Var debate 2019/20

[salfordbluetrue]

Yes - he said there was no contact with the neck and the reason it wasn't given is that the player fell forwards instead of backwards.

It is a pity no one asked him the difference in contact with Sterlings booking?

 

[Dribble]

Correct, look at the hands position at the moment of contact, he's already decided to dive, contact or not.

It was a penalty. I looked at it in slow motion (which wasn't needed) & there was clear contact on Pogba's left foot which caused him to tumble.

Even Coady said it was a penalty in his post match interview. He admitted that Pogba's chop caught him out, & it was too late for him to stop his tackling motion, & he tripped him.

Penalties don't get much more conclusive to be fair.

 

[simon23]

Swarbrick's explanation is that it wasn't a penalty because if the contact was from behind Rodri should have fallen backwards instead of forwards.
I was praying for someone to ask him how it's physically possible for someone who is running forwards to fall backwards.

The problem with this whole situation is people like Swarbrick are too arrogant to accept they made a mistake. They think it would be a sign of weakness when in fact it would be the opposite. If he came out and said "yes it was an error and it should have been a penalty but we're in the early stages of the technology and we're trying to get it right" then people would still be pissed off but he'd retain some respect and a bit of leeway from fans.
To say it wasn't a penalty when it clearly and irrefutably was basically undermines the entire integrity of the system.

this is spot on.....this is what only makes the calls of corruption stronger......clear human error then point blank denial of error just makes people look guilty

 

[Dobber55]

Direct free kick

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• charges
• jumps at
• kicks or attempts to kick
• pushes
• strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
• tackles or challenges
• trips or attempts to trip

If an offence involves contact it is penalised by a direct free kick or penalty kick.

• Careless is when a player shows a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. No disciplinary sanction is needed
• Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned
• Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off

A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences:

• a handball offence (except for the goalkeeper within their penalty area)
• holds an opponent
• impedes an opponent with contact
• bites or spits at someone
• throws an object at the ball, opponent or match official, or makes contact with the ball with a held object

See also offences in Law 3



So which way should you fall Neil when someone holds you with their arms around your neck. FA laws, not mine not City's the FA's!!!

 

[Don Karleone]

It was a penalty. I looked at it in slow motion (which wasn't needed) & there was clear contact on Pogba's left foot which caused him to tumble.

Even Coady said it was a penalty in his post match interview. He admitted that Pogba's chop caught him out, & it was too late for him to stop his tackling motion, & he tripped him.

Penalties don't get much more conclusive to be fair.

Well they kinda do

 

[blue61]

The handball situation should be changed to be if the body of either defender or attacker is in an unnatural position then a free kick/penalty will be awarded, irrespective if it was intentional or not.

The exception being if a goal is scored directly off the arm/hand it is disallowed. This would even out the disadvantage to the attacking team that is in place at present

 

[PistonBlue]

Sorry, where can I listen to this Swarbrick interview?

 

[its a Barm]

Have we all calmed down yet, some knee jerk reactions over the weekend, personally still well pissed off but have come to realise we are the best team in the league and play football others can only dream of.

 

[Chris in London]

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.

I don’t see how it can be down to interpretation because the law is perfectly clear.

The rule is:

It is an offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
• 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
• scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper

(I added the emphasis).

So the law requires that A player (singular) gains control after it has touched THEIR arm AND THEN creates a goal scoring opportunity.

In other words, for this rule to come into play it has got to be the player whose arm the ball touches that gains control of the ball, and that same player has then got to create the opportity to score or score himself. If the ball had come off Aymeric’s arm, accidentally, but he had trapped it and passed it to Jesus to score, the rule would be engaged. Because the ball touches his arm, but Aymeric does not gain control of the ball, the rule was not engaged. That is according to the clear, unambiguous words of the rule.

The law says nothing about a player from the same team gaining control, and if that’s what IFAB had intended it would have been perfectly easy for them to say so in the new rule. It makes perfect sense to say that an accidental ricochet where a player from the same team is on the receiving end is not the same as that player taking advantage of his own accidental handball. If the rule was ambiguous I can see why you might look at what it designed to prevent to understand what it was supposed to mean, but where the wording of the rule is clear as it is here, you don’t need to go any further than the rule itself.

Face it mate, a perfectly good goal was wrongly disallowed.

 

[jonmcity]

Am actually more worried now that we all know that they will just use VAR to stop the goals they don't want to happen. look how they tried to stop the Wolves goal last night. The technology is not good enough to rule on very close offsides, i.e. angles speed of shutter after ball is kicked. We will not see the close ones they ignore.