Var debate 2019/20

[ChicagoBlue]

I might add, this is simply the essence of the laws of the game since 18 whenever it was. That your not allowed to use your hands to control the ball. It's as simple as that really, IMO.

Define “control the ball,” because no one, least of all VAR, appears to understand what that means!

 

[ChicagoBlue]

The authorities have got to look at those 2 decisions and realize THE CONCEPT OF VAR definitely did not work on that day.

Fixed it for you, because “THEY” thought it worked just fine!!

 

[Florida Blue]

To be honest, I think the "accidental" part is a red herring.

Do we want a situation where a player in the box unwittingly has the ball strike his hand, but he turns around and finds it conveniently sitting there at his feet, so he nonchalantly pokes it home for a goal, with the defenders powerless to do anything?

I would we do not. Accidental handballs should also be an infringement in such circumstances. And this is IMO why their is no mention in the rules of whether it's accidental or not. It does not matter.

What matters is, did the player get the ball under control, or gain possession. In the example I give, he did, and therefore it should be flagged as handball. If the ball hits him and bounces off randomly somewhere, he did not, and it is not handball.

This latter description is what happened with Laporte. (If indeed it hit his arm at all.)

I see your point but imo if it's at his feet he's under control of it. In that scenario, if attacker handles and scores, yes it's handball.
Laporte had a 50/50 header which he had no control over, could have gone anywhere. If he was in any way in control he would have headed it, not handled it.
That's why the IFAB rules are different for the scorer and the player creating a goal scoring opportunity. It's 2 phases of play. gain control/ then create an opportunity.

They could have simply said " if you accidentally score or accidentally set up a chance with your hand/arm then it's handball"

They have gone out of their way and put in the extra wording for creating a goal scoring opportunity for a reason. Otherwise it makes no sense to do it.

 

[kaz7]

You are conflating the two things.

Clear and obvious error and handball are two SEPARATE & DISTINCT VAR ISSUES.

Well that is not what he said,he included goals in the clear and obvious mistake catagory,the handball rule is a complete mess,it didn't need changing to favour the defending team,they said they didn't want goals scored with hands,that is understandable and correct,it's like they have added the rest of it to justify using var,it's the handball rule that is creating all the problems,they did not stick to their own rules as if it hit eric he didn't have it under control or gain an advantage,if it had hit the defender which i think it did then it's not a penalty,the way we are getting done over has made me so mad i'm not even looking foward to the next game

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

I see your point but imo if it's at his feet he's under control of it. In that scenario, if attacker handles and scores, yes it's handball.
Laporte had a 50/50 header which he had no control over, could have gone anywhere. If he was in any way in control he would have headed it, not handled it.
That's why the IFAB rules are different for the scorer and the player creating a goal scoring opportunity. It's 2 phases of play. gain control/ then create an opportunity.

They could have simply said " if you accidentally score or accidentally set up a chance with your hand/arm then it's handball"

They have gone out of their way and put in the extra wording for creating a goal scoring opportunity for a reason. Otherwise it makes no sense to do it.

I wonder how soon they will convene a meeting with the PiGMOL reps to try and explain to those bent / stupid fuckers ?

 

[ballinio]

And that is THE most annoying thing most of all. The VAR didn't give a clear and obvious penalty on Rodri , where players appealed, thousands of fans appealed, us watching 1000s of miles away on TV appealed, our manager appealed who saw it and he was 50 yards away.

Yet it called a handball than not a single opposition player appealed for, a single Spurs fan saw or anybody on the coaching staff appealed for.

The authorities have got to look at those 2 decisions and realize VAR definitely did not work on that day.

It did the job they wanted it to , worked just fine ...we’re 2 points down

 

[Bandofblues]

Looking back at the Sky footage there is a view from a camera in the corner where the kick was taken - sky clock shows 92:18.
Not conclusive to me who handles it. Could be either of them or even spurs man first and then Laporte. Not got HD , maybe that shows it clearer.

And yet we are supposed to accept it as fact that Laporte handled first, in fact lots of blues appear to have already accepted it as fact without any conclusive evidence. Repeat something often enough and it becomes true by default?

With the Spurs handball in the champions league the first impression was that it had come off his hip, it was only afterwardthat footage with the handball emerged and which allegedly wasn’t shown to the ref - so the onfield decision stood. In the league game it seems VAR has made the opposite decision and assumed that it came off Laporte without any conclusive evidence.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I see your point but imo if it's at his feet he's under control of it. In that scenario, if attacker handles and scores, yes it's handball.
Laporte had a 50/50 header which he had no control over, could have gone anywhere. If he was in any way in control he would have headed it, not handled it.
That's why the IFAB rules are different for the scorer and the player creating a goal scoring opportunity. It's 2 phases of play. gain control/ then create an opportunity.

They could have simply said " if you accidentally score or accidentally set up a chance with your hand/arm then it's handball"

They have gone out of their way and put in the extra wording for creating a goal scoring opportunity for a reason. Otherwise it makes no sense to do it.

I'm confused. Regards your opening sentence, that's what I said!

Regards your 2nd sentence, I agree.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Define “control the ball,” because no one, least of all VAR, appears to understand what that means!

Well to me it's pretty clear. If after you've touched it, you are able to play the ball (when without touching it you would not have been able to) then you have brought it under control.

 

[edinburgh123]

As has been said several times on this and other threads the law is written in plain English on the IFAB website.

http://www.theifab.com/laws/chapter/32/section/92/

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
• creates a goal-scoring opportunity

The Premier League seem to have summarised this law to mean if the ball touches any player on the hand/arm in the build up to the goal, they do reference the IFAB website for full details of the law.

The Refs, Pundits, Press etc. all seem to be ignorant of the actual law and are referencing the Premier League's "Executive Summary" rather than the Law itself.

The rule actually has a further explanation which states: - .... "Greater clarity is needed for handball, especially on those occasions when 'non-deliberate handball' is an offence. The re-wording follows a number of principles football does not accept a goal being scored by a hand/arm (even if accidental). Football expects a player to be penalised for handball if they gain possession/control of the ball from their hand/arm and gain a major advantage e.g. score or create a goal scoring opportunity."
And it is that last bit I think that is the problem the bit that states "or create a goal scoring opportunity". This slight deviation in wording from the key rule is important, because although the English language suggests the example is related to gaining possession it is being misread as factual (i.e. if a player gains possession and as such creates a goal scoring opportunity is totally different to if the ball hits your hand and creates a goal scoring opportunity - English language means it is stating the former but it is being misunderstood as the latter). Anyone with a modicum of English language skills knows the 'e.g' are examples based upon the previous statement (therefore the player MUST gain control) but this example is being used on its own
Nothing will happen unless we can get one member of the press to start a proper review of the above statements and get it high profile rather than a message board

 

[simon23]

100% correct yet they link the IFAB guidelines from their site. The Premier league have not just summarized they have changed the wording, they have added "accidental" to the creating a goal scoring line, when it simply isn't there on the IFAB guidelines.

IFAB have specifically took the word accidental out and gone out of their way to say the player handling/creating has to have possession/control of the ball, and THEN create a goal scoring opportunity in the Laporte incident.

And then you have another argument entirely whether Jesus had a chance straight from the arm. Jesus had to touch the ball to the side and create the space/opportunity for himself.
What if Jesus beat 4 players and scored, did Laporte still create the opportunity or did Jesus create his own opportunity by beating 4 men?

Far far too many grey areas the way it is written now.

and if you hover the curser over the line you then get a detailed explanation of the rule which gives a slightly different slant on it all which backs up the decision to rule out the goal as it does say "or creates a goal scoring opportunity"

i cannt work out how to insert a screen shot so ive copied it here:

Explanation:
Greater clarity is needed for handball, especially on those occasions when 'non-deliberate handball is an offence. The re-wording follows a number of principles: - football does not accept a goal being scored by a hand/arm (even if accidental) - football expects a player to be penalised for handball if they gain possession/control of the ball from their hand/arm and gain a major advantage e.g.score or create a goal scoring opportunity ........then there is some other stuff that is not relevant here

there is a last bit however that would mean if laporte made contact with his head first and then onto his arm and then it had fell to GJ would mean that the goal SHOULD have stood. It reads:

If the ball comes off the players body (e.g. Head in this case) , or off another player of either team who is close by, onto the hand/armit is often impossible to avoid contat with the ball

so basically if Laporte had headed the ball onto his own arm (which does happen) and then it had fell to GJ the goal should have stood.

 

[meltonblue]

If there's a ref on the board, maybe we can get some clarity here.

I do not believe there is a single entry in the Laws of the Game that sanctions a team. Only individual players, and team officials can be penalised because only individual players and team officials can infringe the laws of the game.

It’s not sanctioning a team though, its still sanctioning an individual. Personally, I think the entire law is wrong though as I don’t think anyone should be penalised for something completely out of their control.

The pl interpretation of it, I’m less fussed about to be honest, it’s an extension of the same underlying issue. All they’ve really done is taken it to the extreme to try and reduce the grey areas and as a consequence made a ridiculous law even more ridiculous.

 

[ballinio]

All this , the rule this the handball rule that is all bullshit, designed for everyone to tie themselves in knots with rules and regulations , interpretations , he says this , he says that.
Let’s be clear , it is another level of corruption so the powers that be can manipulate the outcome of games & get the champions they want who make them the most money . It’s plain for everyone to see but some will never accept it because it distorts their version of the world, where everyone is honest and rules are applied evenly & correctly , the Sky is blue , the birds are singing & there’s no danger anywhere.

 

[Chippy_boy]

All this , the rule this the handball rule that is all bullshit, designed for everyone to tie themselves in knots with rules and regulations , interpretations , he says this , he says that.
Let’s be clear , it is another level of corruption so the powers that be can manipulate the outcome of games & get the champions they want who make them the most money . It’s plain for everyone to see but some will never accept it because it distorts their version of the world, where everyone is honest and rules are applied evenly & correctly , the Sky is blue , the birds are singing & there’s no danger anywhere.

Spot on.

 

[Florida Blue]

I'm confused. Regards your opening sentence, that's what I said!

Regards your 2nd sentence, I agree.

Then we agree, but the guidelines/wording are different for the scorer of a goal and the person that creates a chance, that's my point, they have deliberately made different guidelines when it was easier to lump them both together IF they wanted to. It would have been easier for everybody and the whole game if they did, but they didn't.

You have 7 ? ex refs/officials sat around a table putting this law together for IFAB, I'm simply not having it that they thought the Laporte/Boley incident is handball.

lf they did. they could have clearly put "creating a goal scoring opportunity is handball whether accidental or not" That's all they had to do.

The Laporte/Boley scenario has obviously come up in conversation and this is what they came up with, they take out the word accidental and change the wording to a player has to "gain possession/control of the ball first after it touches their arm/hand, and THEN create a goal scoring opportunity."

That's it in a nutshell to me.

I'm just repeating myself now lol

 

[PrezIke]

Between VAR and piss poor refereeing the outcome of the game against Spurs was seriously affected by two poor decisions by the officials.

How the fuck can this be a progressive move by the rule makers in order to improve the game ?

As is usual a situation which was flawed but just about palatable, has been made totally unpalatable due to the cack handed drafting and implementation of rules which benefit the defending team .

Funny you write this as I have a view about why that is I was about to post irregardless of this which speaks directly to this.

What I say here might be taken the wrong way by some, but bear with me...

I will say that I believe the reason VAR is apparently being used to help the defending team relates to cultural values that "defending well" represents and has a long history in the UK and I'd argue is a similar trait in the USA, which relates to the concept of "the sanctity of sport". This is what is on the face of it a simple, Occam's Razor-like, perspective that says no one should EVER get an advantage over other players (I'll say more on what this looks like as it relates to City and our perceived "permanent dominance") but is far more complex.

I'd argue, however, that this idea of "fairness" in sport and how it relates to seeing defence as so valuable is perhaps deeply rooted in, apologies if anyone are offended as this may sound harsh, but white working class culture that football has represented (as can sport in the USA, btw) and at times insecurities of some fans (even those in the FA) about watching young athletes, particularly (IMHO) brown and black players of incredible skill and athletic ability earn huge sums of money for games we grew up playing and sometimes even believing we could do better than these professional athletes themselves, particularly if we had the same abilities, and especially if they don't appear to remain loyal to their original or hometown club.

The coverage and treatment of Sterling over the years speaks specifically to all of this, because he violated these rules by being a young black athlete who chose to leave his original club perceived as "pure" for one seen as "dirty" and does not play "fair" to that large section of football supporters. Part of the cliche in sport, and even the worshiping of "Italian tactics" and Mourinho's style was the myth and hope that you cannot beat tough defending with hard working players who possess a good enough bit of skill if they are well organised and determined.

What City through Pep has introduced to football in a culture that has believed that other version as devine, was that you can be tough, and hard working, but also if you possess great athletes of incredible skill along side brilliant tactics and coaching and show that the idea of "tough defending," seen as the "great equaliser" for those of lesser abilities, to be perhaps not so true anymore. I also would include the way athletes are coached compared to previous era's as also something some moan about (i.e. they're all soft) yet has led to Mourinho's complete demise as a manager or why Keane will never get a real job because it's also outdated for working with the top players of today.

To go back to the idea of "the sanctity of sport" those who praised Spurs' victory via VAR as some kind of "justice" to get us, certainly sound like they truly feel we have been winning "unfairly". We all know that is the mantra of huge numbers of fans, especially in the UK, about our success. They believe we are not following the rules of "the sanctity of sport" and therefore must be stopped no matter what.

I'm actually not necessarily saying VAR is specifically there to stop us, although I could see an argument why, but the cultural value of viewing defending and hard work as more valuable than attacking is a long held cultural value in the UK (say compared to Spain or South America), as far as I understand. It links to the argument I made regarding its influence on VAR's implementation and also relates to the new handball rule. Interestingly enough also relates to conflict amongst fans in the USA about "fairness" in sport.

One thing to consider is that most of the big sports in the USA not only use VAR/Instant Replay, but also have wage or salary caps to give fans a perceived sense of "justice" about how clubs can put together their teams. Would a wage cap have a similar quelling effect on the number of loud calls for City's head we hear so often? I could actually see that as plausible.

Another bit of controversy here is to point that The NBA learned that to enhance its "product", following a period of defence dominating, strong physical play allowed, and regular fights all that fueled rivalries was to abandon this. They introduced more and more rules that allowing attacking play over defending and physical play. It helped the league grow tremendously, and is curious because the NBA is also easily the most "progressive" (certainly politically) league in the USA in how it decided to go away from what many of the most loyal fans of the 90s loved and you still hear nostalgia for today, and could be seen as not aligned with "traditional" USA sport fan values. By "traditional", again controversy here, I mean white, mostly working class fans (I never mean all), but that was perhaps not so difficult for the NBA as their fanbase is not as dominated by more conservative white people as say the NFL, which has rules and systems that cater to that fanbase far more.

The PL could learn from this, as they claim to be so interested in their "product" dominating the global football marketplace, and seriously think about allowing attacking play to be encouraged more. Would it benefit City? Over the short term, maybe, but odd that Pep has received a lot of praise for helping the PL move to more attacking oriented managers in place than ever, playing out of the back, as well as recruitment and more development of attack minded players within the UK. Even England as a team has more attacking oriented players and tries to embody this style more so than I can ever recall or am aware of. The Burnley's and Big Sam's of the world may have their place, particularly at lower levels of the sport where athletes and skill will be less, but they also are never going to attract most average fans to the sport. It's called the "beautiful game" not the "lump it up to a big oaf and fight for second balls game".

I believe they should reconsider how they are using VAR, particularly for taking away goals and allowing defenders to get away with things that either outside of the penalty box would not be allowed as it will actually add to the sense of fairness, because of the concerns our fans and now others are seeing about enforcing pens vs handballs on attackers in the box.

Do I expect this to happen? No, but they should listen if they have hopes to keep the sport and league as popular as it is.

 

[Colin Bell (genuine name)]

Spot the difference

1. scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm
2. gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then Scores in the opponents goal

What is the minimum amount of touches inclusive of handball to score in the opponents goal in sentence 1 and how many touches including handball does it take to score in sentence 2.

The answer to sentence 1 is one touch. The answer to sentence 2 is at least two touches.

Now for a player to meet the criteria of sentence 2, he would have to be the next player to touch the ball after it hit his arm in order to score in the opponents goal. That is why the rule is written with reference to possession and or control of the ball after it hits his arm.

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

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

This thread is as bad as VARs for accurate information. What a fkin mess VARs is.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

They could have simply said " if you accidentally score or accidentally set up a chance with your hand/arm then it's handball"

They have gone out of their way and put in the extra wording for creating a goal scoring opportunity for a reason. Otherwise it makes no sense to do it.

EXACTLY!

Americans deal with this EXACT situation every single day when reading the Second Amendment! Sometimes, we simply lack the focus to see the words for what they are!

 

[Newquayblue]

I see your point but imo if it's at his feet he's under control of it. In that scenario, if attacker handles and scores, yes it's handball.
Laporte had a 50/50 header which he had no control over, could have gone anywhere. If he was in any way in control he would have headed it, not handled it.
That's why the IFAB rules are different for the scorer and the player creating a goal scoring opportunity. It's 2 phases of play. gain control/ then create an opportunity.

They could have simply said " if you accidentally score or accidentally set up a chance with your hand/arm then it's handball"

They have gone out of their way and put in the extra wording for creating a goal scoring opportunity for a reason. Otherwise it makes no sense to do it.

Yep, I get your point here. So, even if a goal doesn't ensue, it's still hand ball because the 'opportunity to score was created.