Var debate 2019/20

[Paladin]

Premier League‏Verified account @premierleague


"Any goal scored or created with the use of the hand or arm will be disallowed this season even if it is accidental."


That is what the Premier league Twitter posted, so are they ignoring the specific detailed guidelines by IFAB regarding handball?

On the official Premier League site it says the same thing....

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1263332?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

BUT at the bottom they direct you to read the new IFAB guidelines

See: IFAB handball law changes in full

Sooo, what the hell does that mean? Do the Premier league have different rules than IFAB? ie Any accidental handball scored or created is handball or is it lazily written and the specific guidelines of possession and control of the ball still stand that IFAB wrote and the Premier league gives a link to IFAB to read the detailed guidelines?

This HAS to be cleared up as it's night and day difference for what could be a goal or not a goal. Like what happened to us v Spurs.

Thanks for posting this.

I've just reviewed the rule book for a junior league in the North West of England. One of the principles is that whilst you are allowed to add clarification, you are not allowed to change the spirit or intention of the original law. So The FA or the Premier League cannot change what Ifab laid down.

For the PL to say "Any goal scored or created with the use of the hand or arm will be disallowed this season even if it is accidental" goes against what Ifab laid down, and should be challenged (in my view).

Some of you may have noticed that I keep banging on about this, but Laporte did not control the ball with his arm, and neither did he (personally) gain possession of the ball. And for that matter, his team didn't gain possession due to that incident. City were already in possession of the ball at that point because we took the corner.

So according to the Ifab wording, no offence was committed, therefore the goal should have stood.

 

[flook]

That's because the player receiving is usually behind the ball - see above.

If the player receiving has not recovered to an onside position when the ball is played, then he's offside, wherever the ball goes. You see it occasionally at short corners, when the taker hasn't got back onside.

I'm happy if someone can find the law wording that says I'm wrong.

I think we're saying the same thing......pass back to player behind the ball.........which is what happened for the wolves goal isn't it?

 

[sir baconface]

Usually when I get tackled American football style, I usually go down too

But but do you fall forwards or backwards?

 

[Dribble]

I'm not forgetting anything. Laporte did not gain possession or control of the ball, therefore the goalscoring opportunity does not need to be considered.

City agreed that ANY hand/arm contact by an attacking players in the box which results in a goal, whether accidentally or not will be ruled out.

The ball accidentally hit Laporte's arm & deviated to Jesus. That is fact. The issue I have is phases. Considering how much work & how many players Jesus had to pass to score, was this in the same phase as the handball or not? That's the issue I have, along with why a ball accidentally hitting a defender isn't penalised too?

Also, a ball hits Llorente in the CL, it's not a handball. The ball hits Otamendi in the CL, it's handball?? Same rule, same competition, different interpretations.

VAR is fucked until all this is sorted.

 

[flook]

However, after a 'review' the penalty stood - when he then stepped up and the goalie saved it (2 yards off his line) none of them were moaning, in fact a few even talked about "Karma" as it shouldn't have been a penalty in the first place.

keeper had one foot on the line, replay on whichever stream I was tied into at the time showed it

 

[flook]

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.

I may be wrong (I was once, it was 1974) but I don't believe VAR checks for infringement, ref spotted this himself, so only 1 favourable decision

 

[Colin Bell (genuine name)]

So how do we do something about this?

Fortunately I recorded ref watch yesterday and I'm watching it again. Dermot Gallagher specifically says the rules were rewritten directly as a result of three incidents last season. Goals by Boly for wolves against us, Aguero's third goal against Arsenal and Nathan Redmond for Southampton where he fell over a tackle and his arm knocked the ball into the net.

All 3 goals were directly attributable to a handball knocking the ball directly in to the net. No argument there, definite free kick and no goal should be awarded. That was the specific type of incident that the rules were written for and is why the rules written by IFAB are written around the player and not the team.

Now Dermot Gallagher specifically states in response as to why the law was brought in and I quote "Well we saw three of them in the Premier League last year, we saw Willy Boly, we saw Aguero, we saw Nathan Redmond and everybody felt it wasn't acceptable, everybody had this notion we can't have a goal scored by the hand or the arm. So the law was brought in to place by IFAB for the start of the season. Ehm, unfortunately the last two weeks I view it as a consequence of the decision, it was made in very, very good spirit and for the right reasons. I..I don't understand what the confusion is because that is quite clear ( pointing to the Sky graphic stating the handball rule of " the following handball situations, even if accidental, will be a free kick...the ball goes into the goal after touching an attacking player's hand/arm.") We saw it the week before, we explained it, I..I..I think it's quite clear, it might not be what we like but it's there, and it's there, it's there for the rest of the season at least because they will never change it mid season, I can't see that happening, but what I will say, it's consistent, because it's no longer a matter of opinion, it's no longer subjective, the referee each week will make the same decision."

Not only did he state the reason for why the laws were changed he states that IFAB made the rules. So how do we challenge them that they are not following the rules. How do we get the press and television to realise that the rules created by IFAB are not being followed and that decisions are being made on flawed interpretations.

The goal chopped off for Wolves was not as bad as ours, both Boly and Dendoncker rose for the cross, dendonker headed the ball onto Boly's upper arm and the ball fell for dendonker to volley into the net. The goal should have stood all day long.

Why is this decision being accepted as being correct, why is nobody in a position of being able to challenge this, reading the rules and challenging the decisions.

We should never let this go until we get the proper answers.

Still furious

 

[Florida Blue]

City agreed that ANY hand/arm contact by an attacking players in the box which results in a goal, whether accidentally or not will be ruled out.

The ball accidentally hit Laporte's arm & deviated to Jesus. That is fact. The issue I have is phases. Considering how much work & how many players Jesus had to pass to score, was this in the same phase as the handball or not? That's the issue I have, along with why a ball accidentally hitting a defender isn't penalised too?

Also, a ball hits Llorente in the CL, it's not a handball. The ball hits Otamendi in the CL, it's handball?? Same rule, same competition, different interpretations.

VAR is fucked until all this is sorted.

What does that mean City agreed?

The Premier league is posting different guidelines to the IFAB. They have posted whether its accidental or not and hits the arm and creates a goal it's handball, and it's spread like wild fire. Journalists, pundits ex refs, everybody is repeating it when nobody seems to actually have read the specific guidelines from the IFAB website. IFAB rules are not the same as what the Prem is saying.

You are correct on the "phases" issue too. There is an argument also the deflection off the arm created a chance. It didn't , Jesus created the chance for the shot himself.
So there are 2 issues with the ruling, the first one , did Laporte have possession/control of the ball, obviously he did not, and did he create a chance for Jesus. he didn't do that either, Jesus took a touch to the right to create the space to shoot.

 

[kaz7]

The problem was players putting it in with their hands,the solution is use VAR to check that doesn't happen,simple,problem solved,no need to mission creep but they couldn't help themselves,changing the handball rule to benefit defenders and penalise attackers was not needed,they can blame who they want but they are not using the rules properly,so far they are trying to ref the game like it's a computer game,as for saying rodders dived,they have lost all credibility,2 games in

 

[Dribble]

What does that mean City agreed?

The Premier league is posting different guidelines to the IFAB. They have posted whether its accidental or not and hits the arm and creates a goal it's handball, and it's spread like wild fire. Journalists, pundits ex refs, everybody is repeating it when nobody seems to actually have read the specific guidelines from the IFAB website. IFAB rules are not the same as what the Prem is saying.

You are correct on the "phases" issue too. There is an argument also the deflection off the arm created a chance. It didn't , Jesus created the chance for the shot himself.
So there are 2 issues with the ruling, the first one , did Laporte have possession/control of the ball, obviously he did not, and did he create a chance for Jesus. he didn't do that either, Jesus took a touch to the right to create the space to shoot.

Agreed. Pep called for VAR & we voted for it & presumably were made aware of handball in the penalty area changes. We can argue all we like about the wording which is open to interpretation, but the fact is the ball hit Lsporte's hand.

I feel we as fans should concentrate our fire on the phases, parity with defenders touching the ball in the area, & clarification of the wording issues, as to get caught up in whether it's right to penalise an attacker who touches the ball with his hand kind of dilutes our fire on the more glaring VAR issues.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

The problem was players putting it in with their hands,the solution is use VAR to check that doesn't happen,simple,problem solved,no need to mission creep but they couldn't help themselves,changing the handball rule to benefit defenders and penalise attackers was not needed,they can blame who they want but they are not using the rules properly,so far they are trying to ref the game like it's a computer game,as for saying rodders dived,they have lost all credibility,2 games in

They have not only destroyed any credibility, but they have also proved that is possible for the officials to cheat using VAR, and lie about it.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

I think we're saying the same thing......pass back to player behind the ball.........which is what happened for the wolves goal isn't it?

Not quite.
If the player is behind the ball, then the law states that that is fine always

However, I think It is possible for a player to be in front of the ball, the ball to be played backwards, and the said player to run back and receive the ball. If he is in an offside position when the ball is played backwards, he's offside regardless of where he is when he gets the ball.

e,g, a short corner is played by player 1 (P1) to Player 2 (P2). P2 is obviously onside here.
P1 remains still in the quadrant, and is now in an offside position and in front of the ball (but not committing an offence at the time)
P2 knocks the ball five yards back up the touchline towards the halfway line.
P1 runs back and gets the ball, becoming active, and is flagged offside as he was in an offside position when the ball is played.

Bit nerdy, I know.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Agreed. Pep called for VAR & we voted for it & presumably were made aware of handball in the penalty area changes. We can argue all we like about the wording which is open to interpretation, but the fact is the ball hit Lsporte's hand.

I feel we as fans should concentrate our fire on the phases, parity with defenders touching the ball in the area, & clarification of the wording issues, as to get caught up in whether it's right to penalise an attacker who touches the ball with his hand kind of dilutes our fire on the more glaring VAR issues.

People saying 'hit Laport's hand' like he actually deflected the ball somehow. In reality contact was so slight he probably didn't even feel it.

 

[Dribble]

People saying 'hit Laport's hand' like he actually deflected the ball somehow. In reality contact was so slight he probably didn't even feel it.

I checked it again mate, & there was a definite deflection right to Jesus, accidental or not. My issue is, with all the work Jesus had to do, was the goal scored in the same phase as the handball?

 

[simon23]

Premier League‏Verified account @premierleague


"Any goal scored or created with the use of the hand or arm will be disallowed this season even if it is accidental."


That is what the Premier league Twitter posted, so are they ignoring the specific detailed guidelines by IFAB regarding handball?

On the official Premier League site it says the same thing....

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1263332?utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

BUT at the bottom they direct you to read the new IFAB guidelines

See: IFAB handball law changes in full

Sooo, what the hell does that mean? Do the Premier league have different rules than IFAB? ie Any accidental handball scored or created is handball or is it lazily written and the specific guidelines of possession and control of the ball still stand that IFAB wrote and the Premier league gives a link to IFAB to read the detailed guidelines?

This HAS to be cleared up as it's night and day difference for what could be a goal or not a goal. Like what happened to us v Spurs.

ive just read the link that you have posted and Ive copied and pasted the two bits that relate to the incident we are talking about.

The following ‘handball’ situations, even if accidental, will be a free kick:

• a player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity
• 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

Ive posted this before but the use of the word "or" to me means that the goal was rightfully disallowed. The "or" word means that the player doesn't have to have been in control because its one "or" the other situation; either in control or creates a goal scoring opportunity (obviously a player could both gain control by handball and then create a goal scoring opportunity as well)

(Just wondering if anyone has noticed the grammatical error in the first bullet point on the actual document as well - "has touches" should read "has touched") so even this document isn't correct!


On the complete flip side what would be interesting to know (and only Laporte himself would know this) is if the ball glanced off his head first because if it did then this sentance (taken diretly fromt he premiership webiste but is also present to on the IFAB one) coms into play and says our goal should of been allowed:

So a handball will not be awarded if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/nearby.

I think its impossible to get this perfect... for me the closest to perfect you can get is to take accidenta handball out of the equation but then its up to the ref to judge intention (which is exactly why the rule was changed to take the question of intent out of it for refs....but there are some situations where intent (or not) is clear and the Laporte one would be one such situation.

 

[Florida Blue]

Agreed. Pep called for VAR & we voted for it & presumably were made aware of handball in the penalty area changes. We can argue all we like about the wording which is open to interpretation, but the fact is the ball hit Lsporte's hand.

I feel we as fans should concentrate our fire on the phases, parity with defenders touching the ball in the area, & clarification of the wording issues, as to get caught up in whether it's right to penalise an attacker who touches the ball with his hand kind of dilutes our fire on the more glaring VAR issues.

We agreed on VAR yes, BUT the ruling isn't being carried out correctly in this incident, which cost us 2 points.
The wording is not open to interpretation, the Prem use a completely different explanation to IFAB, they throw in the word "accidental" when it's not in the IFAB ruling. And that makes a massive difference. It can hit a persons hand, that is the whole point. It's only if he controls it after the handball and creates a chance is it handball.
Agreed the defender and attacker should be equally punished.

Start tying arms behind players backs to stop all the nonsense.

 

[crublue1]

Correct it wasn’t introduced to prevent us winning. However it is and will be used as a weapon against us We should be top of the league 6 points 9 for 2 against and we aren’t

No we aren't and it's a fair point, we should be. But even without var maybe we would be in exactly the same position, considering many believe there was/ is an agenda.
I am slightly concerned we are getting our excuses in just in case, but I honestly think we are that good it won't affect us over a full season. I really hope I'm not being naive . If we'd have put our chances away like we know we can we would be clear. I still think we will win it.

 

[bobbyowenquiff]

I checked it again mate, & there was a definite deflection right to Jesus, accidental or not. My issue is, with all the work Jesus had to do, was the goal scored in the same phase as the handball?

The key fact is under the IFAB handball rules the goal can't be disallowed. The VAR officials are NOT following the IFAB rules. They have been given conflicting advice from the FA. This will have to be resolved.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I checked it again mate, & there was a definite deflection right to Jesus, accidental or not. My issue is, with all the work Jesus had to do, was the goal scored in the same phase as the handball?

I though the deflection was off the attackers arm as it appeared to contact both simultaneously?

 

[Florida Blue]

ive just read the link that you have posted and Ive copied and pasted the two bits that relate to the incident we are talking about.

The following ‘handball’ situations, even if accidental, will be a free kick:

• a player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity
• 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

Ive posted this before but the use of the word "or" to me means that the goal was rightfully disallowed. The "or" word means that the player doesn't have to have been in control because its one "or" the other situation; either in control or creates a goal scoring opportunity (obviously a player could both gain control by handball and then create a goal scoring opportunity as well)

(Just wondering if anyone has noticed the grammatical error in the first bullet point on the actual document as well - "has touches" should read "has touched") so even this document isn't correct!


On the complete flip side what would be interesting to know (and only Laporte himself would know this) is if the ball glanced off his head first because if it did then this sentance (taken diretly fromt he premiership webiste but is also present to on the IFAB one) coms into play and says our goal should of been allowed:

So a handball will not be awarded if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/nearby.

I think its impossible to get this perfect... for me the closest to perfect you can get is to take accidenta handball out of the equation but then its up to the ref to judge intention (which is exactly why the rule was changed to take the question of intent out of it for refs....but there are some situations where intent (or not) is clear and the Laporte one would be one such situation.

The key words are THEN and AFTER..... a player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity.

So he first has to gain control/possession ( which he never had at any point, it was a 50/50 header) then AFTER he then creates the goal scoring opportunity. Which would mean another touch to Jesus. None of that happened.