Var debate 2019/20

[cibaman]

I think it speaks volumes that IFAB who have been heavily criticised in many quarters for their new handball rules have actually not said anything in public. All the comments have come from the referees and VAR group. When you actually read the new IFAB rules most of them seem totally reasonable. Something has gone wrong in the FA briefing. I get the feeling a log of buck-passing is going on. It is frustrating that it takes someone like Duncan Castles to raise this because the rest of the media can't do their job properly.

We already know that the PL are intentionally not applying all of the IFAB rules. For example, the use of VAR when the GK moves off his line at a penalty. Is this another case where the PL has adopted its own interpretation?

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

We already know that the PL are intentionally not applying all of the IFAB rules. For example, the use of VAR when the GK moves off his line at a penalty. Is this another case where the PL has adopted its own interpretation?

It is all a bit strange when you consider who the IFAB is made up of.

 

[Thaksinssoldier]

You know what I just noticed?

On the official premier league highlights, they don't show var. Act like it's never happened if the call stands.

 

[MampiTHFC]

You tell me...

I'm also calling out SKY being privy and sharing with the watching home audience before the crowd inside the stadium get to learn of goal decisions.

Regardless of five or ten seconds, it is open to online betting fraud.

There was a time where crooks in the City were using software which was able skim off trades in milliseconds between shares purchases and trades.

Mic these ****s up.

Betting will be suspended leading up to these incidents.
TV also has a delay of several seconds compared with being at the ground, but regardless I don't think online betting scams are the issue with VAR.

I think that VAR is here to stay. I don't think it would be fair on English clubs to not be using VAR in the Premier League, but then having to adapt in Europe. The fact that decisions are different between the competitions seems nonsensical to me.

In 10-15 years, the way the technology is implemented now will look like the stone age. Pull out of VAR now and it will never improve. Ultimately the goal is to make correct decisions - which will reduce corruptions room to manoeuvre.

The sad shame is that in football, and all all sport or anything where outcomes can be manipulated - will be exploited for financial gain at any opportunity.
I do believe VAR is on the side of reducing corruption and wrong decisions long term.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

So it seems that Swarbrick, who is the Head of the VAR team does not understand the rules which his body have introduced, or is blatantly lying to cover up for the the failing
( deliberately or inadvertently ) of Micheal Oliver to react to the incident involving Rodri .

How are supporters possibly expected to have any confidence in the lawmakers or enforcers of the rules which clubs are expected to perform ?

The cynic within me is inclined to believe that both organisations are totally inept at best or corrupt in the way they manage the game.

 

[Chi-town blues]

So it seems that Swarbrick, who is the Head of the VAR team does not understand the rules which his body have introduced, or is blatantly lying to cover up for the the failing
( deliberately or inadvertently ) of Micheal Oliver to react to the incident involving Rodri .

How are supporters possibly expected to have any confidence in the lawmakers or enforcers of the rules which clubs are expected to perform ?

The cynic within me is inclined to believe that both organisations are totally inept at best or corrupt in the way they manage the game.

Clear cover up . Meaning they lied because they are corrupt.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

Easy he's knownowt and a yes man !!

More accurate now.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

IFAB have commented on it and said they’re not changing the law (and are by extension saying they’re happy with the interpretation the PL is using for it)

What was their exact statement? They don't need to change the law because the wording is clear. How do you know they are happy with the FA's interpretation which bears no resemblance to the IFAB wording?

 

[RobinHood]

Going off the VAR graphics shared on SKY, both Aguero and the Wolves goal were offside by a toe.

It seems SKY are getting looped in on the actual decision before the watching public are, also?

Tyler was able to state it had been ruled out before the crowd were informed.

I noticed that but thought nothing of it at the time.

 

[Thaksinssoldier]

I noticed that but thought nothing of it at the time.

I just assumed he was reacting to the ref, who signalled before it was on screen.

 

[hello]

Swardick also claims City players were sat in the dressing room at the Etihad in mid-July having the rules explained to them.

We were in China?

Surely if such event would happen, they would have happened in a meeting room\conference room environment not the dressing room? the fucker could be a politician bullshits coming out of his mouth with every breath.

 

[kaz7]

Surely if such event would happen, they would have happened in a meeting room\conference room environment not the dressing room? the fucker could be a politician bullshits coming out of his mouth with every breath.

We should point it out every time he lies,unfortunately pep was in favour of var in the belief it would help us,wonder what he thinks now

 

[King KdB of Belgium]

The ref Michael Oliver got the decision right after a revue. It was handball because we gained an advantage from the handball even if it was not deliberate. However what is wrong is the laws of the game. If that had been a Spurs defender who was hit by the ball and it was then cleared that would not be handball. So is there someone out their who is right upto date with these new laws, that can explain it in plain English, as to what the rules are. As it just does not seem right to me.

 

[meltonblue]

What was their exact statement? They don't need to change the law because the wording is clear. How do you know they are happy with the FA's interpretation which bears no resemblance to the IFAB wording?

Because they didn’t point that out themselves when asked and instead justified the law. It does bear a resemblance, the difference to me is that the law implies it’s the same person doing the whole action rather than the team. I think it’s another example of where the laws of the game are written in such a way they’re deliberately ambiguous (which is always what causes the subsequent arguments as people struggle with differing interpretations still being allowed)

 

[kaz7]

The ref Michael Oliver got the decision right after a revue. It was handball because we gained an advantage from the handball even if it was not deliberate. However what is wrong is the laws of the game. If that had been a Spurs defender who was hit by the ball and it was then cleared that would not be handball. So is there someone out their who is right upto date with these new laws, that can explain it in plain English, as to what the rules are. As it just does not seem right to me.

Oliver didn't make the decision,if he had it would have been a goal as nobody saw it hit eric if indeed it did,VAR gave it after 2 mins of staring at it,clear and obvious has fucked off already

 

[caseball]

Going off the VAR graphics shared on SKY, both Aguero and the Wolves goal were offside by a toe.

It seems SKY are getting looped in on the actual decision before the watching public are, also?

Tyler was able to state it had been ruled out before the crowd were informed.

I wouldn't be at all surprised. I wouldn't even be surprised to learn that Sky's 'experts' are having some input into the process. Neville and Carragher have frequently been filmed behind the scenes with the refs.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

Because they didn’t point that out themselves when asked and instead justified the law. It does bear a resemblance, the difference to me is that the law implies it’s the same person doing the whole action rather than the team. I think it’s another example of where the laws of the game are written in such a way they’re deliberately ambiguous (which is always what causes the subsequent arguments as people struggle with differing interpretations still being allowed)

The quote I saw from Lukas Brud of IFAB didn't address the key point about the wording which refers to an individual player "gaining possession/control" which Laporte clearly did not do before the accidental deflection. This is not a vague statement. It can only mean that if Laporte had gained control of the ball (for example after it bounced off his hand) and then passed to Jesus it would have been a handball. No one has addressed this yet or the difference in advice from the FA and IFAB.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

The ref Michael Oliver got the decision right after a revue. It was handball because we gained an advantage from the handball even if it was not deliberate. However what is wrong is the laws of the game. If that had been a Spurs defender who was hit by the ball and it was then cleared that would not be handball. So is there someone out their who is right upto date with these new laws, that can explain it in plain English, as to what the rules are. As it just does not seem right to me.

“We gained an advantage”????

Where is THAT in the new law?

And, if you go back a few pages, you will see it has been explained ad infinitum...or you google Football Laws of the Game?!

 

[ChicagoBlue]

Oliver didn't make the decision,if he had it would have been a goal as nobody saw it hit eric if indeed it did,VAR gave it after 2 mins of staring at it,clear and obvious has fucked off already

The handball decision isn’t based on “clear and obvious error.” The Rodri decision was.

 

[Bandofblues]

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.

Connor Coady didn’t admit to the Ref or to VAR that it was a penalty during the game did he so that had no influence on the decision.
Pogba anticipated contact, played for it (dived), sticking out his leg and catching Coady flat footed in the process - Ref/VAR made their own decision = penalty. Rodri is strangled and then bundled to the ground - Ref/VAR decision = No penalty, simulation by Rodri.

The onfield ref has to make his call based upon what he saw of the incident at the time, the VAR has the luxury of being able to replay the incident multiple times. If I gave you 30 seconds to review the video footage then which of the two incidents is the more legitimate penalty claim? You might say both are and fair enough football is all about opinions but to try and cover up the Rodri incident and blame it on ‘looking for it/simulation’ is a blatant lie and to allow Pogba to get away with actually looking for it makes it twice as bad.

Cheating.
Institutional bias.
Corruption.

Take your pick