Var debate 2019/20

[purplenose]

Last night should be examined by the powers that be as an example as to where changes need to be made.

It proves that a wrong decision can still be made in big big games, exactly what it was brought in to prevent. There can be no disputing that by the rules of the game the goal last night should not have stood. That is a problem that can be solved in the future.

The more difficult one is the real problem of wondering if VAR is going to crop up after every goal. That is not going to be good for the game and is a much harder problem to solve.

On balance I am still in favour of VAR, its the only way we are going to stop getting the rags and Liverpool amongst others getting constant help from the officials. It does need a lot of work to make it better. Maybe even a couple of rule changes to the game.

 

[ancoats]

A Uefa spokesperson simply said when asked to comment: “All relevant angles were made available to the referee to take his decision last night.”

NO IT WASN'T ?????

clearly seen the ref watching the tv replay at the side of the pitch and only one clip shown (the wrong clip) control by somebody at uefa working on VAR ??? that is why they still have full control of games and the big team of uefa will get looked after ??? and for manchester city and PSG never in a million years will we win the champions league, and that is why thousands of manchester city don't really care about the uefa champions league and going out, and that view was before last night game

simple forget champions league ??? even pep deep down knows what is happening with city and uefa ??? simple don't play the big players in games and play the kids ?? they will soon get the message and a shock when major sponsors want and demand to see KDB sane sterling playing in there competition because we are now on everybody minds with being the best team and best players at man city

 

[marco]

can someone advise how VAR is applied, did the ref last night ask for VAR help on the 5th goal or was he advised through his ear piece that he should have another look.

 

[ken_barnes]

Var in my opinion will ruin football.
If they're going to persist with it, then the officials viewing from wherever, should make the call, instantly. And take the decision away from the ref.
There's no point celebrating a goal anymore, until var has had its say.

 

[NoApologiesForBeingSpurs]

I hope you don't mind me throwing my thoughts in

With the handball last night and the current UEFA interpretation there seem to be a few key elements (I'll use hand to mean hand or arm for ease and we all know it touched his hand so no point in discussing that element!):
1. Was the hand in a position that increased the player's silhouette - his elbow was tucked in and his hand across his body so no
2. In the act of scoring did the touch on the hand control the ball - it glanced off his hand onto his hip so he didn't control it. I think this is the greyest area though: if it came off his hand, fell to his feet and he kicked in in then I would say that is controlling it whereas the flight of the ball barely changing and hitting his thigh 4 inches away?? Doesn't sound like 'controlling it' to me. If it was 'benefited' from contact with the hand then it would be a yes: the slight change in direction of the ball resulted in the contact with the hip taking the ball into the net.
3. Did he score directly from the hand - no because it went in off his thigh/hip

So there is a tiny grey area that is presumably down to interpretation and I hope that marginal decision went down to going with the ref's on field decision. As he had awarded the goal they stuck with that decision but if he had given it as handball that would have stood.

It definitely wasn't clear and obvious though, however that term seems to be arbitrarily invoked by the VAR officials. Every Spurs and neutral I've spoken to thought that Fernandinho's elbow to Kane's head last week was clear and obvious but they didn't bother with that at all.

So across the two legs VAR got the Rose handball and the Aguero offside right, the Fernandinho elbow wrong and the Llorente handball probably/possibly right. If VAR hadn't have been used then you wouldn't have got a penalty but Sterling's goal would have stood as those two reversed the on field decisions and the other two would be no change. So with VAR you (City) benefited once and lost out once. As you didn't score the penalty that made the difference in the end result but is VAR to blame, Aguero for a tame penalty or Lloris for a decent save?

I do feel for you though. I just assumed that every VAR decision would go against us as Spurs have missed out on results in countless big matches over the last decade where VAR would have been in our favour (especially against Arsenal and Chelsea). It seemed like sod's law that it coming in would only rule against us: as it did for the Rose handball which I thought would just be the first of many.

Anyway, as I said in the post match thread yesterday, best of luck for the rest of the season. Do NOT let the scousers win the league!!

 

[ancoats]

Yes it is all to do with frame rates.
But when sports TV providers advertise in slow motion, where you can see in game footage of players kicking balls in UHD slow motion.
Surely that match was filmed at a higher frame rate, so it can be done.
Are they breaking any advertisement laws?

clearly the clip the ref was watching from VAR was setup to take away any doubt it hit leg first being the wrong angle ?? but i clearly seen the arm muscle move in slow motion and it would not move without the ball hitting it first ???

everybody at manchester city should do a (didier drogba) and call uefa out live on tv because its cheating

 

[ballinio]

I hope you don't mind me throwing my thoughts in

With the handball last night and the current UEFA interpretation there seem to be a few key elements (I'll use hand to mean hand or arm for ease and we all know it touched his hand so no point in discussing that element!):
1. Was the hand in a position that increased the player's silhouette - his elbow was tucked in and his hand across his body so no
2. In the act of scoring did the touch on the hand control the ball - it glanced off his hand onto his hip so he didn't control it. I think this is the greyest area though: if it came off his hand, fell to his feet and he kicked in in then I would say that is controlling it whereas the flight of the ball barely changing and hitting his thigh 4 inches away?? Doesn't sound like 'controlling it' to me. If it was 'benefited' from contact with the hand then it would be a yes: the slight change in direction of the ball resulted in the contact with the hip taking the ball into the net.
3. Did he score directly from the hand - no because it went in off his thigh/hip

So there is a tiny grey area that is presumably down to interpretation and I hope that marginal decision went down to going with the ref's on field decision. As he had awarded the goal they stuck with that decision but if he had given it as handball that would have stood.

It definitely wasn't clear and obvious though, however that term seems to be arbitrarily invoked by the VAR officials. Every Spurs and neutral I've spoken to thought that Fernandinho's elbow to Kane's head last week was clear and obvious but they didn't bother with that at all.

So across the two legs VAR got the Rose handball and the Aguero offside right, the Fernandinho elbow wrong and the Llorente handball probably/possibly right. If VAR hadn't have been used then you wouldn't have got a penalty but Sterling's goal would have stood as those two reversed the on field decisions and the other two would be no change. So with VAR you (City) benefited once and lost out once. As you didn't score the penalty that made the difference in the end result but is VAR to blame, Aguero for a tame penalty or Lloris for a decent save?

I do feel for you though. I just assumed that every VAR decision would go against us as Spurs have missed out on results in countless big matches over the last decade where VAR would have been in our favour (especially against Arsenal and Chelsea). It seemed like sod's law that it coming in would only rule against us: as it did for the Rose handball which I thought would just be the first of many.

Anyway, as I said in the post match thread yesterday, best of luck for the rest of the season. Do NOT let the scousers win the league!!

Just go away

 

[kinkyblue]

In a 75 page thread, it has been alluded to and evidence supplied by at least four or five different posters.

Read some of the pages from last night and you should find a number of examples.

I have yet to see a link with it clearly stated

 

[kinkyblue]

http://theifab.com/backend/library/doc/summary-of-main-law-changes-2019-20 <<< pages 6 & 7

this is from march 2019 and although it does mention trying to clarify what is deliberate and accidental, it doesnt mention the attacking player directive

But these come into effect June 19

 

[shadygiz]

But these come into effect June 19

yup

 

[SilverFox2]

Yes it is all to do with frame rates.
But when sports TV providers advertise in slow motion, where you can see in game footage of players kicking balls in UHD slow motion.
Surely that match was filmed at a higher frame rate, so it can be done.
Are they breaking any advertisement laws?

Not sure what it is now but it used to 1080i (interlaced) or 4ki at 50 hz.
Your tv or box changes it to whatever your tv is eg 4k p (progressive) so reduces 50 hz to 25 fps. then your brain changes those individual frames into continuous video.

Cameras can obviously record events at 4k or higher and can generate higher frame rates but transmitting them to your tv at higher frame rates is the problem.

 

[Sky Blue]

I hope you don't mind me throwing my thoughts in

With the handball last night and the current UEFA interpretation there seem to be a few key elements (I'll use hand to mean hand or arm for ease and we all know it touched his hand so no point in discussing that element!):
1. Was the hand in a position that increased the player's silhouette - his elbow was tucked in and his hand across his body so no
2. In the act of scoring did the touch on the hand control the ball - it glanced off his hand onto his hip so he didn't control it. I think this is the greyest area though: if it came off his hand, fell to his feet and he kicked in in then I would say that is controlling it whereas the flight of the ball barely changing and hitting his thigh 4 inches away?? Doesn't sound like 'controlling it' to me. If it was 'benefited' from contact with the hand then it would be a yes: the slight change in direction of the ball resulted in the contact with the hip taking the ball into the net.
3. Did he score directly from the hand - no because it went in off his thigh/hip

So there is a tiny grey area that is presumably down to interpretation and I hope that marginal decision went down to going with the ref's on field decision. As he had awarded the goal they stuck with that decision but if he had given it as handball that would have stood.

It definitely wasn't clear and obvious though, however that term seems to be arbitrarily invoked by the VAR officials. Every Spurs and neutral I've spoken to thought that Fernandinho's elbow to Kane's head last week was clear and obvious but they didn't bother with that at all.

So across the two legs VAR got the Rose handball and the Aguero offside right, the Fernandinho elbow wrong and the Llorente handball probably/possibly right. If VAR hadn't have been used then you wouldn't have got a penalty but Sterling's goal would have stood as those two reversed the on field decisions and the other two would be no change. So with VAR you (City) benefited once and lost out once. As you didn't score the penalty that made the difference in the end result but is VAR to blame, Aguero for a tame penalty or Lloris for a decent save?

I do feel for you though. I just assumed that every VAR decision would go against us as Spurs have missed out on results in countless big matches over the last decade where VAR would have been in our favour (especially against Arsenal and Chelsea). It seemed like sod's law that it coming in would only rule against us: as it did for the Rose handball which I thought would just be the first of many.

Anyway, as I said in the post match thread yesterday, best of luck for the rest of the season. Do NOT let the scousers win the league!!

Yawn......

 

[Henkeman]

I hope you don't mind me throwing my thoughts in

With the handball last night and the current UEFA interpretation there seem to be a few key elements (I'll use hand to mean hand or arm for ease and we all know it touched his hand so no point in discussing that element!):
1. Was the hand in a position that increased the player's silhouette - his elbow was tucked in and his hand across his body so no
2. In the act of scoring did the touch on the hand control the ball - it glanced off his hand onto his hip so he didn't control it. I think this is the greyest area though: if it came off his hand, fell to his feet and he kicked in in then I would say that is controlling it whereas the flight of the ball barely changing and hitting his thigh 4 inches away?? Doesn't sound like 'controlling it' to me. If it was 'benefited' from contact with the hand then it would be a yes: the slight change in direction of the ball resulted in the contact with the hip taking the ball into the net.
3. Did he score directly from the hand - no because it went in off his thigh/hip

So there is a tiny grey area that is presumably down to interpretation and I hope that marginal decision went down to going with the ref's on field decision. As he had awarded the goal they stuck with that decision but if he had given it as handball that would have stood.

It definitely wasn't clear and obvious though, however that term seems to be arbitrarily invoked by the VAR officials. Every Spurs and neutral I've spoken to thought that Fernandinho's elbow to Kane's head last week was clear and obvious but they didn't bother with that at all.

So across the two legs VAR got the Rose handball and the Aguero offside right, the Fernandinho elbow wrong and the Llorente handball probably/possibly right. If VAR hadn't have been used then you wouldn't have got a penalty but Sterling's goal would have stood as those two reversed the on field decisions and the other two would be no change. So with VAR you (City) benefited once and lost out once. As you didn't score the penalty that made the difference in the end result but is VAR to blame, Aguero for a tame penalty or Lloris for a decent save?

I do feel for you though. I just assumed that every VAR decision would go against us as Spurs have missed out on results in countless big matches over the last decade where VAR would have been in our favour (especially against Arsenal and Chelsea). It seemed like sod's law that it coming in would only rule against us: as it did for the Rose handball which I thought would just be the first of many.

Anyway, as I said in the post match thread yesterday, best of luck for the rest of the season. Do NOT let the scousers win the league!!

With all due respect - that isn't what has pissed people off. I suspect most can accept there is some grey area around the handball rule, but it's not that. It's that the VAR process involved not showing the replay that made it clear it had hit the arm - and thus the referee did not make his decision on the basis you outline, but on one where he wasn't sure it hit the arm at all - indeed he indicated that it had hit the hip.

There's a big difference between a judgement call we can argue about and the referee not being given the replays he's supposed to have to make that decision. That's what stinks. Especially so given UEFA are trying to throw the ref under a bus with their statement, which is totally contradictory to what we all saw.

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

I hope you don't mind me throwing my thoughts in

With the handball last night and the current UEFA interpretation there seem to be a few key elements (I'll use hand to mean hand or arm for ease and we all know it touched his hand so no point in discussing that element!):
1. Was the hand in a position that increased the player's silhouette - his elbow was tucked in and his hand across his body so no
2. In the act of scoring did the touch on the hand control the ball - it glanced off his hand onto his hip so he didn't control it. I think this is the greyest area though: if it came off his hand, fell to his feet and he kicked in in then I would say that is controlling it whereas the flight of the ball barely changing and hitting his thigh 4 inches away?? Doesn't sound like 'controlling it' to me. If it was 'benefited' from contact with the hand then it would be a yes: the slight change in direction of the ball resulted in the contact with the hip taking the ball into the net.
3. Did he score directly from the hand - no because it went in off his thigh/hip

So there is a tiny grey area that is presumably down to interpretation and I hope that marginal decision went down to going with the ref's on field decision. As he had awarded the goal they stuck with that decision but if he had given it as handball that would have stood.

It definitely wasn't clear and obvious though, however that term seems to be arbitrarily invoked by the VAR officials. Every Spurs and neutral I've spoken to thought that Fernandinho's elbow to Kane's head last week was clear and obvious but they didn't bother with that at all.

So across the two legs VAR got the Rose handball and the Aguero offside right, the Fernandinho elbow wrong and the Llorente handball probably/possibly right. If VAR hadn't have been used then you wouldn't have got a penalty but Sterling's goal would have stood as those two reversed the on field decisions and the other two would be no change. So with VAR you (City) benefited once and lost out once. As you didn't score the penalty that made the difference in the end result but is VAR to blame, Aguero for a tame penalty or Lloris for a decent save?

I do feel for you though. I just assumed that every VAR decision would go against us as Spurs have missed out on results in countless big matches over the last decade where VAR would have been in our favour (especially against Arsenal and Chelsea). It seemed like sod's law that it coming in would only rule against us: as it did for the Rose handball which I thought would just be the first of many.

Anyway, as I said in the post match thread yesterday, best of luck for the rest of the season. Do NOT let the scousers win the league!!

The bit about the silhouette only comes into play for someone defending or blocking the path of the ball. As does "intent". A goal can be scored by anywhere on the body EXCEPT the hand, arm or shoulder UNLESS the attacker has been pushed toward the ball and the contact with the ball was accidental.

Capiche?

Anyway, no point arguing. What is done is done.

 

[marco]

so the ref made a decision on the evidence available (fair enough) but all the evidence was not made available (the missing angle) so where was it, i assume it was not given to the ref or he would have looked at it however UEFA have made a statement saying it was there,,,someone is telling lies now you can call it paranoia but the reason they did not include that angle was because it shows clearly ball and hand,,,i'm sorry but it stinks of corruption

 

[trublue55]

I hope you don't mind me throwing my thoughts in

With the handball last night and the current UEFA interpretation there seem to be a few key elements (I'll use hand to mean hand or arm for ease and we all know it touched his hand so no point in discussing that element!):
1. Was the hand in a position that increased the player's silhouette - his elbow was tucked in and his hand across his body so no
2. In the act of scoring did the touch on the hand control the ball - it glanced off his hand onto his hip so he didn't control it. I think this is the greyest area though: if it came off his hand, fell to his feet and he kicked in in then I would say that is controlling it whereas the flight of the ball barely changing and hitting his thigh 4 inches away?? Doesn't sound like 'controlling it' to me. If it was 'benefited' from contact with the hand then it would be a yes: the slight change in direction of the ball resulted in the contact with the hip taking the ball into the net.
3. Did he score directly from the hand - no because it went in off his thigh/hip

So there is a tiny grey area that is presumably down to interpretation and I hope that marginal decision went down to going with the ref's on field decision. As he had awarded the goal they stuck with that decision but if he had given it as handball that would have stood.

It definitely wasn't clear and obvious though, however that term seems to be arbitrarily invoked by the VAR officials. Every Spurs and neutral I've spoken to thought that Fernandinho's elbow to Kane's head last week was clear and obvious but they didn't bother with that at all.

So across the two legs VAR got the Rose handball and the Aguero offside right, the Fernandinho elbow wrong and the Llorente handball probably/possibly right. If VAR hadn't have been used then you wouldn't have got a penalty but Sterling's goal would have stood as those two reversed the on field decisions and the other two would be no change. So with VAR you (City) benefited once and lost out once. As you didn't score the penalty that made the difference in the end result but is VAR to blame, Aguero for a tame penalty or Lloris for a decent save?

I do feel for you though. I just assumed that every VAR decision would go against us as Spurs have missed out on results in countless big matches over the last decade where VAR would have been in our favour (especially against Arsenal and Chelsea). It seemed like sod's law that it coming in would only rule against us: as it did for the Rose handball which I thought would just be the first of many.

Anyway, as I said in the post match thread yesterday, best of luck for the rest of the season. Do NOT let the scousers win the league!!

Thats a lovely version of your interpretation of Rossetti's Handball directive, all of your reasons, as to why the goal should stand are irrelevant and incorrect. Intent is irrelevant, if the ball touches a hand / arm, and it leads to a goal, the goal should be disallowed. I hasten to add i didn't like the Schalke, PSG or Rose penalty last week, but with the new directive in January, last nights "goal" should have been disallowed for exactly the same reason last weeks penalty was given, furthermore, as i posted last week, what's the point in having VAR to get things right, if Vertonghens encroachment is not picked up,(he cleared it) and the kick re-taken. We may not like the rules, but we should still play to them. As many have posted, VAR , per se, is not the problem, its the way it's used / not used that is. There is no excuse for the correct / relevant camera angle not being available / used, and in fairness Llorente has openly acknowledged, that the ball hit his arm, before his hip, and then went in the net. He states that it was not intentional - IRRELEVANT -Llorente himself has effectively confirmed that the goal should have been disallowed. Halsey on the radio , and others have also stated this. With respect, its not even an opinion, its what should have happened had their own directive been followed correctly!

 

[davek1808]

so the ref made a decision on the evidence available (fair enough) but all the evidence was not made available (the missing angle) so where was it, i assume it was not given to the ref or he would have looked at it however UEFA have made a statement saying it was there,,,someone is telling lies now you can call it paranoia but the reason they did not include that angle was because it shows clearly ball and hand,,,i'm sorry but it stinks of corruption

Uefa and corruption in the same sentence who'd of thought it lol.

 

[fathellensbellend]

Spend a small fortune to watch a match in the supposedly elite club tournament in the world, and end up not exactly knowing how they arrived at their wrong decisions, it is so bad it's beyond laughable, where's the transparency and integrity, and they wonder why city fans turn their backs on their bent competition.

 

[Tricky_Trev]

With all due respect - that isn't what has pissed people off. I suspect most can accept there is some grey area around the handball rule, but it's not that. It's that the VAR process involved not showing the replay that made it clear it had hit the arm - and thus the referee did not make his decision on the basis you outline, but on one where he wasn't sure it hit the arm at all - indeed he indicated that it had hit the hip.

There's a big difference between a judgement call we can argue about and the referee not being given the replays he's supposed to have to make that decision. That's what stinks. Especially so given UEFA are trying to throw the ref under a bus with their statement, which is totally contradictory to what we all saw.

Absolutely a million percent this. The outrage is over the blatant decision to withhold information that the referee would have arrived at a different observation with, had he seen it. So who controls the replays that the ref sees? These are the people we are angry with. They’re corrupt, whoever they are. There is no transparency.

 

[marco]

Thats a lovely version of your interpretation of Rossetti's Handball directive, all of your reasons, as to why the goal should stand are irrelevant and incorrect. Intent is irrelevant, if the ball touches a hand / arm, and it leads to a goal, the goal should be disallowed. I hasten to add i didn't like the Schalke, PSG or Rose penalty last week, but with the new directive in January, last nights "goal" should have been disallowed for exactly the same reason last weeks penalty was given, furthermore, as i posted last week, what's the point in having VAR to get things right, if Vertonghens encroachment is not picked up,(he cleared it) and the kick re-taken. We may not like the rules, but we should still play to them, as many have posted, VAR , per se, is not the problem, its the way it's used / not used that is. There is no excuse for the correct / relevant camera angle not being available / used, and in fairness Llorente has openly acknowledged, that the ball hit his arm, before his hip, and then went in the net. He states that it was not intentional - IRRELEVANT -Llorente himself has effectively confirmed that the goal should have been disallowed. Halsey on the radio , and others have also stated this. With respect, its not even an opinion, its what should have happened had their own directive been followed correctly!

very well put sir