where we will put the authorities on the rack is by asking for clarifications on their poor wording, on what constitutes a new phase & why handball in the area doesn't apply equally to all players outside of the defending goal keeper.
 
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