Var debate 2019/20

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

The problem was players putting it in with their hands,the solution is use VAR to check that doesn't happen,simple,problem solved,no need to mission creep but they couldn't help themselves,changing the handball rule to benefit defenders and penalise attackers was not needed,they can blame who they want but they are not using the rules properly,so far they are trying to ref the game like it's a computer game,as for saying rodders dived,they have lost all credibility,2 games in

They have not only destroyed any credibility, but they have also proved that is possible for the officials to cheat using VAR, and lie about it.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I think we're saying the same thing......pass back to player behind the ball.........which is what happened for the wolves goal isn't it?

Not quite.
If the player is behind the ball, then the law states that that is fine always

However, I think It is possible for a player to be in front of the ball, the ball to be played backwards, and the said player to run back and receive the ball. If he is in an offside position when the ball is played backwards, he's offside regardless of where he is when he gets the ball.

e,g, a short corner is played by player 1 (P1) to Player 2 (P2). P2 is obviously onside here.
P1 remains still in the quadrant, and is now in an offside position and in front of the ball (but not committing an offence at the time)
P2 knocks the ball five yards back up the touchline towards the halfway line.
P1 runs back and gets the ball, becoming active, and is flagged offside as he was in an offside position when the ball is played.

Bit nerdy, I know.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Agreed. Pep called for VAR & we voted for it & presumably were made aware of handball in the penalty area changes. We can argue all we like about the wording which is open to interpretation, but the fact is the ball hit Lsporte's hand.

I feel we as fans should concentrate our fire on the phases, parity with defenders touching the ball in the area, & clarification of the wording issues, as to get caught up in whether it's right to penalise an attacker who touches the ball with his hand kind of dilutes our fire on the more glaring VAR issues.

People saying 'hit Laport's hand' like he actually deflected the ball somehow. In reality contact was so slight he probably didn't even feel it.

 

[Dribble]

People saying 'hit Laport's hand' like he actually deflected the ball somehow. In reality contact was so slight he probably didn't even feel it.

I checked it again mate, & there was a definite deflection right to Jesus, accidental or not. My issue is, with all the work Jesus had to do, was the goal scored in the same phase as the handball?

 

[simon23]

Premier League‏Verified account @premierleague


"Any goal scored or created with the use of the hand or arm will be disallowed this season even if it is accidental."


That is what the Premier league Twitter posted, so are they ignoring the specific detailed guidelines by IFAB regarding handball?

On the official Premier League site it says the same thing....

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1263332?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

BUT at the bottom they direct you to read the new IFAB guidelines

See: IFAB handball law changes in full

Sooo, what the hell does that mean? Do the Premier league have different rules than IFAB? ie Any accidental handball scored or created is handball or is it lazily written and the specific guidelines of possession and control of the ball still stand that IFAB wrote and the Premier league gives a link to IFAB to read the detailed guidelines?

This HAS to be cleared up as it's night and day difference for what could be a goal or not a goal. Like what happened to us v Spurs.

ive just read the link that you have posted and Ive copied and pasted the two bits that relate to the incident we are talking about.

The following ‘handball’ situations, even if accidental, will be a free kick:

• a player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity
• 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

Ive posted this before but the use of the word "or" to me means that the goal was rightfully disallowed. The "or" word means that the player doesn't have to have been in control because its one "or" the other situation; either in control or creates a goal scoring opportunity (obviously a player could both gain control by handball and then create a goal scoring opportunity as well)

(Just wondering if anyone has noticed the grammatical error in the first bullet point on the actual document as well - "has touches" should read "has touched") so even this document isn't correct!


On the complete flip side what would be interesting to know (and only Laporte himself would know this) is if the ball glanced off his head first because if it did then this sentance (taken diretly fromt he premiership webiste but is also present to on the IFAB one) coms into play and says our goal should of been allowed:

So a handball will not be awarded if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/nearby.

I think its impossible to get this perfect... for me the closest to perfect you can get is to take accidenta handball out of the equation but then its up to the ref to judge intention (which is exactly why the rule was changed to take the question of intent out of it for refs....but there are some situations where intent (or not) is clear and the Laporte one would be one such situation.

 

[Florida Blue]

Agreed. Pep called for VAR & we voted for it & presumably were made aware of handball in the penalty area changes. We can argue all we like about the wording which is open to interpretation, but the fact is the ball hit Lsporte's hand.

I feel we as fans should concentrate our fire on the phases, parity with defenders touching the ball in the area, & clarification of the wording issues, as to get caught up in whether it's right to penalise an attacker who touches the ball with his hand kind of dilutes our fire on the more glaring VAR issues.

We agreed on VAR yes, BUT the ruling isn't being carried out correctly in this incident, which cost us 2 points.
The wording is not open to interpretation, the Prem use a completely different explanation to IFAB, they throw in the word "accidental" when it's not in the IFAB ruling. And that makes a massive difference. It can hit a persons hand, that is the whole point. It's only if he controls it after the handball and creates a chance is it handball.
Agreed the defender and attacker should be equally punished.

Start tying arms behind players backs to stop all the nonsense.

 

[crublue1]

Correct it wasn’t introduced to prevent us winning. However it is and will be used as a weapon against us We should be top of the league 6 points 9 for 2 against and we aren’t

No we aren't and it's a fair point, we should be. But even without var maybe we would be in exactly the same position, considering many believe there was/ is an agenda.
I am slightly concerned we are getting our excuses in just in case, but I honestly think we are that good it won't affect us over a full season. I really hope I'm not being naive . If we'd have put our chances away like we know we can we would be clear. I still think we will win it.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I checked it again mate, & there was a definite deflection right to Jesus, accidental or not. My issue is, with all the work Jesus had to do, was the goal scored in the same phase as the handball?

The key fact is under the IFAB handball rules the goal can't be disallowed. The VAR officials are NOT following the IFAB rules. They have been given conflicting advice from the FA. This will have to be resolved.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I checked it again mate, & there was a definite deflection right to Jesus, accidental or not. My issue is, with all the work Jesus had to do, was the goal scored in the same phase as the handball?

I though the deflection was off the attackers arm as it appeared to contact both simultaneously?

 

[Florida Blue]

ive just read the link that you have posted and Ive copied and pasted the two bits that relate to the incident we are talking about.

The following ‘handball’ situations, even if accidental, will be a free kick:

• a player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity
• 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

Ive posted this before but the use of the word "or" to me means that the goal was rightfully disallowed. The "or" word means that the player doesn't have to have been in control because its one "or" the other situation; either in control or creates a goal scoring opportunity (obviously a player could both gain control by handball and then create a goal scoring opportunity as well)

(Just wondering if anyone has noticed the grammatical error in the first bullet point on the actual document as well - "has touches" should read "has touched") so even this document isn't correct!


On the complete flip side what would be interesting to know (and only Laporte himself would know this) is if the ball glanced off his head first because if it did then this sentance (taken diretly fromt he premiership webiste but is also present to on the IFAB one) coms into play and says our goal should of been allowed:

So a handball will not be awarded if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/nearby.

I think its impossible to get this perfect... for me the closest to perfect you can get is to take accidenta handball out of the equation but then its up to the ref to judge intention (which is exactly why the rule was changed to take the question of intent out of it for refs....but there are some situations where intent (or not) is clear and the Laporte one would be one such situation.

The key words are THEN and AFTER..... a player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity.

So he first has to gain control/possession ( which he never had at any point, it was a 50/50 header) then AFTER he then creates the goal scoring opportunity. Which would mean another touch to Jesus. None of that happened.