Var debate 2019/20

[M12Blue]

No idea if they went to VAR but is there a difference between a grab and pull of the arm (Laporte) and a grab and tug of the shirt (salah). It is these inconsistencies that infuriate

 

[blue b4 the moon]

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.

That diver James did exactly the same at Wolves after he'd been yellowed for a dive earlier. Seems it's not a card offence until we eventually do it.

 

[SWP's back]

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.

That is the most annoying element of it for me. I had hoped that we'd actually start getting the penalties we should have through VAR but as VAR doesn't over rule the ref, it's fucking pointless.

 

[SWP's back]

No idea if they went to VAR but is there a difference between a grab and pull of the arm (Laporte) and a grab and tug of the shirt (salah). It is these inconsistencies that infuriate

Sadly that's nothing to do with VAR and everything to do with the ref on the pitch as they are classed as subjective decisions so VAR won't over rule the ref as the bar for "clear and obvious" errors is so high as to be unachievable. So we are back stuck with incompetent refs having to make a split second decision in real time.

 

[M12Blue]

That is the most annoying element of it for me. I had hoped that we'd actually start getting the penalties we should have through VAR but as VAR doesn't over rule the ref, it's fucking pointless.

Doesn’t need to over rule, but surely VAR should say to on field ref, ‘you might want to look at that sgain’

 

[cibaman]

Doesn’t need to over rule, but surely VAR should say to on field ref, ‘you might want to look at that sgain’

In an ideal world, yes. But I don’t think that pitch side reviews will last the season. Too much potential for crowd aggro.

 

[Blue Mooner]

Due to recent new arrivals in the blue mooner household been on here intermittently in the last 18 months but notice when it comes to supporting the corrupt footballing authorities against the blatant bias that City face week in week out Frank Sinatra and SWP's Back continue to spam threads with their nonsense.

Maybe if the authorities hadn't been awarding non penalties as penalties in the first three games for the rags, when a real one presents itself they wouldn't have created a rod for their own back. Are the rags going to be getting more penalties than games played now? because that would have been 4 in 3 (on that trend they would be getting 48 this season!) that's some going when considering City managed 4 all season last year...

But of course the rag masses can somehow portray this as injustice, laughable.

 

[SWP's back]

Doesn’t need to over rule, but surely VAR should say to on field ref, ‘you might want to look at that sgain’

That's what I mean by over rule sorry. They've not done it once in 27 games for penalty situations so far.

 

[caseball]

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?

I think BlueMooner did it in the post immediately after yours.

 

[danielwood5]

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

Just to add to the confusion but the wording you've quoted from that IFAB pdf is slightly different to the wording on their own website, the wording on their website is given as;
Handling the ball
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
  

It is usually an offence if a player:

• touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
  
  • the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger
    
    
  • the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
    

The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close.

Except for the above offences, it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:

• directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)
  
  
• directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close
  
  
• if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally bigger
  
  
• when a player falls and the hand/arm is between the body and the ground to support the body, but not extended laterally or vertically away from the body
  

The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but there is no disciplinary sanction.

There's no 'or' in this version of the law that's why it reads to most people as 'A player gains control/possession from their hand/arm and then scores or creates'
The law isn't written well at all and it doesn't help that there's no consistency between the way it's written in different places.
To me it seems odd that they'd go to the trouble of separating the law into different parts covering scoring directly from the hand and gaining control/possession when they could have just put that if a ball hits an attackers hand which leads to a goal either directly or indirectly then it's a free kick to the opposition.
The PL's blanket version of this law says exactly that but doesn't say anything about creating a goal scoring opportunity which is where it gets murky in regards to Jesus' goal last weekend. Did the Laporte 'handball' create a goal scoring opportunity or did it create a loose ball which Jesus reacted quickest to and then used his skill to create that opportunity? I know which I think but the VAR crew just went with the PL version of the law again and a little bit more of the game in this country died.