Var debate 2019/20

[Colin Bell (genuine name)]

Exactly this. For all those saying that the handball was correct, simple question. When can we score again ? Is it possible that Jesus could have started a 44 pass move like we did against the rags and the goal we score several minutes later will still be chalked of for the handball?

That's the perfect question and should be asked. So at what point after an accidental handball are you allowed to score?

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

because it is correct . he gains possession of the ball for the team when the ball strikes his arm. The ball falls to jesus who then goes on to score .

you're misunderstanding what gaining possession is and what control of the ball is . They are not the same things .

I am not misunderstanding anything. You can't seriously believe what the FA is saying can you? The exact wording in the rule says "gaining possession/control of the ball"

 

[swinton blue]

I think jesus created his own goal scoring opportunity as he still had a lot to do when he received the ball
The only other thing if the deflection on the ball took it to jesus and away from a defender hence causing an advantage
That's the way I interpret the rules

 

[OB1]

It can only be that it is viewed that the team gaining control/possession is the same as the player doing so. Nothing else makes sense in this case. Control/gain possession is not defined as the individual or the team; I think it's reasonable to view it as the team gaining control, but that doesn't make the alternative unreasonable. I favour the first.
I don't think that the last blue bit applies due to the "except for the above offences" - if the control/possession happened, then the "except for..." part does not apply.


Interestingly (well maybe), the IFAB document on the changes explains the principles behind the changes, and says this:
The re-wording follows a number of principles:
• football does not accept a goal being scored by a hand/arm (even if accidental)
• football expects a player to be penalised for handball if they gain possession/control of the ball from their hand/arm and gain a major advantage e.g. score or create a goal-scoring opportunity

To me, that implies that the gaining advantage is the principle in question, and that I think that happened with Laporte/Jesus. Obviously, I don't know why it is written like it is, and this is just my interpretation.

I've asked if anyone has seen anything definitive, but all I've seen is people's own interpretation.

Why do you think City gained an advantage from the ball brushing Laporte's arm? And I mean as a consequence of it being his arm that it brushed as opposed to (say) his thigh.

 

[bobom]

When we get to the end of the season, more Court goals will have been disallowed by VAR than anyone else's. Notwithstanding the debate as to whether the system is bent or not, this is simply a strong statistical probability given we generate more chances than other teams. The more goals we score, the more will be disallowed.

 

[Paladin]

It can only be that it is viewed that the team gaining control/possession is the same as the player doing so. Nothing else makes sense in this case. Control/gain possession is not defined as the individual or the team; I think it's reasonable to view it as the team gaining control, but that doesn't make the alternative unreasonable. I favour the first.
I don't think that the last blue bit applies due to the "except for the above offences" - if the control/possession happened, then the "except for..." part does not apply.


Interestingly (well maybe), the IFAB document on the changes explains the principles behind the changes, and says this:
The re-wording follows a number of principles:
• football does not accept a goal being scored by a hand/arm (even if accidental)
• football expects a player to be penalised for handball if they gain possession/control of the ball from their hand/arm and gain a major advantage e.g. score or create a goal-scoring opportunity

To me, that implies that the gaining advantage is the principle in question, and that I think that happened with Laporte/Jesus. Obviously, I don't know why it is written like it is, and this is just my interpretation.

I've asked if anyone has seen anything definitive, but all I've seen is people's own interpretation.

A summary of what we were penalised for in one phrase: "If a player gains control or possession of the ball after it has hit his hand, and he then scores or creates a goalscoring opportunity, then this is an offence".

Laporte didn't gain control or possession of the ball, therefore there was no offence committed.

 

[hampshireblue]

It's a pity the FA's own site gives a different set of words.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

When we get to the end of the season, more Court goals will have been disallowed by VAR than anyone else's. Notwithstanding the debate as to whether the system is bent or not, this is simply a strong statistical probability given we generate more chances than other teams. The more goals we score, the more will be disallowed.

It'll be interesting how the chalked off goals play out. How many when we've already won the game and how many, like Saturday, that would win a game in dramatic fashion and hoover up all the points? I fancy it will be more of the latter.

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

VAR officials are all namedh. Scott was a PL ref in recent seasons.

He was a 'failed ref' deemed not good enough at one point and got his job back on appeal.

 

[Dribble]

A summary of what we were penalised for in one phrase: "If a player gains control or possession of the ball after it has hit his hand, and he then scores or creates a goalscoring opportunity, then this is an offence".

Laporte didn't gain control or possession of the ball, therefore there was no offence committed.

You forgot this bit which they're hanging their hats on.

"Or creates a goalscoring opportunity,"

It hit Laporte, deviated to Jesus, who went past 5 players to score.

Whether fair or not, apparently City welcomed the new handball rules & VAR.

 

[Colin Bell (genuine name)]

Another question. If the knew that VAR was being introduced why did they feel the need to change the rules regarding handball?

If VAR had been in operation last season then Boly's goal would have been disallowed as well as Aguero's third against Arsenal so why the need to change the laws.

 

[OB1]

A summary of what we were penalised for in one phrase: "If a player gains control or possession of the ball after it has hit his hand, and he then scores or creates a goalscoring opportunity, then this is an offence".

Laporte didn't gain control or possession of the ball, therefore there was no offence committed.

That would be the correct literal interpretation of how the law is written.

 

[waspish]

After seeing Dermot Gallagher's take on the penalty I can see that they want the on pitch referee to call the decisions, which makes sense. However when Oliver explains to the players that he didn't get a call from the video ref regarding the penalty then it is obvious that he wanted VAR to make the call. The rules according to Gallegher are that the on pitch ref calls it. I don't think the referee can possibly see everything that is going on in the penalty area when a corner is taking place so he should have help from VAR, the rule as it currently stands is bollocks. VAR is available, Oliver wanted them to call the penalty but the error was made in that VAR wanted Oliver to call it. We would all respect the refs more if they just apologised and said a mistake was made. All the players, pundits, staff and fans, even from other clubs know a mistake was made so the refs should change this now and admit their cock up.

What is also contentious is the speed of players running through attacking the ball as happened last week, the technology cannot be accurate enough to cope with this at present so surely its better for everyone if borderline decisions go with the attacking team as they have always supposed to have done. VAR can call this and I accept VAR isn't perfect but a couple of tweaks after these poor decisions and it would make the rule more clear for everyone. As for the handball by Laporte I'm not sure how this should be called, I feel sorry for Jesus having two goals ruled out in two games, after all strikers thrive on goals and it must affect him when he does nothing wrong but the goals he scores are wiped off the records.

I also still cannot believe the Sanchez foul on KdB wasn;t a yellow when he was running through their defence and yet Sterling was carded for a soft challenge at the halfway line....

Oliver is a bent fcuker he could of easily asked them about that rodri penalty decision but he chose to act like it nowt to do with me attitude!

 

[waspish]

Sorry what? are you suggesting the game rules are different to VAR rules?

Yes they are with var when it leads to a goal.

 

[Under the Duvet with Uwe]

Imagine this scenario: The attacking team takes a corner, the ball comes off a defenders arm (deemed unintentional) so no penalty given. The defending team them break the length of the field to score. Should that be given or should it be disallowed? Have they gained an advantage as a result of the handball?

 

[MillisleBlue]

Exactly this. For all those saying that the handball was correct, simple question. When can we score again ? Is it possible that Jesus could have started a 44 pass move like we did against the rags and the goal we score several minutes later will still be chalked of for the handball?

This, this, this and only this. How far back do these cheating bastards go before they can find the most minor infringement to justify chalking off a City goal? Half a minute, couple of minutes, three weeks, 1977...?

Fairly certain 93:20 would not have happened if VAR had been in use. That wee nudge in the back would have been deemed a vicious, unprovoked assault and the filth from Stretford crowned Champions.

 

[davek1808]

We've either got complete utter clueless dickheads running the game or very clever corrupt twats, take your fucking pick.

 

[waspish]

Another question. If the knew that VAR was being introduced why did they feel the need to change the rules regarding handball?

If VAR had been in operation last season then Boly's goal would have been disallowed as well as Aguero's third against Arsenal so why the need to change the laws.

They changed it to absolute black or white! They cant say a goal should not given if a players a is away from his body? How far from his body 6 inches 12 inches? Saying any part of the arm means its absolute no argument. For me handball like that should only effect if its a direct goal!

 

[Blue Maverick]

They changed it to absolute black or white! They cant say a goal should not given if a players a is away from his body? How far from his body 6 inches 12 inches? Saying any part of the arm means its absolute no argument. For me handball like that should only effect if its a direct goal!

Well my wife thinks 3 inches is 6 inches ;) maybe she’s doing VAR and I don’t know about it

 

[Blue Maverick]

I think jesus created his own goal scoring opportunity as he still had a lot to do when he received the ball
The only other thing if the deflection on the ball took it to jesus and away from a defender hence causing an advantage
That's the way I interpret the rules

It did, I know we all hate it but it’s handball going off the current shit law, we should be up in arms more about the non penalty.