Var debate 2019/20

[dronefromsector7G]

The way it reads to me is more like the player gains possession and then does something with the ball, either scores or passes to a teammate.

It’s worded ambiguously but if you’re correct then we’ve been blatantly cheated

 

[west didsblue]

Three main problems:

First is the offside margin of error. If this was sorted out and the advantage is given to the attacking side in millimetre decisions then VAR will be useful.

Second problem is this handball rule change which presumably was brought in mainly to stop goals being counted when there is an accidental handball deflection of the ball en-route to goal sending the keeper the wrong way. That would be fair enough but applying this rule to any arm contact in the box is just ridiculous. It’s that rule that needs changing, and in this case it’s not VAR’s fault.

Thirdly its use for penalty decisions needs to be consistent and should mainly be for a VAR ref to see an angle that the ref can’t in real time, not for forensic examination of everything after the event, unless it’s to prove simulation.

 

[flook]

Three main problems:

First is the offside margin of error. If this was sorted out and the advantage is given to the attacking side in millimetre decisions then VAR will be useful.

Second problem is this handball rule change which presumably was brought in mainly to stop goals being counted when there is an accidental handball deflection of the ball en-route to goal sending the keeper the wrong way. That would be fair enough but applying this rule to any arm contact in the box is just ridiculous. It’s that rule that needs changing, and in this case it’s not VAR’s fault.

Thirdly its use for penalty decisions needs to be consistent and should mainly be for a VAR ref to see an angle that the ref can’t in real time, not for forensic examination of everything after the event, unless it’s to prove simulation.

excellent post

 

[dronefromsector7G]

I don’t think the handball created the chance at all. The ball barely deviated from its path. The chance was created and finished by Jesus, not as a result of the ball striking Laporte’s arm.

Simply don’t see how you can say that chance was created by the handball.

Laporte was right in front of the penalty spot when it hit him. Jesus picked up the ball just outside the six yard box. Hardly ‘barely deviated’.

 

[kaz7]

Three main problems:

First is the offside margin of error. If this was sorted out and the advantage is given to the attacking side in millimetre decisions then VAR will be useful.

Second problem is this handball rule change which presumably was brought in mainly to stop goals being counted when there is an accidental handball deflection of the ball en-route to goal sending the keeper the wrong way. That would be fair enough but applying this rule to any arm contact in the box is just ridiculous. It’s that rule that needs changing, and in this case it’s not VAR’s fault.

Thirdly its use for penalty decisions needs to be consistent and should mainly be for a VAR ref to see an angle that the ref can’t in real time, not for forensic examination of everything after the event, unless it’s to prove simulation.

I hope they don't change the rules now after shafting us with them,they have to go the whole season now as they won't want to look inept and getting it so wrong from the beginning,surely football men looked at the handball issue before hand and said that's unworkable

 

[mosssideblue]

She died 40 years ago.... thanks for asking.
Your posts are tiresome, repetitive and none reflective. Neither do they respond to points being made. Hence the FFS.

Lol

 

[ctid1894]

More proof that VAR for offside is flawed as discussed on Bluemoon last week

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...-2-4cm-offside-allowed-13cm-margin-error.html


Cameras used by VAR run at 50 frames per second. One picture taken every 0.02 seconds. To the human eye, it looks like a moving image.

For offsides, VAR has to choose the frame which shows the ball has categorically been touched. If Frame A shows the boot an inch away from the ball, then VAR has to take the next one in which the ball has definitely been played.

In reality, though, the first point of contact will be somewhere between. And as The Mail on Sunday has calculated, for decisions as tight as Sterling’s, a player can move quickly enough to move from onside to offside. And that’s crucial. It means there is a margin of error. And that margin varies depending how fast attackers and defenders are running.

They’ve clearly been stealing my maths equations from last week.

 

[mosssideblue]

He baits,ignore it

Oh dear, Aguero having a mare has made you grumpy :)

 

[Marvin]

I don’t think the handball created the chance at all. The ball barely deviated from its path. The chance was created and finished by Jesus, not as a result of the ball striking Laporte’s arm.

Simply don’t see how you can say that chance was created by the handball.

The commentators and journalists have not read the rule.

The rule says

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

AND THEN

Laporte does not and then anything. It inadvertently flicks off his arm which leads to controlled possession by another player.

This is about interpretation. It's not black and white at all. I think the rule was set up to stop a situation where the ball directly goes in off a players arm, or when it srikes an arm, and a player makes a conscious assist.

The VAR decision was harsh or wrong application of the handball rule.

 

[danielwood5]

It’s worded ambiguously but if you’re correct then we’ve been blatantly cheated

I think it's more that it's easier for the officials to use the dumbed down rule of any kind of contact is disallowed as that's the one most easily understood by the tabloids so marginally less hassle. I don't even think it's that ambiguous really, the way the rule is written is the way most people would want the game to be played instead of the reading of it we have now.