Var debate 2019/20

[OB1]

It's not really a 'why'. It's a 'it did'.
If it came off his thigh, then it wouldn't fall under handball.

(unless I've misunderstood the question)

You've misunderstood or I've not asked the question well enough. I just mean what advantage did we gain? Was the ball deflected sufficiently by the contact to create an advantage? If it had not touched Laporte, would a Spurs player have beaten Jesus to the ball?

 

[kaz7]

don't wish to argue with you but some people love the football violence . ( all over football ) Some live for it . I know quite a few wanderers supporters that care more about ti than the actual football . it's a tribal thing i guess .

Is that who you support?

 

[Blue Mooner]

That is your interpretation, and is reasonable.
It appears not to be the interpretation of PGMOL.

Because they are corrupt. The law as quoted often in this thread is quite clear that even 'if' the ball hit Laportes hand the goal should have stood

 

[Eccles Blue]

I am sort of reserving judgement until after the Rags & Wolves game this evening!! Let’s see what happens there.

I say sort of because I am still not over Saturday which is bad for me because it usually only takes me a couple of hours to recover from even a defeat! This VAR needs to go! I keep boring everyone (sorry) with the we’ve managed for 125 years without it, let’s manage for another 125 yrs!! :-)

 

[flook]

The team does not handle the ball . It would make no sense to put in the law the word team . look at IFAB and the laws of the game and see how many times the word TEAM is used opposed to the word player .

A player gains possession for the team . A player gains control of the ball for themselves . i'm 100% sure you understand but you appear to be attempting to over complicate what is a simple rule .

From the Reuters report on the IFAB meeting, my comments in italics

IFAB’s annual general meeting in Aberdeen ruled that intent would no longer be a factor in situations involving goals or goal-scoring opportunities from next season. The law change should stop situations where a goal is scored off a player’s arm or hand.

“A goal scored directly from the hand/arm (even if accidental) didn't happen and a player scoring or creating a goal-scoring opportunity after having gained possession/control of the ball from their hand/arm didn't gain control or possession of the ball (even if accidental) will no longer be allowed,” IFAB said in a statement.

This reinforces the actual rule as neither the rules nor the report mention TEAM at all

You seem to be inserting a word and meaning to suit your own agenda and covering that with a generic "ooh it's obvious possession means team", when in reality a law should not be open to (mis)interpretation of who or what it actually applies to

 

[ChicagoBlue]

HANDLING THE BALL
It is an offence if a player:

• gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
  • creates a goal-scoring opportunity

• • THIS IS A KEY POINT!!!

People are PARAPHRASING THE LAW, but you can’t do that, as it is very, very specific in when it is and is NOT a handball.

In this case, the law was “created” because Llorente scored directly from the contact, which is a different section of that rule.

In short, people are NOT APPLYING THE RULE CORRECTLY....TO THE POINT OF CREATING VERBIAGE THAT ISN’T EVEN IN THE LAW!

I can’t believe no-one in the media is picking up on this?! Is it because they’re too lazy to actually read the law itself?

 

[Under the Duvet with Uwe]

I think the goal would be allowed. The ball-to-hand has not created anything, certainly not a goalscoring opportunity.

Mostly though, this is applying the attacking handball law to a defensive handball, which is

I think the goal would be allowed. The ball-to-hand has not created anything, certainly not a goalscoring opportunity.

Mostly though, this is applying the attacking handball law to a defensive handball, which is nonsensical.

 

[Blue Mist]

I don't believe they can overrule the ref on a subjective call like a potential foul . IF the ref is adamant that he saw the incident and he's happy with his call then VAR aren't there to overrule him.

In the world cup those incidents were often checked on the pitch side tv but the premier league or ref union don't want every decision to take 5 minutes to review so we end up playing for 3 hours .

Every supporter i have spoken with from different clubs agree it was a pen. Let's hope it's a lesson learned .

With regards to your first paragraph, how did your team have a red card overturned, (changed to a yellow) last season when VAR stepped in

 

[Bunchofdickovs]

Is that who you support?

no lol my brother and dad were season ticket holders for many years until the financial problems and mismanagement of the club . I'm from the M29 area so i know a lot of bolton supporters .

 

[ChicagoBlue]

It's this deliberately murky bit that can be hidden behind. Creating a goal-scoring opportunity for whom? I would always read that it is a gso for the person whose arm the ball inadvertently brushed against, but now it's been given that Laporte gave Jesus an opportunity it can be dragged back to God knows what incident. I think they have looked for anything iffy whilst the ball was bobbling around and found Laporte loitering with intent. I would bet the cheating bastards would redefine that bit when it comes to a Rag or Dipper arm.

It’s not the creation of a goal scoring opportunity, but the lack of control/possession!