asahartford1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 15 Nov 2016
- Messages
- 8,833
I thought at the time pep was being naive.. Probably thought of the English sense of fair play. But it is not cricket. He will be pulling his hair out before the end of the season.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Var debate 2019/20
- Thread starter Chi-town blues
- Start date
I thought at the time pep was being naive.. Probably thought of the English sense of fair play. But it is not cricket. He will be pulling his hair out before the end of the season.
ChicagoBlue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 10 Jan 2009
- Messages
- 16,560
I’m with you, mate! WE are not the problem...or the decision-makers!Well to me it's pretty clear. If after you've touched it, you are able to play the ball (when without touching it you would not have been able to) then you have brought it under control.
FootballSense
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 525
"gain possession/contr
Spot the difference
1. scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm
2. gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then Scores in the opponents goal
What is the minimum amount of touches inclusive of handball to score in the opponents goal in sentence 1 and how many touches including handball does it take to score in sentence 2.
The answer to sentence 1 is one touch. The answer to sentence 2 is at least two touches.
Now for a player to meet the criteria of sentence 2, he would have to be the next player to touch the ball after it hit his arm in order to score in the opponents goal. That is why the rule is written with reference to possession and or control of the ball after it hits his arm.
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
After the ball had touched Laporte`s arm, when did he gain possession / control of the ball ? If he had gained possession / control, how did he then create a goal scoring opportunity?
The ball touched his arm and brushed past all in one movement. Laporte was never actually in possession /control of the ball as I understand the meaning of those words.
The fact that it touched his arm (without Laporte being in possession or control) and then led to or created (create meaning to cause it to happen or exist ) an opportunity for Jesus who created and scored the `goal` appears not to be relevant if the player (Laporte) has not been in possession / control of the ball.
All parts of the Rule 12 have to be satisfied for the goal to be disallowed and I do not believe that they have. What`s your view?
Colin Bell (genuine name)
Well-Known Member
It is an offence if a player:
Highlighted in red are the results of actions taken by a player in committing the offence of handball. Both results are the same but the law leading to each result is different.
In number 3 it would take a minimum of one touch inclusive of handball to score in the opponents goal.
In number 2(a) it would take a minimum of two touches inclusive of handball to complete the offence or else it would be no different from number 3.
The addition of number 3 by IFAB conclusively means that the player in number 2 must be the player who makes the first touch after the handball and explains why the wording of gains possession/control is there.
Therefore he would not only have to be the player that has the first touch after the handball to score in the opponents goal but also the first player to touch the ball after the handball to create a goal scoring opportunity.
The argument suggesting that Laporte created a goal scoring opportunity with the deflection is not supported by the rules, as rule 2 clearly states he must have gained possession or control of the ball.
If the deflection off the arm had gone straight into the goal then the offence would have been covered in number 3 above. If he had somehow struck the ball into the net after the handball then he would have satisfied the conditions in rule 2.
It angers me that these decisions based on flawed understanding of the rules are going to continue unchallenged, or unfortunately challenged by those with the same flawed understanding.
- 1. deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
- 2. gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
- 2(a) scores in the opponents’ goal
- 2(b) creates a goal-scoring opportunity
- 2(a) scores in the opponents’ goal
- 3. scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
Highlighted in red are the results of actions taken by a player in committing the offence of handball. Both results are the same but the law leading to each result is different.
In number 3 it would take a minimum of one touch inclusive of handball to score in the opponents goal.
In number 2(a) it would take a minimum of two touches inclusive of handball to complete the offence or else it would be no different from number 3.
The addition of number 3 by IFAB conclusively means that the player in number 2 must be the player who makes the first touch after the handball and explains why the wording of gains possession/control is there.
Therefore he would not only have to be the player that has the first touch after the handball to score in the opponents goal but also the first player to touch the ball after the handball to create a goal scoring opportunity.
The argument suggesting that Laporte created a goal scoring opportunity with the deflection is not supported by the rules, as rule 2 clearly states he must have gained possession or control of the ball.
If the deflection off the arm had gone straight into the goal then the offence would have been covered in number 3 above. If he had somehow struck the ball into the net after the handball then he would have satisfied the conditions in rule 2.
It angers me that these decisions based on flawed understanding of the rules are going to continue unchallenged, or unfortunately challenged by those with the same flawed understanding.
northwichblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 2,079
What happened to the ball after it brushed Eric's arm, did it fall at Gabbys feet?.
Colin Bell (genuine name)
Well-Known Member
What happened to the ball after it brushed Eric's arm, did it fall at Gabbys feet?.
No Gabby had to alter his run and make two yards to collect the ball before playing it into space and creating a chance to shoot, he then curled it round 4 defenders, and David silva into the net. The ball travelled about ten yards before Gabby collected it, certainly didn't land at his feet.
northwichblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 22 Apr 2012
- Messages
- 2,079
No Gabby had to alter his run and make two yards to collect the ball before playing it into space and creating a chance to shoot, he then curled it round 4 defenders, and David silva into the net. The ball travelled about ten yards before Gabby collected it, certainly didn't land at his feet.
Well what the fuck are var going on about, where was the goal scoring opportunity there
FootballSense
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Sep 2014
- Messages
- 525
Don't get angry, get even CB.It is an offence if a player:
- 1. deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
- 2. gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
- 2(a) scores in the opponents’ goal
- 2(b) creates a goal-scoring opportunity
- 3. scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
Highlighted in red are the results of actions taken by a player in committing the offence of handball. Both results are the same but the law leading to each result is different.
In number 3 it would take a minimum of one touch inclusive of handball to score in the opponents goal.
In number 2(a) it would take a minimum of two touches inclusive of handball to complete the offence or else it would be no different from number 3.
The addition of number 3 by IFAB conclusively means that the player in number 2 must be the player who makes the first touch after the handball and explains why the wording of gains possession/control is there.
Therefore he would not only have to be the player that has the first touch after the handball to score in the opponents goal but also the first player to touch the ball after the handball to create a goal scoring opportunity.
The argument suggesting that Laporte created a goal scoring opportunity with the deflection is not supported by the rules, as rule 2 clearly states he must have gained possession or control of the ball.
If the deflection off the arm had gone straight into the goal then the offence would have been covered in number 3 above. If he had somehow struck the ball into the net after the handball then he would have satisfied the conditions in rule 2.
It angers me that these decisions based on flawed understanding of the rules are going to continue unchallenged, or unfortunately challenged by those with the same flawed understanding.
Are you actively challenging the decisions based on your unflawed understanding of the rules?
Colin Bell (genuine name)
Well-Known Member
Yep!Don't get angry, get even CB.
Are you actively challenging the decisions based on your unflawed understanding of the rules?
Just emailed Duncan Castles at the Guardian as he seemed to be the only one to question the Premier Leagues adaption of the rules.
Why? Do you think my explanation is unflawed?
Right, sorry, I have been to the pub and as it was a £1 a pint I felt it was my duty to... anyway, is this the thread where the pretend Rag/Dipper posts under the name LoadsofDickov or similar ? if so has he been fucked off yet ?