Brilliant summary & agreed. I highlighted the bold parts days ago, but many of us are refusing to contemplate that we agreed to the new rule, & to the letter of the law, the deflection from Laporte, created the goal scoring opportunity for Jesus.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:
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)
- 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
(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.
Again, this is why clarification is needed. The ruling also says, 'and creates a goal scoring opportunity'. Unfortunately, if Laporte hadn't touched the ball, its flight trajectory would have sent the ball to the player stood in front of Jesus. The deflection created a goal scoring opportunity for Jesus 'eventually', but was it in the same phase of play? I don't think it was, so the goal should have stood for that reason alone.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.
Brilliant summary & agreed. I highlighted the bold parts days ago, but many of us are refusing to contemplate that we agreed to the new rule, & to the letter of the law, the deflection from Laporte, created the goal scoring opportunity for Jesus.
However, I still maintain that we should concentrate our fire on clarification of the wording & what constitutes a new phase of play. VAR has a bloody long way to go yet!
Again, this is why clarification is needed. The ruling also says, 'and creates a goal scoring opportunity'. Unfortunately, if Laporte hadn't touched the ball, its flight trajectory would have sent the ball to the player stood in front of Jesus. The deflection created a goal scoring opportunity for Jesus 'eventually', but was it in the same phase of play? I don't think it was, so the goal should have stood for that reason alone.
I have to luxury of slow motion mate. It took me 2 days to calm down enough before I could bring myself to watch the incident again, but I didn't need to use slow motion to see the ball properly deflected off Laporte.I though the deflection was off the attackers arm as it appeared to contact both simultaneously?
Head of VAR at Stockley Park, Neil Swarbrick on the Rodri penalty decision: “It was a coming-together of two players and it was looked at. The arm was around the top of the body, fractionally. If you look at that in slow motion, multiple times, it’s exaggerated..."
Neil Swarbrick: “He’s [Rodri] felt some contact. Can he win the header? No he can’t. It was ‘I’ve gone down looking for a penalty’. That’s how the referee read the incident." [via @SunSport]
I want to throttle this twat and see if he falls to the ground or not
OR 'Create a goal scoring opportunity' which it technically did. Lol :-)Agreed and the wording actually makes it 2 phases, so it should have been a goal.
The player has to have control/possession and THEN (2nd phase) create a goal scoring opportunity.
Yes, but isn't a deflection a form of 'control'? Much the same as a save, block or pass? It's one action which influences what the ball does next which may or may not affect the outcome???I agree but it says " creates a goal scoring opportunity" AFTER he's supposed to have control/possession of the ball, he never did, IF he had control of the situation he would have headed it and not handled it.
This post from earlier sums it up perfectly......
It is an offence if a player:
(I added the emphasis).
- 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
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 opportunity 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.