Var debate 2019/20

[ctid1894]

Me personally I thought they should of had another two pens, one being a fuckin stonewall.

Absolutely no chance after seeing them on MOTD. I initially thought the Martial one was a foul outside the box and carried on into the box after speaking to a rag and watching it on a tiny phone screen. Now I’ve seen it properly there’s no chance, there’s a pull outside the box but the defenders released his grip by the time he gets in the box.

The Rashford one again no chance, there’s not even a challenge made. Rashford loses his footing but it’s not due to a foul, it’s due to the speed and change of direction.

 

[Fordyboy46]

A Norwich player stood on Mason Mounts foot today, Sutton said it should've been a red card, looked at but not a card given , just because it was a plucky Norwich player commiting the offence. It definitely is influenced by which teams the var guy likes/ dislikes. Nobody likes us so we'll continually be shafted, this will carry on for the remainder of the season.

 

[caseball]

Oh FFS!!!

the ball fell to GJ directly from Laportes arm.....it created a chance

A number of posters IMO misunderstand the text.

If the creation of a goal scoring opportunity was all that is required to make a non-deliberate contact an offence, then it would have its own bullet point, just like the other three scenarios under changes in that link. If you look at the wording, the initial argument of the amendment is what defines the contact as an offence.

1st case ......the ball goes into the goal........
3rd case......the ball touches a player's hand/arm........
4th case......the ball touches a player's hand/arm........

The second case is the one applied to Laporte and it begins.....a player gains control/possession......therefore, to be consistent, that must be what defines the offence. But it doesn't end there.

The second case ends with the words, or creates a goalscoring opportunity. If the goalscoring opportunity constituted an offence in itself, there would be a separate amendment along the lines of......a player creates a goalscoring opportunity after the ball has touched their hand/arm. In the second case, the first part of the text cannot be separated from the last part of the text because then you would have to deal with the following train of thought.....after it has touched their hand/arm and then creates a goalscoring opportunity. I think everyone would agree that doesn't make sense.

Simplify the argument by still leaving out the bit about scoring a goal, put the first part back in and you get......a player gains control/possesssion of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then creates a goalscoring opportunity. It makes perfect sense again. Now just to complete the picture, stick the scoring a goal back in at the end.....a player gains control/possesssion of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then creates a goalscoring opportunity, or scores a goal

Everything after the bullet point belongs together. The word or signals the alternative to scoring a goal not the alternative to gaining possession.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

From the Daily Fail...just as many of us have been saying...VAR IS LITERALLY UNABLE TO BE AS PRECISE AS THEY ARE TRYING TO SAY IT IS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE DRAW8NG 3D LINES FROM HIS FUCKING ARMPIT!! Disgrace!!!

“Premier League bosses have admitted that VAR is constrained by technology when determining tight offside calls.

The Mail on Sunday revealed last week that the 50 frames-per-second footage used by VAR meant officials could not be definitive on the most marginal offsides.

Raheem Sterling was judged to be 2.4cm offside against West Ham United on the opening day of the season despite the Manchester City forward running so fast he would move 13cm between frames, while it was also often impossible to judge the precise moment that the ball was played.”

 

[SWP's back]

Only providing it brushes the arm of a CITY player

Wolves would argue the accuracy of that post.

 

[caseball]

From the Daily Fail...just as many of us have been saying...VAR IS LITERALLY UNABLE TO BE AS PRECISE AS THEY ARE TRYING TO SAY IT IS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY ARE DRAW8NG 3D LINES FROM HIS FUCKING ARMPIT!! Disgrace!!!

“Premier League bosses have admitted that VAR is constrained by technology when determining tight offside calls.

The Mail on Sunday revealed last week that the 50 frames-per-second footage used by VAR meant officials could not be definitive on the most marginal offsides.

Raheem Sterling was judged to be 2.4cm offside against West Ham United on the opening day of the season despite the Manchester City forward running so fast he would move 13cm between frames, while it was also often impossible to judge the precise moment that the ball was played.”

But I suppose they'll have to carry on with it now at least until the end of the season. They'll just sneakily stop using it for close calls. They're not too bright but sadly they're not too honest either.

 

[swinton blue]

After monday night football Neville stated that after 20 games not one decision has been overturned by var
Fast forward to the first game this weekend
There was a challenge on the keeper that is all day long a foul and a goal was scored the ref apparently let the goal stand which was laughable but var overturned it
It was like a token gesture to say we will overturn decisions

 

[Plain Speaking]

A number of posters IMO misunderstand the text.

If the creation of a goal scoring opportunity was all that is required to make a non-deliberate contact an offence, then it would have its own bullet point, just like the other three scenarios under changes in that link. If you look at the wording, the initial argument of the amendment is what defines the contact as an offence.

1st case ......the ball goes into the goal........
3rd case......the ball touches a player's hand/arm........
4th case......the ball touches a player's hand/arm........

The second case is the one applied to Laporte and it begins.....a player gains control/possession......therefore, to be consistent, that must be what defines the offence. But it doesn't end there.

The second case ends with the words, or creates a goalscoring opportunity. If the goalscoring opportunity constituted an offence in itself, there would be a separate amendment along the lines of......a player creates a goalscoring opportunity after the ball has touched their hand/arm. In the second case, the first part of the text cannot be separated from the last part of the text because then you would have to deal with the following train of thought.....after it has touched their hand/arm and then creates a goalscoring opportunity. I think everyone would agree that doesn't make sense.

Simplify the argument by still leaving out the bit about scoring a goal, put the first part back in and you get......a player gains control/possesssion of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then creates a goalscoring opportunity. It makes perfect sense again. Now just to complete the picture, stick the scoring a goal back in at the end.....a player gains control/possesssion of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then creates a goalscoring opportunity, or scores a goal

Everything after the bullet point belongs together. The word or signals the alternative to scoring a goal not the alternative to gaining possession.

I do believe that the offence was not what the law makers had in mind, when they drafted the wording for the new handball rule. However I am having difficulty understanding your post. Can you please simplify?

 

[Blue Mooner]

Look at the rule and then look at the explanation of the rule where the wording makes it slightly different...

I agree the bit you are quoting makes sense to your argument but there is another bit which you are completely filing to even acknowledge in the IFAB guaidance...

Yes i know the rules.....have you read the complete explantion...look at the link that was posted to IFAB the other day or if you want here is a copy and paste of it:

Deliberate handball remains an offence. The following ‘handball’ situations, even if accidental, will be a free kick:

• the ball goes into the goal after touching an attacking player’s hand/arm.

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

• the ball touches a player’s hand/arm which has made their body unnaturally bigger

• the ball touches a player’s hand/arm when it is above their shoulder (unless the player has deliberately played the ball which then touches their hand/arm)

thats not my words - that is a direct copy and paste from the IFAB site.

It is an offence (though it was accidental) and a free kick as the ball has gone into the net after his a players (Laporte's arm)....no he hasnt been in control or possession (though because he has changed the flight of the ball you could even argue that if you wanted to but Im not going to bother) but here is the important bit....OR creates a goal scoring opportunity (which laportes' arm accidentally did) as the ball changed direction off his arm and fell to the feet of GJ) who then scored after one touch.

The OR bit means he doesnt even have to be in control or possession. It means its an offence if the ball comes off his (or any players arm) and then creates a goal scoring opportinutiy regardless of possession.....

here is the full link:

http://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/documents/786/111531_110319_IFAB_LoG_at_a_Glance.pdf

Your rationale for explaining the interpretation of the bullet that relates to Laportes non handball is completely flawed logic and nonsensical.

It clearly states that for it to be handball that the 'accidental' handball must give the player control or possession of the football (if you think laporte's is control of the football then you cant have ever played the beautiful game) if that's not the case, (which it wasn't) the other conditions that a goal is scored OR a chance is created become null and void.

You have chosen to take the opening sentence about even if accidental (that applies to all the following bullets) then tack on just the 'or creates a goalscoring opportunity' from the complete sentence to suit your narrative. If that was how it was written then you might have a case but it's clearly not.....

 

[Plain Speaking]

After monday night football Neville stated that after 20 games not one decision has been overturned by var
Fast forward to the first game this weekend
There was a challenge on the keeper that is all day long a foul and a goal was scored the ref apparently let the goal stand which was laughable but var overturned it
It was like a token gesture to say we will overturn decisions

VAR are trying to avoid overruling decisions that the referee has apparently seen and made a decision on.

However they are not giving the referee a chance to review clear penalty offences he has, almost certainly, not properly seen. (Unlike how VAR was used at the World Cup). The wrestling of Rodri to the ground against Spurs was a prime example.