You only have to look at they way they tried to rule out Wolves goal v the rags last night.
It’s comical.
I think what they were saying that if it is not a clear and obvious error then it would not be looked at. Also Swarbrick mentioned trying to keep to a minimum the amount of decisions referred to VAR.
It certainly needs investigating. Swarbrick is claiming that VAR is there to support referees not replace them. But the call on Rodri was made by the VAR team. The Sky footage clearly shows that Oliver did not see the incident so he must have taken his lead from the VAR team without checking it. Just as he did for the disallowed Jesus goal. This is a total disgrace and it undermines referees and the integrity of the game. Swarbrick needs to be held to account for his comments on Radio 5 today.
VAR - there is a different interpretation of the Laporte `goal`.
The argument (which appears to have been accepted without careful scrutiny in the media) was that the decision to rule out the winning `goal` was a correct interpretation of a new handball rule and therefore by the letter of the new law correct (putting aside views about the actual law itself).
Referring to the new Rule 12
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
"It is an offence if a player:
The question is - after the ball had touched Laporte`s arm, did he gain possession / control of the ball and then create a goal scoring opportunity?
- 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"
The answer rests on what the words possession / control and create mean.
There is a strong case that the goal should have stood based on the letter of the new Law 12.
It was Jesus who then had to gain possession and control the ball which was on its way to him naturally in any case, and create it by kicking the ball to one side and curling his shot round Spurs players into the net.
It was all due to Jesus. Praise the Lord.
I don’t see how it can be down to interpretation because the law is perfectly clear.
The rule is:
(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.
Don't believe Oliver saw it. If you look at the replays he's looking at the ball not the playersI thought the bit where Swarbrick said that Oliver said to the VAR bods what he saw and they agreed was quite informative. I think Swarbrick also said they looked at it on live speed once. Not giving time to disagree with the ref seems odd.
Looked more like they were flicking between his arse and his elbow.Last night was the first time I have seen coloured lines appearing on my screen as they did a review.( wolves goal). Was this a mistake or trial, looked like they were trying to find the guys armpit. -;)
I don’t see how it can be down to interpretation because the law is perfectly clear.
The rule is:
(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.
Fucking hell,we don't stand a chance do weListening to Neil Swarbrick (Head of VAR) on the radio. He said Rodri dived lol. This is the level of corruption we are dealing with.