Var debate 2019/20

[Colin Bell (genuine name)]

Exactly this. For all those saying that the handball was correct, simple question. When can we score again ? Is it possible that Jesus could have started a 44 pass move like we did against the rags and the goal we score several minutes later will still be chalked of for the handball?

That's the perfect question and should be asked. So at what point after an accidental handball are you allowed to score?

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

because it is correct . he gains possession of the ball for the team when the ball strikes his arm. The ball falls to jesus who then goes on to score .

you're misunderstanding what gaining possession is and what control of the ball is . They are not the same things .

I am not misunderstanding anything. You can't seriously believe what the FA is saying can you? The exact wording in the rule says "gaining possession/control of the ball"

 

[swinton blue]

I think jesus created his own goal scoring opportunity as he still had a lot to do when he received the ball
The only other thing if the deflection on the ball took it to jesus and away from a defender hence causing an advantage
That's the way I interpret the rules

 

[OB1]

It can only be that it is viewed that the team gaining control/possession is the same as the player doing so. Nothing else makes sense in this case. Control/gain possession is not defined as the individual or the team; I think it's reasonable to view it as the team gaining control, but that doesn't make the alternative unreasonable. I favour the first.
I don't think that the last blue bit applies due to the "except for the above offences" - if the control/possession happened, then the "except for..." part does not apply.


Interestingly (well maybe), the IFAB document on the changes explains the principles behind the changes, and says this:
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

To me, that implies that the gaining advantage is the principle in question, and that I think that happened with Laporte/Jesus. Obviously, I don't know why it is written like it is, and this is just my interpretation.

I've asked if anyone has seen anything definitive, but all I've seen is people's own interpretation.

Why do you think City gained an advantage from the ball brushing Laporte's arm? And I mean as a consequence of it being his arm that it brushed as opposed to (say) his thigh.

 

[bobom]

When we get to the end of the season, more Court goals will have been disallowed by VAR than anyone else's. Notwithstanding the debate as to whether the system is bent or not, this is simply a strong statistical probability given we generate more chances than other teams. The more goals we score, the more will be disallowed.

 

[Paladin]

It can only be that it is viewed that the team gaining control/possession is the same as the player doing so. Nothing else makes sense in this case. Control/gain possession is not defined as the individual or the team; I think it's reasonable to view it as the team gaining control, but that doesn't make the alternative unreasonable. I favour the first.
I don't think that the last blue bit applies due to the "except for the above offences" - if the control/possession happened, then the "except for..." part does not apply.


Interestingly (well maybe), the IFAB document on the changes explains the principles behind the changes, and says this:
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

To me, that implies that the gaining advantage is the principle in question, and that I think that happened with Laporte/Jesus. Obviously, I don't know why it is written like it is, and this is just my interpretation.

I've asked if anyone has seen anything definitive, but all I've seen is people's own interpretation.

A summary of what we were penalised for in one phrase: "If a player gains control or possession of the ball after it has hit his hand, and he then scores or creates a goalscoring opportunity, then this is an offence".

Laporte didn't gain control or possession of the ball, therefore there was no offence committed.

 

[hampshireblue]

It's a pity the FA's own site gives a different set of words.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

When we get to the end of the season, more Court goals will have been disallowed by VAR than anyone else's. Notwithstanding the debate as to whether the system is bent or not, this is simply a strong statistical probability given we generate more chances than other teams. The more goals we score, the more will be disallowed.

It'll be interesting how the chalked off goals play out. How many when we've already won the game and how many, like Saturday, that would win a game in dramatic fashion and hoover up all the points? I fancy it will be more of the latter.

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

VAR officials are all namedh. Scott was a PL ref in recent seasons.

He was a 'failed ref' deemed not good enough at one point and got his job back on appeal.

 

[Dribble]

A summary of what we were penalised for in one phrase: "If a player gains control or possession of the ball after it has hit his hand, and he then scores or creates a goalscoring opportunity, then this is an offence".

Laporte didn't gain control or possession of the ball, therefore there was no offence committed.

You forgot this bit which they're hanging their hats on.

"Or creates a goalscoring opportunity,"

It hit Laporte, deviated to Jesus, who went past 5 players to score.

Whether fair or not, apparently City welcomed the new handball rules & VAR.