Var debate 2019/20

[Deleted member 77198]

I agree with this ananlysis on the Jesus goal. There is a lot of talk of any touch by an attacking player precluding the goal, but where does that come from ?

It comes from a misunderstanding of the laws

 

[simon23]

No it's not. VAR use other angles.

Why is my opion less than yours? You think the camera angle taken from the Colin Bell stand is enough. I am saying this is not enough and asking for conclusive proof so that I can go to the match and not have it ruined by some guys in the VAR offfice who refuse to provide proof!

That is the best angle though (that I have seen) so far

 

[Bluephoria]

you keep repeating the same thing but you do not understand that difference between gaining possession of the ball and gaining control of the ball . The law differentiates between the two .

Gaining control = The player has now got the ball under their control.

Gaining Possession = The player has gained or kept possession of the ball for their team .

The ball hits his arm and therefore falls to Jesus (kept possession following the cross ) . Jesus then scores .

Goal disallowed because of an unfair advantage from the ball hitting his arm .

Not so sure about that. The rule suggests it is possession or control for that 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
    

so the player gains possession / control after it has touched their arm and then scores or greates GSO. The suggestion that it is the team raises the issue of how many moves can be interposed between touching the arm and the goal or GSO.

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

I want to know who the person was making this decision, I can just imagine him sat there in his liverpool top laughing his head off.

I actually don't buy the conspiracy theory. I reckon it's just human nature to have teams you like and teams you don't and it is mostly sub-conscious favouritism.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

This is absolutely correct. There is a general perception out there that once there is a handball in the buildup to a goal it has to be ruled out. That is not what the rule states. Laporte would have needed to gain possession or control of the ball after it hit his arm in order for the goal to be ruled out. I am amazed that more is not being made of this. I’d like to see the PL explain the basis on which the decision to disallow the goal was made.

It’s barely been talked about amongst our own fans, never mind anywhere else.

Most of the debate on here has been about whether it hit his arm or not, most people saying that it his his shoulder so should have stood or that it should be disallowed but it’s a shit rule.

Both are incorrect because even our fans don’t know the new law properly.

Laporte did not gain possession or control of the ball and then create a gso so the goal should have stood.

 

[ctid1894]

Up in SSL3 no fucker knew why that goal had been disallowed, odd people were saying handball while others said Jesus was offside and someone else mentioned a push from someone. That’s a huge issue and one that needs clarification from officials immediately to prevent it escalating. Our players were clearly angry at the decision, the Spurs players were laughing and the fans were just confused.

It’s a bad mix, made even worse when you get home and realise the goal was ruled out for something which looks to me like the ball hits Laporte’s shoulder which isn’t handball anyway. Well not according to the officials last week who said Sterling’s shoulder was offside.

 

[Scaring Europe to Death]

We used to be told that bad decisions would "balance-out" over a season.

Now we're being told that VAR decisions will "balance-out" over a season

 

[ctid1894]

Spot on. It has emerged today that the Jesus goal cancellation was a wrong decision anyway because at no time did Laporte have control of the ball. So those media apologists for VAR are totally wrong to claim it is just a problem with the handball law. The VAR operators got it wrong on the goal and incredibly didn't act on the Rodri penalty. So they overuled the referee on a perfectly good goal by Jesus and then accepted the mistake made by Oliver on the penalty. So what is the point of having VAR. This is a scandal. So when can the paying customers see the video evidence as seen by the VAR team?

Now that will never happen simply because we would see violence on and off the pitch if fans disagreed with the decision after seeing the evidence, the corruption of officials/VAR officials would see someone stabbed in this day and age guaranteed.

Can you imagine the Rodri push being shown at the ground and us not getting a penalty, people would be on the pitch at that stage.

 

[bluejon]

I am hoping it's just pure bad luck for us so far, and I'll come around to realising my hatred towards it is purely due to it being a late cancelled winner based on suspicious rules (again), or bad refereeing from Oliver (again) or it was Spurs (again) or that City had run out of hot dogs and I was hungry (again).

Perhaps I'm ready to cancel anyway. My missus has always wanted to emigrate and my response has always been "I'm not stopping you", but not going to the match regularly will be weird if it comes to that. The lure of a new life beckons stronger today, though.

Hear what you're saying, but even if they sorted VAR out so it gets it right every time, it still completely ruins celebrating a goal as you don't know anymore if it's going to stand or not. This isn't the game I signed up for. And yes, my missus would also appreciate not having to govern 10 months of the year around our fixture list, but.... tough. City were there before she was, but if this carries on, someone else can have my seat.

 

[Bluephoria]

It comes from a misunderstanding of the laws

Thank you. I was wondering if I'd missed something. There are too many using the 'any touch by an attacking player' and either accepting it or repeating it