Var debate 2019/20

I've emailed the Premier League and IFAB about the interpretation of the revised laws in the light of the Jesus and Boly disallowed goals, both because of unintentional ball touching a teammate's hand. The Premier League have ignored me, despite numerous reminders. IFAB sent an auto-response but failed to send a substantive response until my recent follow up. This is how it went.

-----

Dear Mr. x

We are sorry you did not get our original reply which stated that it is the policy of The IFAB not to comment in specific decisions or matches

Best wishes

David Elleray
Technical Director of The IFAB

-----

Thanks David

OK, so disregarding the actual incidents, I still feel the law is being interpreted incorrectly. Do you agree with my interpretation of the law, or is it possible to give handball after the ball touches the arm or hand of a teammate, but that teammate does not gain possession or control of the ball?

I appreciate you are a busy man, and value any further insight you might be able to offer.

Thanks,

-----

Thanks for your email x

The message below appears to have been sent to the IFAB, rather than the Premier League.

Can you confirm if you also contacted us, reconfirming the details of your original message?

For clarity, a technical query related to the Laws of the Game would be something for the IFAB to consider.

Best regards
Tommy

-----

Hi Tommy

I originally emailed the Premier League and IFAB about the same issue, so the message might look as though it was intended only for the PL.

It is a technical enquiry really. Law 12 says:

"Handling the ball

It is an offence if a player:

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"

Therefore, if the ball touches the hand or arm of an attacking player but the player whose arm or hand the ball touched DOES NOT HIMSELF gain possession or control of the ball, an offence HAS NOT been committed. That is logical reasoning based on the written law. Does IFAB agree with this reasoning?

Many thanks,

-----

Dear Mr. x

Many apologies for the slow reply - VAR is taking a great deal of time as you might imagine.

The view of the technical experts is that the situation you describe falls within the 'spirit/intention' of the Law and thus should be penalsied - the purpose of the change was that coaches/players etc... were very clear that they did not believe a goal should result from the ball having made contact (even accidental) with the hand/arm of an opponent as a goal should only 'result' from use of the rest of the body.

Best wishes

David

David Elleray
Technical Director of The IFAB

-----

So there we have it from the very top. The goals were correctly disallowed because they fell outside of the spirit of the game.

It will be interesting to see if this interpretation continues. I think the law might be rewritten at some point to correct the inconsistency.
 
Paladin said:
I've emailed the Premier League and IFAB about the interpretation of the revised laws in the light of the Jesus and Boly disallowed goals, both because of unintentional ball touching a teammate's hand. The Premier League have ignored me, despite numerous reminders. IFAB sent an auto-response but failed to send a substantive response until my recent follow up. This is how it went.

-----

Dear Mr. x

We are sorry you did not get our original reply which stated that it is the policy of The IFAB not to comment in specific decisions or matches

Best wishes

David Elleray
Technical Director of The IFAB

-----

Thanks David

OK, so disregarding the actual incidents, I still feel the law is being interpreted incorrectly. Do you agree with my interpretation of the law, or is it possible to give handball after the ball touches the arm or hand of a teammate, but that teammate does not gain possession or control of the ball?

I appreciate you are a busy man, and value any further insight you might be able to offer.

Thanks,

-----

Thanks for your email x

The message below appears to have been sent to the IFAB, rather than the Premier League.

Can you confirm if you also contacted us, reconfirming the details of your original message?

For clarity, a technical query related to the Laws of the Game would be something for the IFAB to consider.

Best regards
Tommy

-----

Hi Tommy

I originally emailed the Premier League and IFAB about the same issue, so the message might look as though it was intended only for the PL.

It is a technical enquiry really. Law 12 says:

"Handling the ball

It is an offence if a player:

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"

Therefore, if the ball touches the hand or arm of an attacking player but the player whose arm or hand the ball touched DOES NOT HIMSELF gain possession or control of the ball, an offence HAS NOT been committed. That is logical reasoning based on the written law. Does IFAB agree with this reasoning?

Many thanks,

-----

Dear Mr. x

Many apologies for the slow reply - VAR is taking a great deal of time as you might imagine.

The view of the technical experts is that the situation you describe falls within the 'spirit/intention' of the Law and thus should be penalsied - the purpose of the change was that coaches/players etc... were very clear that they did not believe a goal should result from the ball having made contact (even accidental) with the hand/arm of an opponent as a goal should only 'result' from use of the rest of the body.

Best wishes

David

David Elleray
Technical Director of The IFAB

-----

So there we have it from the very top. The goals were correctly disallowed because they fell outside of the spirit of the game.

It will be interesting to see if this interpretation continues. I think the law might be rewritten at some point to correct the inconsistency.
Click to expand...
I thought the law had been rewritten about 3 weeks later at the Newcastle game when the VAR officials accidentally didn’t see it despite 5 of the 24 cameras spotting the incident
 
Paladin said:
I've emailed the Premier League and IFAB about the interpretation of the revised laws in the light of the Jesus and Boly disallowed goals, both because of unintentional ball touching a teammate's hand. The Premier League have ignored me, despite numerous reminders. IFAB sent an auto-response but failed to send a substantive response until my recent follow up. This is how it went.

-----

Dear Mr. x

We are sorry you did not get our original reply which stated that it is the policy of The IFAB not to comment in specific decisions or matches

Best wishes

David Elleray
Technical Director of The IFAB

-----

Thanks David

OK, so disregarding the actual incidents, I still feel the law is being interpreted incorrectly. Do you agree with my interpretation of the law, or is it possible to give handball after the ball touches the arm or hand of a teammate, but that teammate does not gain possession or control of the ball?

I appreciate you are a busy man, and value any further insight you might be able to offer.

Thanks,

-----

Thanks for your email x

The message below appears to have been sent to the IFAB, rather than the Premier League.

Can you confirm if you also contacted us, reconfirming the details of your original message?

For clarity, a technical query related to the Laws of the Game would be something for the IFAB to consider.

Best regards
Tommy

-----

Hi Tommy

I originally emailed the Premier League and IFAB about the same issue, so the message might look as though it was intended only for the PL.

It is a technical enquiry really. Law 12 says:

"Handling the ball

It is an offence if a player:

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"

Therefore, if the ball touches the hand or arm of an attacking player but the player whose arm or hand the ball touched DOES NOT HIMSELF gain possession or control of the ball, an offence HAS NOT been committed. That is logical reasoning based on the written law. Does IFAB agree with this reasoning?

Many thanks,

-----

Dear Mr. x

Many apologies for the slow reply - VAR is taking a great deal of time as you might imagine.

The view of the technical experts is that the situation you describe falls within the 'spirit/intention' of the Law and thus should be penalsied - the purpose of the change was that coaches/players etc... were very clear that they did not believe a goal should result from the ball having made contact (even accidental) with the hand/arm of an opponent as a goal should only 'result' from use of the rest of the body.

Best wishes

David

David Elleray
Technical Director of The IFAB

-----

So there we have it from the very top. The goals were correctly disallowed because they fell outside of the spirit of the game.

It will be interesting to see if this interpretation continues. I think the law might be rewritten at some point to correct the inconsistency.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that. This is pretty much how I understood it being applied - any deflection off an arm in attack should lead to disallowing a goal. There was no outcry when the Wolves goal was disallowed when it fell to an opponent, so it seemed clear that 'any control/possession for that team' (my words) is the judgement. How far they go back is going to be circumstantial.

I note that Elleray has put his own name on it - that suggests that he has an interest in making things clear.
 
Paladin said:
I've emailed the Premier League and IFAB about the interpretation of the revised laws in the light of the Jesus and Boly disallowed goals, both because of unintentional ball touching a teammate's hand. The Premier League have ignored me, despite numerous reminders. IFAB sent an auto-response but failed to send a substantive response until my recent follow up. This is how it went.

-----

Dear Mr. x

We are sorry you did not get our original reply which stated that it is the policy of The IFAB not to comment in specific decisions or matches

Best wishes

David Elleray
Technical Director of The IFAB

-----

Thanks David

OK, so disregarding the actual incidents, I still feel the law is being interpreted incorrectly. Do you agree with my interpretation of the law, or is it possible to give handball after the ball touches the arm or hand of a teammate, but that teammate does not gain possession or control of the ball?

I appreciate you are a busy man, and value any further insight you might be able to offer.

Thanks,

-----

Thanks for your email x

The message below appears to have been sent to the IFAB, rather than the Premier League.

Can you confirm if you also contacted us, reconfirming the details of your original message?

For clarity, a technical query related to the Laws of the Game would be something for the IFAB to consider.

Best regards
Tommy

-----

Hi Tommy

I originally emailed the Premier League and IFAB about the same issue, so the message might look as though it was intended only for the PL.

It is a technical enquiry really. Law 12 says:

"Handling the ball

It is an offence if a player:

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"

Therefore, if the ball touches the hand or arm of an attacking player but the player whose arm or hand the ball touched DOES NOT HIMSELF gain possession or control of the ball, an offence HAS NOT been committed. That is logical reasoning based on the written law. Does IFAB agree with this reasoning?

Many thanks,

-----

Dear Mr. x

Many apologies for the slow reply - VAR is taking a great deal of time as you might imagine.

The view of the technical experts is that the situation you describe falls within the 'spirit/intention' of the Law and thus should be penalsied - the purpose of the change was that coaches/players etc... were very clear that they did not believe a goal should result from the ball having made contact (even accidental) with the hand/arm of an opponent as a goal should only 'result' from use of the rest of the body.

Best wishes

David

David Elleray
Technical Director of The IFAB

-----

So there we have it from the very top. The goals were correctly disallowed because they fell outside of the spirit of the game.

It will be interesting to see if this interpretation continues. I think the law might be rewritten at some point to correct the inconsistency.
Click to expand...
Interesting response, are they effectively saying that the law has been badly written as the goal we scored against Spurs showed it to be wrong but now they can say it’s against the spirit. What a load of bollocks. The law was meant to stop gaols such as the one Boly scored against us not the type of goal Jesus scored.
 
Tommy_Catons_Perm said:
So they can use video and lines to draw the wrong conclusion more like.
Click to expand...
Exactly this, it is using the human brain's capability to manufacture moving video from individual full frames played at 25 fps out of its purpose.
Show immediate before and after frames also if it is to serve any proof of any sort.
 
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.