Var debate 2019/20

[kaz7]

Garth Crooks: "VAR's decision to disallow Gabriel Jesus' injury-time goal based on the new law, introduced this season, regarding handball, was nothing short of laughable. The law is an ass but more worryingly the game is in danger of becoming a joke." [via @BBCSport]

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

im trying hard to steer clear of “agenda” and to just speak about the MISAPPLICATION of the new law, due to pundits believing it says something it doesn’t, while ignoring the STATED PRETEXT.

But I still cannot accept that so-called experienced refs with Heaven knows how many hours of in-service explanation from Old Mother Riley can arrive at a PL game of such importance and deliver the worst example of misapplication. This stuff doesn't happen. They are experts! They know the LotG backwards, upwards, inside out. Oh, hang on a tick, I wonder if they know them the right way round?

 

[ChicagoBlue]

So it's not just a shit rule, it's a shit rule badly written .... my doesn't that surprise me anymore?

I don’t think it is THAT badly written, but it IS being both misquoted and misapplied...per the letter of the law they have written!

There was no possession or control of the ball, so anything that subsequently relies on that pretext becomes irrelevant.

It is an “IF, THEN” statement, where the IF didn’t occur, so there cannot be a THEN.

The conditional nature of the law is not being applied. People, mainly uneducated and apparently unwilling to read the ACTUAL LAW INSTEAD OF PARAPHRASING IT, are literally misstating what the law says, because they believe that the new law says ANY HANDBALL THAT RESULTS IN A GOAL IS A HANDBALL...THAT IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE AS WRITTEN IN THE LAW, BECAUSE IT REQUIRES CONTROL/POSSESSION OF THE BALL AS A PRETEXT TO ANY SUBSEQUENT ACTION, and that doesn’t occur!

 

[Blue Mist]

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

Yes, that question needs asking at a higher level than BM because according to some on here it would be disallowed, 40 odd passes but it started with the ball brushing someones hand (allegedly)

 

[flook]

• • 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?

thank you for summarising, I've said exactly this in about 10 posts but some people on here appear to be as lazy as the journalists

 

[jayfx]

No because it involved us being on the end of it,could you imagine the stink caused by the media if it was the rags or scousers,they’d have wanted Oliver and the VAR ref suspended with immediate effect ..

I do be

No because it involved us being on the end of it,could you imagine the stink caused by the media if it was the rags or scousers,they’d have wanted Oliver and the VAR ref suspended with immediate effect ..

I do believe there'd be much more of a fuss if this had happened against united or Liverpool.

I'd like to see our players just sit down and sit for the ref to give the go ahead, before celebrating goals against Bournemouth. Make a point that VAR ising the excitement.

 

[Blue Mist]

you've lost me on that . i have no idea to what you're referring .

Well as you are the only person in England that does not know what RAWK is I assume you are a Rag. You said in relation to fouls VAR would not overturn a referees decision. when your lot played n the FA Cup last season a Rag was red carded only for VAR to over rule it and change it to yellow. I am sure you saw it on television, one billion others did.

 

[Bunchofdickovs]

Garth Crooks: "VAR's decision to disallow Gabriel Jesus' injury-time goal based on the new law, introduced this season, regarding handball, was nothing short of laughable. The law is an ass but more worryingly the game is in danger of becoming a joke." [via @BBCSport]

Probably next to the last person ( behind me apparently) to ask to make sense of anything . Always good for a giggle though !

some of his gems..

"35% of black players are non white."

"Make no mistake, mistakes will be made."

"Football’s football. If that weren’t the case it wouldn’t be the game that it is."

"Having watched a replay, there’s absolutely no doubt; it’s inconclusive."

 

[ChicagoBlue]

But I still cannot accept that so-called experienced refs with Heaven knows how many hours of in-service explanation from Old Mother Riley can arrive at a PL game of such importance and deliver the worst example of misapplication. This stuff doesn't happen. They are experts! They know the LotG backwards, upwards, inside out. Oh, hang on a tick, I wonder if they know them the right way round?

I think this is a case of a new law being seen to say something it doesn’t.

The “IF THEN” has been removed, to where it is being applied to ANY HANDBALL, not just those that result in control or possession.

A simple example...

A player is running for a cross, it ACCIDENTALLY hits his arm and,

A) goes directly into the goal, or

B) falls at his feet. He immediately passes the ball to another player, who scores, or

C) deflects to another player on his team who scores a goal.

Goal or no goal???

A) No goal! Simple, as you can no longer score DIRECTLY from a handball, no matter how innocuous.

B) No goal! Simple, because no matter how innocuous the handball, if it allows you to bring the ball under control or into your possession, even a subsequent pass for a goal deems the goal illegal.

C) GOAL!!! The ball did not go directly into the goal AND at no time was the ball either in possession or control of the player committing the handball, therefore the “handball” is NOT COVERED BY THIS NEW LAW AND IS BOTH INCIDENTAL AND ACCIDENTAL CONTACT ON THE PLAY. The requirement for control or possession negates this from being construed as a handball.

Jesus scores GOAL C. Llorente scored goal A.

 

[Bunchofdickovs]

Well as you are the only person in England that does not know what RAWK is I assume you are a Rag. You said in relation to fouls VAR would not overturn a referees decision. when your lot played n the FA Cup last season a Rag was red carded only for VAR to over rule it and change it to yellow. I am sure you saw it on television, one billion others did.

I'm still lost! because i agree with the goal being disallowed but that the ref should have given a penalty for the foul at the corner ? that makes me a supporter of another team ?

i don't agree with pitch invasions and violence . so that makes me a shit house supporter ?

edit :

i typed in rawk after i felt assured it wasn't an an acronym for a type of porn or romance ( swalk for example )