Var debate 2019/20

On the Salah penalty yesterday, I was surprised that in the first instance Atkinson didn't give Luiz a red card?

I thought the law was if a penalty is awarded for a foul, if its not a genuine attempt to challenge for the ball its a straight red and a penalty, not a yellow?

Pulling the shirt back is not a genuine attempt to challenge for the ball? And if Atkinson was incorrect and it's a red card offence, why didnt VAR overturn as would have been clear and obvious error?
 
qatar blue said:
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
Click to expand...

Indeed there is! It starts with the colour of the shirt. No amount of technology, super human characteristics, nor bionic eyesight will turn football arbitration into a level field. Rodri was fouled three times by Lamela, each one should have resulted in a pen but Swarbrick classes it as a dive. It'll be the same Swarbrick that classifies every fuckin' Dipper tumble, stumble and dive as a pen!

No VAR controversy yesterday, although I am surprised the Palace winner wasn't chalked off, but there will be some today. I forecast it will be somewhere on the south coast, kick off somewhere around two o'clock.
 
Basically, you can't score a goal yourself after a non-deliberate handball, full stop. Either directly or after juggling the ball for half a minute.
You can't make a goal for another player if you control the ball or get to it first (gain possession) after your own non-deliberate handball.

It doesn't say anything about the ball ricocheting off you to another player. So it's not handball.

If the goalie blasts a clearance at you and you've got your arms by your side, you don't move them and the ball hits your arm/hand, it's not handball. If it bounces off you and hits the bar, it's not handball. If it bounces off you and goes in, it's handball. According to the letter of the law.

I don't know why they just didn't say that after a non-deliberate handball, the same player commits an offence by being the next player to touch the ball. So attackers and defenders know that if it accidentally hits their hand, it's no problem as long as another player touches it next.
 
gingerprince said:
On the Salah penalty yesterday, I was surprised that in the first instance Atkinson didn't give Luiz a red card?

I thought the law was if a penalty is awarded for a foul, if its not a genuine attempt to challenge for the ball its a straight red and a penalty, not a yellow?

Pulling the shirt back is not a genuine attempt to challenge for the ball? And if Atkinson was incorrect and it's a red card offence, why didnt VAR overturn as would have been clear and obvious error?
Click to expand...
Double jeopardy law from last season if a penalty awarded yellow card .
 
gingerprince said:
On the Salah penalty yesterday, I was surprised that in the first instance Atkinson didn't give Luiz a red card?

I thought the law was if a penalty is awarded for a foul, if its not a genuine attempt to challenge for the ball its a straight red and a penalty, not a yellow?

Pulling the shirt back is not a genuine attempt to challenge for the ball? And if Atkinson was incorrect and it's a red card offence, why didnt VAR overturn as would have been clear and obvious error?
Click to expand...
No a new rule was brought in , double jeopardy ? a penalty will be awarded but only a booking
 
caseball said:
Basically, you can't score a goal yourself after a non-deliberate handball, full stop. Either directly or after juggling the ball for half a minute.
You can't make a goal for another player if you control the ball or get to it first (gain possession) after your own non-deliberate handball.

It doesn't say anything about the ball ricocheting off you to another player. So it's not handball.

If the goalie blasts a clearance at you and you've got your arms by your side, you don't move them and the ball hits your arm/hand, it's not handball. If it bounces off you and hits the bar, it's not handball. If it bounces off you and goes in, it's handball. According to the letter of the law.

I don't know why they just didn't say that after a non-deliberate handball, the same player commits an offence by being the next player to touch the ball. So attackers and defenders know that if it accidentally hits their hand, it's no problem as long as another player touches it next.
Click to expand...
But yet we were told last season in the CL a penalty will be awarded regardless if the ball hits you on the arm
 
I came away from City and watched the highlights last week thinking the longer I watch football the less I understand. I read the rules, often with the Oxford English Dictionary to hand. I have not watched other teams much but have read what fellow Blues say, even those Blues whose main intention seems to to to try and prove their fellow Blues wrong. It reminds me of the Brexit debate whereby those that voted one way or the other now argue black is white to justify their original decision.

Anyway I've just watched Match of the Day and quite a few incidents and goals. All decisions were done quite quickly although I don't necessarily agree with all of them. If all goals are subject to VAR scrutiny they did that pretty quick. But why do they take so long in reviewing City's goals? It's as if they are searching all sorts of camera angle to see if they can find the slightest reason to disallow. Quite the opposite for the rugby tackle on Eric was dismissed out of hand and instantly by both match and VAR refs.
 
simon23 said:
If you cannt even admit it came of Laportes arm when several players of our own have alluded to that in their comments then there is no point.

It created an opportunity accidentally (not deliverately)

https://www.mancity.com/citytv/citytv-landing
Look at the city website highlights...7:21 - 7:41 (and at about 7.40 you can clearly see it hit Laportes arm)..the corner is an outs winging corner by KDB with his right foot meaning that if noone touhes the ball it would of ended up going out of the penalty area somwhere probably to the left of where the ref is initially stood as the ball is crossed and the the right of the Number 28 spurs player....look at where the ball does end up (with GJ just near the edge of teh 6 yd aea when he takes his first touch yet Laporte is probably about a yd or two to the right and a yd in front of the penalty spot when it comes off his arm......

the ball actually changes direction completely
Click to expand...



You are not being fair here, in your desire to win the argument. Main points in capitals, purely to stand out, no offence intended.


Your claim of 'Nobody touching the ball' is irrelevant & unfair.

Because it isn't going to happen.

Laporte has won the battle & he is getting the ball. Illegal interference from the defender, causes it to hit Laporte's arm, rather than him winning it, as he would otherwise have done. NO WAY IS HE MISSING THE BALL.

He is not shit, he is going to make contact with the ball. The defender turns it into handball.

Next, without even arguing the grammatical meaning of the rule: the ball clearly goes BEHIND Jesus, NOT TO HIM.

There is A SPURS PLAYER ABSOLUTELY LEVEL IN DISTANCE FROM THE BALL with Jesus, as it is deflected. it goes between them IT DOESN'T GO TO JESUS. HE GOES TO THE BALL & WINS THE RACE.

Stop the video & look at it. Jesus is INSIDE THE SIX YARD BOX MOVING TOWARD GOAL, as the ball comes toward Laporte with the ball eventually going BEHIND where Jesus is currently heading.

'Creates a goalscoring opportunity' remember.

Jesus, BRILLIANTLY, swivels & reacts, as a Spurs player FACING THE BALL, stands still as Jesus begins to move AWAY FROM THE GOAL.

This brilliant reaction speed, allows him to reach the LOOSE BALL, because he reacts to the LOOSE BALL, before the Spurs player & it gives him a yard of advantage HE DIDN'T HAVE, when the ball was touched.


He then RUNS AWAY FROM THE GOAL, to reach a LOOSE BALL. Then, surrounded by Spurs players, he MOVES FURTHER AWAY from the goal, with the ball & then shoots, with THREE SPURS PLAYERS charging the ball down, & ANOTHER SPURS PLAYER in front of the goal.

Look at the points in capitals & see the adjudications V.A.R. has made, all going in favour of Spurs, in order to disallow that goal.

Surely you can see that the ball does not go to Jesus, it is him who goes to the ball ?

Surely you can see, tat there is a Spurs defender who is in a better position than Jesus, to reach that ball ?

Surely, even if you can't admit that, you can at least admit that there is doubt Jesus could have reached he ball, if both ran at the same time ?

Surely you can see hat Jesus is moving away from goal, in order to get to the ball, with several Spurs defenders coming out toward him ?


This is a quite brilliant goal, by a brilliant player & no credit has gone to him, because he has been cheated out of it, by incorrect application of the rules.

If he reacts as slowly as the Spurs defender, he doesn't score. If he doesn't then pick his spot through 4 Spurs defenders, he doesn't score.

It's a brilliant, brilliant goal MADE BY JESUS & stolen from him & it's not fucking fair, at all.
 
Neville Kneville said:


You are not being fair here, in your desire to win the argument. Main points in capitals, purely to stand out, no offence intended.


Your claim of 'Nobody touching the ball' is irrelevant & unfair.

Because it isn't going to happen.

Laporte has won the battle & he is getting the ball. Illegal interference from the defender, causes it to hit Laporte's arm, rather than him winning it, as he would otherwise have done. NO WAY IS HE MISSING THE BALL.

He is not shit, he is going to make contact with the ball. The defender turns it into handball.

Next, without even arguing the grammatical meaning of the rule: the ball clearly goes BEHIND Jesus, NOT TO HIM.

There is A SPURS PLAYER ABSOLUTELY LEVEL IN DISTANCE FROM THE BALL with Jesus, as it is deflected. it goes between them IT DOESN'T GO TO JESUS. HE GOES TO THE BALL & WINS THE RACE.

Stop the video & look at it. Jesus is INSIDE THE SIX YARD BOX MOVING TOWARD GOAL, as the ball comes toward Laporte with the ball eventually going BEHIND where Jesus is currently heading.

'Creates a goalscoring opportunity' remember.

Jesus, BRILLIANTLY, swivels & reacts, as a Spurs player FACING THE BALL, stands still as Jesus begins to move AWAY FROM THE GOAL.

This brilliant reaction speed, allows him to reach the LOOSE BALL, because he reacts to the LOOSE BALL, before the Spurs player & it gives him a yard of advantage HE DIDN'T HAVE, when the ball was touched.


He then RUNS AWAY FROM THE GOAL, to reach a LOOSE BALL. Then, surrounded by Spurs players, he MOVES FURTHER AWAY from the goal, with the ball & then shoots, with THREE SPURS PLAYERS charging the ball down, & ANOTHER SPURS PLAYER in front of the goal.

Look at the points in capitals & see the adjudications V.A.R. has made, all going in favour of Spurs, in order to disallow that goal.

Surely you can see that the ball does not go to Jesus, it is him who goes to the ball ?

Surely you can see, tat there is a Spurs defender who is in a better position than Jesus, to reach that ball ?

Surely, even if you can't admit that, you can at least admit that there is doubt Jesus could have reached he ball, if both ran at the same time ?

Surely you can see hat Jesus is moving away from goal, in order to get to the ball, with several Spurs defenders coming out toward him ?


This is a quite brilliant goal, by a brilliant player & no credit has gone to him, because he has been cheated out of it, by incorrect application of the rules.

If he reacts as slowly as the Spurs defender, he doesn't score. If he doesn't then pick his spot through 4 Spurs defenders, he doesn't score.

It's a brilliant, brilliant goal MADE BY JESUS & stolen from him & it's not fucking fair, at all.
Click to expand...

Great post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.