Var debate 2019/20

[Colin Bell (genuine name)]

Sent a complaint to sports journalists and had a reply that indicated they were willing to read and forward on
So I sent this reply


Hi Janine,
Thank you very much for letting me know my email did not go unread. I promise I won't pester you with further emails but since my initial complaint/ rant, I have made myself more familiar with the handball ruling and would hope that you would forward the following please.

There are 3 ways that a goal can be ruled out after a handball.

1. It is an offence if a player scores in an opponents' goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental (Wily Boly - Wolves v Man City, Sergio Aguero - Man City v Arsenal and Nathan Redmond for Southampton last season)

2. It is an offence if a player gains possession/control of the ball after it hits their hand/arm and then scores in the opponents' goal ( Llorente - Spurs v Man City champions league)

3. It is an offence if a player gains/possession control of the ball after it hits their hand/arm and then creates a goal scoring opportunity (Thierry Henry for France against Ireland handballed and then squared it to Wiltord who scored)

Note the difference between 1 and 2. If the offending player scores the goal he either has to do it DIRECTLY or alternatively he has to TAKE POSSESSION/CONTROL and THEN score.
The same criteria in gaining possession/control also apples to creating a goal scoring opportunity, an example of which I have highlighted with the Thierry Henry example.

I have highlighted these rules in response to the disallowed goal for Gabriel Jesus in the Man City v Spurs game where a decision by VAR has cost Man City 2 points.

This past weekend has highlighted how poorly PGMOL have implemented VAR. A number of penalty claims have not been awarded. A few were debatable and still are however Azpilacueta was scythed down in the box for Chelsea, an unarguable penalty. Likewise David Silva against Bournemouth. Dermot Gallagher on Sky's ref watch conceded that they were definite penalties. Both went to a VAR review and no penalty was given in either case.

The whole point of VAR is to assist the referee in ensuring that the game is fair, honest and free from allegations of bias. The way PGMOL have implemented VAR it has done the exact opposite.

It appears that it's ok for a referee to allow VAR to make goal reviews and have the final say on whether the goal stands or not and yet it's not acceptable for a referee to view a pitch side monitor and be given the opportunity to overturn a penalty decision he may have missed.

We have long accepted that referees can't possibly see everything and it's human nature that we can miss things or make mistakes and that is why there was strong support from fans, managers and players for the introduction of VAR to inform the referee that they have missed something or made the wrong call and they should have another look at the incident. This is fair, this is the way we all thought it would be implemented but apparently Mike Riley and Neil Swarsbrick think differently.

Why was Neil Swarsbrick not challenged by the press when he stated that Michael Oliver saw the incident where Laporte was wrestled to the ground by Eric Lamella and that Laporte had dived to the ground? Gary Neville highlighted on Sky Sports that Michael Oliver wasn't even looking at Laporte and Lamela. Swarsbrick also said along the lines of that the natural body movements by Laporte if he was being grabbed would be to go backwards and not forwards. Anybody could see that Laporte was trying to run towards the ball and Lamela grabbed him round the neck and jumped on his back pushing him to the ground. This interview was on Five Live apparently.

Swarsbrick also said something along the lines of the fans are only frustrated because they don't understand the rules.

Then we have offsides being given for mere millimetres when it has been mathematically shown that a player can travel 13 centimetres in 0.02seconds which is the length of time between one frame and the next in the 50 frames per second technology currently used by VAR.

The current state of VAR as implemented by PGMOL needs to be challenged by the ones that have a voice and that is you, the Press!

The Premier League has long been championed as the best league in the world, it's a multi billion pound industry so why is such an insular group such as PGMOL being allowed to make it a laughing stock and why are they not being pressured to get it right.

3 rounds gone and controversy every week so far. Apparently they will listen to views from the Premier League clubs in September. So yet another weekend to come when they can basically be as anal, incompetent and completely contentious without having to answer to anybody.

You, the Press need to challenge them and pressurise them to sort VAR to get decisions correct.

Colin

 

[johnnytapia]

The fuck you on about snowflake?

Calling someone gormless and lisping is hardly a war crime.

As I said, classy.

 

[BringBackSwales]

I was wondering if someone could advise me....





.....is it safe to celebrate our 3 goals last Sunday yet?

Fuck it, think I’ll leave it a couple of days to be on the safe side

 

[SWP's back]

As I said, classy.

Tart. I’ll have to get used to the fact you’re not going to invite me over for Saturday afternoon high tea.

 

[SWP's back]

If as you say it was a “continuation foul” the fact Martial got a shot off which hit the outside of the netting means he was able to “maintain a credible attack on goal” (please see section 1 below) and wouldn’t result in a penalty.

So you’re just going to outright fucking lie now are you?



It’s a penalty. You didn’t know the law (kept saying the contact started outside showing you didn’t know one continuing inside becomes a penalty) and now in desperation you’re actually making stuff up about an event for which there is video. Your bias and desperation to show only City are being hard done by is a joke fella.

 

[ctid1894]

So you’re just going to outright fucking lie now are you?



It’s a penalty. You didn’t know the law (kept saying the contact started outside showing you didn’t know one continuing inside becomes a penalty) and now in desperation you’re actually making stuff up about an event for which there is video. Your bias and desperation to show only City are being hard done by is a joke fella.

The foul does start outside the box as your video clearly shows, the defender also releases Martial outside the box as your video clearly shows. You’re absolutely right, I wasn’t aware the law stated a “continuation foul” and should be given in the box as a result because I hadn’t looked, as I didn’t think it was relevant as the defender releases Martial outside the box.

The tussle in the box could easily be seen either way, Martial’s already on his way down and his arms are across the defender preventing him making a challenge and Martial clearly got a shot off so clearly had advantage, even if you do deem it a foul by the defender.

You know the part of the law that you didn’t post, very selectively. While you may disagree with my opinion on whether it was a foul or not, I’ve always been completely transparent and posted with integrity and not hidden any aspect of anything. Something you would love in VAR, just not when you’re in a debate and someone has a different opinion clearly.

 

[SWP's back]

and Martial clearly got a shot off so clearly had advantage, even if you do deem it a foul by the defender.

But he doesn’t, he’s dragged to the floor as he tries to shoot which makes him slip as he goes to hit it. That’s not an advantage.

Remember three years ago when Sterling was through on goal against Spurs and Walker pushed him in the back as he shot? Well as Sterling got his shot off, was it not a penalty then? Because not a single City argued at the time that as Sterling took a shot, he had an advantage.



Being impeded as you take a shot but still taking a shot isn’t an advantage.

Why do you find it so difficult to be objective about United?

 

[SWP's back]

You know the part of the law that you didn’t post, very selectively.

I actually quoted the FIFA law book and gave a link. You posted part of a forum reply, and it still doesn’t support your stance as there was no advantage in the shot as Martial is almost horizontal after being dragged down when he shoots.

 

[ctid1894]

But he doesn’t, he’s dragged to the floor as he tries to shoot which makes him slip as he goes to hit it. That’s not an advantage.

Remember three years ago when Sterling was through on goal against Spurs and Walker pushed him in the back as he shot? Well as Sterling got his shot off, was it not a penalty then?



Being impeded as you take a shot but still taking a shot isn’t an advantage.

Do you know what’s even funnier, the fact that you’re happy to label me as a liar and BIAS because we disagree about one single “subjective” opinion. Yet the referees are allowed to make multiple “incorrect” decisions on subjective calls in the same game and they’re just incompetent in your eyes.

Is that because it suits your narrative?

 

[SWP's back]

Do you know what’s even funnier, the fact that you’re happy to label me as a liar and BIAS because we disagree about one single “subjective” opinion. Yet the referees are allowed to make multiple “incorrect” decisions on subjective calls in the same game and they’re just incompetent in your eyes.

Is that because it suits your narrative?

I don’t know who taught you the word “narrative” but I guess it was about a week ago hence your excitement at using it in every other post.

My ‘narrative’ is that City have been denied two clear penalties. My narrative is that as well as City, Spurs, Chelsea and United have also been denied clear penalties. ALL should have been reversed by var.

You keep changing the goal posts with each post to defend the indefensible re Martial’s penalty claim. As you’ve been told by several posters on here, if that was Sterling rather than Martial then there’s no chance you’d be employing the mental gymnastics you’re currently undertaking, looking for ways you can dismiss the penalty claim. Why do you find it so difficult to admit that United had a good penalty claim denied. You even told another poster it would be in the media if it should have been a penalty, which is has been.

And I notice you’re fucking quiet on the Sterling/Walker incident. Was it a penalty or not in your opinion?