You only have to look at they way they tried to rule out Wolves goal v the rags last night.
It’s comical.
I think what they were saying that if it is not a clear and obvious error then it would not be looked at. Also Swarbrick mentioned trying to keep to a minimum the amount of decisions referred to VAR.
It certainly needs investigating. Swarbrick is claiming that VAR is there to support referees not replace them. But the call on Rodri was made by the VAR team. The Sky footage clearly shows that Oliver did not see the incident so he must have taken his lead from the VAR team without checking it. Just as he did for the disallowed Jesus goal. This is a total disgrace and it undermines referees and the integrity of the game. Swarbrick needs to be held to account for his comments on Radio 5 today.
VAR - there is a different interpretation of the Laporte `goal`.
The argument (which appears to have been accepted without careful scrutiny in the media) was that the decision to rule out the winning `goal` was a correct interpretation of a new handball rule and therefore by the letter of the new law correct (putting aside views about the actual law itself).
Referring to the new Rule 12
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
"It is an offence if a player:
The question is - after the ball had touched Laporte`s arm, did he gain possession / control of the ball and then create a goal scoring opportunity?
- 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"
The answer rests on what the words possession / control and create mean.
There is a strong case that the goal should have stood based on the letter of the new Law 12.
It was Jesus who then had to gain possession and control the ball which was on its way to him naturally in any case, and create it by kicking the ball to one side and curling his shot round Spurs players into the net.
It was all due to Jesus. Praise the Lord.
I don’t see how it can be down to interpretation because the law is perfectly clear.
The rule is:
(I added the emphasis).
So the law requires that A player (singular) gains control after it has touched THEIR arm AND THEN creates a goal scoring opportunity.
In other words, for this rule to come into play it has got to be the player whose arm the ball touches that gains control of the ball, and that same player has then got to create the opportity to score or score himself. If the ball had come off Aymeric’s arm, accidentally, but he had trapped it and passed it to Jesus to score, the rule would be engaged. Because the ball touches his arm, but Aymeric does not gain control of the ball, the rule was not engaged. That is according to the clear, unambiguous words of the rule.
The law says nothing about a player from the same team gaining control, and if that’s what IFAB had intended it would have been perfectly easy for them to say so in the new rule. It makes perfect sense to say that an accidental ricochet where a player from the same team is on the receiving end is not the same as that player taking advantage of his own accidental handball. If the rule was ambiguous I can see why you might look at what it designed to prevent to understand what it was supposed to mean, but where the wording of the rule is clear as it is here, you don’t need to go any further than the rule itself.
Face it mate, a perfectly good goal was wrongly disallowed.
Don't believe Oliver saw it. If you look at the replays he's looking at the ball not the playersI thought the bit where Swarbrick said that Oliver said to the VAR bods what he saw and they agreed was quite informative. I think Swarbrick also said they looked at it on live speed once. Not giving time to disagree with the ref seems odd.
Looked more like they were flicking between his arse and his elbow.Last night was the first time I have seen coloured lines appearing on my screen as they did a review.( wolves goal). Was this a mistake or trial, looked like they were trying to find the guys armpit. -;)
I don’t see how it can be down to interpretation because the law is perfectly clear.
The rule is:
(I added the emphasis).
So the law requires that A player (singular) gains control after it has touched THEIR arm AND THEN creates a goal scoring opportunity.
In other words, for this rule to come into play it has got to be the player whose arm the ball touches that gains control of the ball, and that same player has then got to create the opportity to score or score himself. If the ball had come off Aymeric’s arm, accidentally, but he had trapped it and passed it to Jesus to score, the rule would be engaged. Because the ball touches his arm, but Aymeric does not gain control of the ball, the rule was not engaged. That is according to the clear, unambiguous words of the rule.
The law says nothing about a player from the same team gaining control, and if that’s what IFAB had intended it would have been perfectly easy for them to say so in the new rule. It makes perfect sense to say that an accidental ricochet where a player from the same team is on the receiving end is not the same as that player taking advantage of his own accidental handball. If the rule was ambiguous I can see why you might look at what it designed to prevent to understand what it was supposed to mean, but where the wording of the rule is clear as it is here, you don’t need to go any further than the rule itself.
Face it mate, a perfectly good goal was wrongly disallowed.
Fucking hell,we don't stand a chance do weListening to Neil Swarbrick (Head of VAR) on the radio. He said Rodri dived lol. This is the level of corruption we are dealing with.
They are told not to use the monitors because of the time it takes,we are at the mercy of men in a box with no accountability,even a last min winner doesn't warrant a look at the monitor or a clear pen,the monitors are useless for prem use,they have us done up like a kipper,5 reviews but we have been 3 of them,2 goals disallowed and 2pts downSwarbricks answer does not stand up to scrutiny. Oliver was not even looking at the incident. We don't even know if VAR officials brought it to his attention.Surely if they had, he should have reviewed it on the pitch side monitor. Nothing like that happened. I wish to hell there was a way of pursuing this to get the correct sequence of events. Something stinks to high heaven.
No because defenders have to have their arms away from the body so it's not handball whatever happens next,it's not a pen to the other side either,that's why the hanball rule is a nonsense,less goals and less pens,thought up by some fat **** behind a desk who has never played footy,i want to believe that because to think football men came up with this is just unbelievable to meSaw on another thread the scenario where the ball hits a defender's arm by his side, so not handball. But he boots it upfield, a team-mate runs on to it and scores. So he created a goalscoring opportunity, so it was handball. Goal? Penalty to the other team?
Minimum?I think what they were saying that if it is not a clear and obvious error then it would not be looked at. Also Swarbrick mentioned trying to keep to a minimum the amount of decisions referred to VAR.
This is my first input to this forum.
i wish to contribute to the VAR thread as a neutral.
Over the weekend I felt aggrieved for City fans having seen the Lamela/Rodrigo penalty claim incident.
I was surprised that the VAR official did not intervene, but thought there may have been a good reason why.
I thought nothing more of it until I heard this morning's FIve Live interview with Neil Swarbrick, the Premier League VAR lead.
A lot of what Neil said re VAR general implementation principles kinda made sense, BUT his comments re why VAR did not intervene in respect of the aforementioned penalty claim were inexcusable. As said in part by other forum members Swarbrick claimed that the evidence showed that if Rodrigo had been held around the neck or upper body by Lamela he should have fallen backwards, and not forward as was the case. Neil Swarbrick went on to claim that the VAR officials did review the incident, but took no further action because when the incident was reviewed at normal speed then it was clear that Rodrigo (if he had been interfered with) should have fallen backward. He also said that the slow motion replay looked a bit suspect, but it is the full speed replay that had to be considered by the VAR official.
The above explanation did not sit well with my recollection of the incident and so I decided to watch the incident again at full speed on MOTD via Catch Up TV. Having done so it shows that Swarbrick's explanation is frankly utter tosh. If anything Rodrigo was pushed to the ground by Lamela and it would have been physically impossible for Rodri to have fallen backwards. Moreover, given that (as Swarbrick claims) the incident was reviewed I find it nigh on impossible to believe that any VAR official could have reached such a bizarre decision within the time that was available to them to review the incident 'live' on Saturday and revert back to the match referee, i.e. within a timeframe of less than 20 seconds.
I don't subscribe to any conspiracy theories etc, but I as a neutral genuinely feel that Swarbrick's above explanation should be formally challenged because it would appear that the vast majority of football lovers and pundits (e.g MOTD's Lineker, Shearer and Murphy) all feel that it was a penalty. Neil Swarbrick and the PL hierarchy should be held to account.
This is my first input to this forum.
i wish to contribute to the VAR thread as a neutral.
Over the weekend I felt aggrieved for City fans having seen the Lamela/Rodrigo penalty claim incident.
I was surprised that the VAR official did not intervene, but thought there may have been a good reason why.
I thought nothing more of it until I heard this morning's FIve Live interview with Neil Swarbrick, the Premier League VAR lead.
A lot of what Neil said re VAR general implementation principles kinda made sense, BUT his comments re why VAR did not intervene in respect of the aforementioned penalty claim were inexcusable. As said in part by other forum members Swarbrick claimed that the evidence showed that if Rodrigo had been held around the neck or upper body by Lamela he should have fallen backwards, and not forward as was the case. Neil Swarbrick went on to claim that the VAR officials did review the incident, but took no further action because when the incident was reviewed at normal speed then it was clear that Rodrigo (if he had been interfered with) should have fallen backward. He also said that the slow motion replay looked a bit suspect, but it is the full speed replay that had to be considered by the VAR official.
The above explanation did not sit well with my recollection of the incident and so I decided to watch the incident again at full speed on MOTD via Catch Up TV. Having done so it shows that Swarbrick's explanation is frankly utter tosh. If anything Rodrigo was pushed to the ground by Lamela and it would have been physically impossible for Rodri to have fallen backwards. Moreover, given that (as Swarbrick claims) the incident was reviewed I find it nigh on impossible to believe that any VAR official could have reached such a bizarre decision within the time that was available to them to review the incident 'live' on Saturday and revert back to the match referee, i.e. within a timeframe of less than 20 seconds.
I don't subscribe to any conspiracy theories etc, but I as a neutral genuinely feel that Swarbrick's above explanation should be formally challenged because it would appear that the vast majority of football lovers and pundits (e.g MOTD's Lineker, Shearer and Murphy) all feel that it was a penalty. Neil Swarbrick and the PL hierarchy should be held to account.
But they used slow motion for the handball disallowed goal?This is my first input to this forum.
i wish to contribute to the VAR thread as a neutral.
Over the weekend I felt aggrieved for City fans having seen the Lamela/Rodrigo penalty claim incident.
I was surprised that the VAR official did not intervene, but thought there may have been a good reason why.
I thought nothing more of it until I heard this morning's FIve Live interview with Neil Swarbrick, the Premier League VAR lead.
A lot of what Neil said re VAR general implementation principles kinda made sense, BUT his comments re why VAR did not intervene in respect of the aforementioned penalty claim were inexcusable. As said in part by other forum members Swarbrick claimed that the evidence showed that if Rodrigo had been held around the neck or upper body by Lamela he should have fallen backwards, and not forward as was the case. Neil Swarbrick went on to claim that the VAR officials did review the incident, but took no further action because when the incident was reviewed at normal speed then it was clear that Rodrigo (if he had been interfered with) should have fallen backward. He also said that the slow motion replay looked a bit suspect, but it is the full speed replay that had to be considered by the VAR official.
The above explanation did not sit well with my recollection of the incident and so I decided to watch the incident again at full speed on MOTD via Catch Up TV. Having done so it shows that Swarbrick's explanation is frankly utter tosh. If anything Rodrigo was pushed to the ground by Lamela and it would have been physically impossible for Rodri to have fallen backwards. Moreover, given that (as Swarbrick claims) the incident was reviewed I find it nigh on impossible to believe that any VAR official could have reached such a bizarre decision within the time that was available to them to review the incident 'live' on Saturday and revert back to the match referee, i.e. within a timeframe of less than 20 seconds.
I don't subscribe to any conspiracy theories etc, but I as a neutral genuinely feel that Swarbrick's above explanation should be formally challenged because it would appear that the vast majority of football lovers and pundits (e.g MOTD's Lineker, Shearer and Murphy) all feel that it was a penalty. Neil Swarbrick and the PL hierarchy should be held to account.
The precedent has already been set in the first two weeks of league fixtures, exactly as predicted by posters on this very forum numerous times.When I am most paranoid about cheating this is what I think....
If refs/PGMOL were open to cheating - the way they WOULDN'T do it was by giving a favored team a large number of penalties or free kicks or anything that shows up in the statistics to show bias exists. The way to do it was by NOT giving decisions. Things not awarded are not a statistic, no one looks at how many times (For example) Jon Moss doesnt give a penalty to opposition teams at OT, or doesn't issue a red card, or doesn't send a United player off when he should have.
My belief was that VAR would do away with that, but from what I am seeing it is being used the same way, IE incidents not going to VAR, not awarding penalties, ignoring incidents, 50/50's
For my own state of mind I am looking at the things that are ignored this year, and so far City have had 3 things ignored :
1 - Penalty claim for Rodri (Spurs)
2 - Penalty claim Laporte (Spurs)
3 - Sterling 1st goal last week (50/50) (I dont believe something can be measured to the mm in those situations - It's still judgement)
We have had 2 favourable decisions from VAR:
1 - Sterling 2nd goal last week (50/50)
2 - Aguero's retaken penalty
I want to see as the season goes on if we continue to get these, because now we have VAR it should NEVER happen, no excuse like there was before with just the referee being responsible! And if it does happen then I think it is clear they are taking the piss.