Var debate 2019/20

[SWP's back]

Perfectly said.
The handball didn’t leave to a goal opportunity, the player created one

I have to disagree, the ball ends up no where near Jesus without the touch from Laporte. As it hits him then Jesus only needs to take a touch to score and he could have hit it first time (a goal scoring opportunity).

It’s a stupid law that needs abolishing but according to the law then it’s the correct decision. I’m not sure why that’s such a controversial opinion as it’s the one held by every pundit I’ve read or listened to on podcast apart from Samuels and Castles and it’s also what PGMOL have further clarified and stuck by.

 

[SWP's back]

Look at the difference between the Salah one and the Martial one. Martial was clearly fouled and a lot more than Salah was.

Compared to the Salah one, Laporte has a similar kind of pull but on his hand.

Compared to them all Rodri was rugby tackled!

But only Salah got a penalty out of the four incidents.

That’s all true but nothing to do with var for reasons explained 100 times in the thread.

Those decisions are all from the Ref on the pitch, the same as they were last year. Var will do nothing at all to stop some teams receiving more soft penalties.

 

[Bandofblues]

Just a thought but have the PL and Swarbrick unintentionally created their own problem now ?
What I mean is do the ridiculous comments made by Swarbrick on Rodri mean that VAR is now afraid to give any penalty?
If they did then they would have to face the accusations of bias/cheating publicly. So doing nothing has maybe unintentionally become the default at the current time.
I think it could be an interesting few weeks ahead which is going to shape the use of VAR in the PL for the coming season.

 

[BertTrautmann'sParachute]

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.

People can argue till they're blue in the face but if that's not a goal then what is the point of watching football? Madness.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Swarbricks comments dont match what we saw, his comments only add fuel no defuse things.

How he could say that about this beggars belief

 

[Heisenberg's Blue Sky]

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.

This is the same point ive been trying to make and @Pam put so succeinctly yesterday, rightly or wrongly whether its a goal, its the scrutiny and time given over to our goals. Its as if they are looking for a way to disallow our goals. The Matip goal yesterday was a goal for me and just a bit of argy bargy in the box that weve seen countless times, didnt have a problem with it. But there was so much that could have been looked at before allowing the goal to stand. Based on our game i expected (foolishly maybe?) to see the ref stop the game while they took a look. But no, nothing of the sort and the dippers were free to celebrate snd revel in that celebration in real time, while we may have to hold our collectives breaths while waiting to see if its given. The Matip goal was how VAR is supposed to be, quick decisions that do not deny the fans that elation and let the game continue. But it seems we do not qualify for that. I have a slight impression that they'll happily fuck us over in order to 'iron out' their kinks then say oh we'll change that after the damage has been done to us.
We shouldnt be their fuckin guinea pigs, and all this shit should have been sorted before a ball was kicked. The application of VAR based on what ive seen so far (and granted it is early) in relation to our games seems a bit dodge.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

I also think the more people involved in making a decision the more likely it will go against us. We're all aware of the bias whether it be subconscious or direct, having more people influencing those subjective VAR calls increases the odds that decisions go against City.

It's the difference between 5 random guys all desparately looking for a reason -v- 1 ref under the spotlight having to make the right call. The fact they're hidden makes it easier imo

 

[Fabled mabel]

There was a 90 second delay at Anfield for a red card review. Brighton had a goal ruled out.

I do agree though City fans have had the very worst of VAR.

The game does still function well with VAR but that is not an argument in its favour.

I was originally in favour, now strongly against. There are somethings which technology could I think do quickly and precisely, but I don't like the 2nd human review over everything.

Presumably football makes the best of what they have this season and then in the Summer tinkers with it. The danager is that the referees start to defend it as their baby and refuse any justified criticism.

Cheers mate. MOTD just briefly mentioned a red card review was going on, they didn't know who was involved and cut back straight away, none the wiser. Didn't know Brighton and when they scored but it could intentionally have made all the difference. City's decisions the biggest with two in a match. In theory the loss of those two points could affect the Title.

I was happy to try it after the last world cup, less so after the Women's WC. We shall see how it goes through the season, but those two points are lost forever.

It doesn't help when large number of journo's talk about how can City be stopped even how can we stop them.

 

[meltonblue]

I have to disagree, the ball ends up no where near Jesus without the touch from Laporte. As it hits him then Jesus only needs to take a touch to score and he could have hit it first time (a goal scoring opportunity).

It’s a stupid law that needs abolishing but according to the law then it’s the correct decision. I’m not sure why that’s such a controversial opinion as it’s the one held by every pundit I’ve read or listened to on podcast apart from Samuels and Castles and it’s also what PGMOL have further clarified and stuck by.

Agree with this. The handball rule, I’ve said a few times is a ridiculous law made even more ridiculous by the PL interpretation of it. I get the underlying reason (the difficulties in assessing intent), but penalising anyone for something outside of their control should never happen for me. Ultimately though, the PL were clear about it and set a precedent in the Wolves game.

The more worrying thing to me is how high they have set the bar for VAR to intervene and it’s that that should be the main topic of discussion, not arguing the semantics of a law change that has already had a precedent set. There were a few yesterday that I would have thought classified as clear and obvious but weren’t overturned. Again I get the reason (not wanting to re-ref the game), but if that’s the case, then just have it for non subjective decisions then. Don’t put it in when there’s no value add and definitely don’t lie to protect referees still as all that does is erode trust even further.

The other thing is even with the delayed implementation, I’m not sure the PL or PGMOL have used that time well at all as they could have easily looked at the exact same challenges La Liga and the Bundesliga had and tried to learn from them. Instead, we’re going to have to go through the exact same thing so I can’t see it actually fulfilling the purpose it should for a few years yet at the very least. Either way, it will change watching live football in the flesh forever and personally I’m glad I’ve watched a lot of football without it!

 

[SWP's back]

The more worrying thing to me is how high they have set the bar for VAR to intervene and it’s that that should be the main topic of discussion, not arguing the semantics of a law change that has already had a precedent set. There were a few yesterday that I would have thought classified as clear and obvious but weren’t overturned. Again I get the reason (not wanting to re-ref the game), but if that’s the case, then just have it for non subjective decisions then. Don’t put it in when there’s no value add and definitely don’t lie to protect referees still as all that does is erode trust even further.

Couldn’t agree with that more.