Var debate 2019/20

karen7 said:
We should point it out every time he lies,unfortunately pep was in favour of var in the belief it would help us,wonder what he thinks now
Click to expand...

I thought at the time pep was being naive.. Probably thought of the English sense of fair play. But it is not cricket. He will be pulling his hair out before the end of the season.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Well to me it's pretty clear. If after you've touched it, you are able to play the ball (when without touching it you would not have been able to) then you have brought it under control.
Click to expand...
I’m with you, mate! WE are not the problem...or the decision-makers!
 
Florida Blue said:
"gain possession/contr
Click to expand...
Colin Bell (genuine name) said:
Spot the difference

1. scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm
2. gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then Scores in the opponents goal

What is the minimum amount of touches inclusive of handball to score in the opponents goal in sentence 1 and how many touches including handball does it take to score in sentence 2.

The answer to sentence 1 is one touch. The answer to sentence 2 is at least two touches.

Now for a player to meet the criteria of sentence 2, he would have to be the next player to touch the ball after it hit his arm in order to score in the opponents goal. That is why the rule is written with reference to possession and or control of the ball after it hits his arm.

It is an offence if a player

  • deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball

  • 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

  • scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
Click to expand...

After the ball had touched Laporte`s arm, when did he gain possession / control of the ball ? If he had gained possession / control, how did he then create a goal scoring opportunity?

The ball touched his arm and brushed past all in one movement. Laporte was never actually in possession /control of the ball as I understand the meaning of those words.

The fact that it touched his arm (without Laporte being in possession or control) and then led to or created (create meaning to cause it to happen or exist ) an opportunity for Jesus who created and scored the `goal` appears not to be relevant if the player (Laporte) has not been in possession / control of the ball.

All parts of the Rule 12 have to be satisfied for the goal to be disallowed and I do not believe that they have. What`s your view?
 
It is an offence if a player:

  • 1. deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball

  • 2. gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
    • 2(a) scores in the opponents’ goal

    • 2(b) creates a goal-scoring opportunity

  • 3. scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper


Highlighted in red are the results of actions taken by a player in committing the offence of handball. Both results are the same but the law leading to each result is different.

In number 3 it would take a minimum of one touch inclusive of handball to score in the opponents goal.

In number 2(a) it would take a minimum of two touches inclusive of handball to complete the offence or else it would be no different from number 3.

The addition of number 3 by IFAB conclusively means that the player in number 2 must be the player who makes the first touch after the handball and explains why the wording of gains possession/control is there.

Therefore he would not only have to be the player that has the first touch after the handball to score in the opponents goal but also the first player to touch the ball after the handball to create a goal scoring opportunity.

The argument suggesting that Laporte created a goal scoring opportunity with the deflection is not supported by the rules, as rule 2 clearly states he must have gained possession or control of the ball.

If the deflection off the arm had gone straight into the goal then the offence would have been covered in number 3 above. If he had somehow struck the ball into the net after the handball then he would have satisfied the conditions in rule 2.

It angers me that these decisions based on flawed understanding of the rules are going to continue unchallenged, or unfortunately challenged by those with the same flawed understanding.
 
northwichblue said:
What happened to the ball after it brushed Eric's arm, did it fall at Gabbys feet?.
Click to expand...

No Gabby had to alter his run and make two yards to collect the ball before playing it into space and creating a chance to shoot, he then curled it round 4 defenders, and David silva into the net. The ball travelled about ten yards before Gabby collected it, certainly didn't land at his feet.
 
Colin Bell (genuine name) said:
No Gabby had to alter his run and make two yards to collect the ball before playing it into space and creating a chance to shoot, he then curled it round 4 defenders, and David silva into the net. The ball travelled about ten yards before Gabby collected it, certainly didn't land at his feet.
Click to expand...

Well what the fuck are var going on about, where was the goal scoring opportunity there
 
Colin Bell (genuine name) said:
It is an offence if a player:

  • 1. deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball

  • 2. gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
    • 2(a) scores in the opponents’ goal

    • 2(b) creates a goal-scoring opportunity

  • 3. scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper


Highlighted in red are the results of actions taken by a player in committing the offence of handball. Both results are the same but the law leading to each result is different.

In number 3 it would take a minimum of one touch inclusive of handball to score in the opponents goal.

In number 2(a) it would take a minimum of two touches inclusive of handball to complete the offence or else it would be no different from number 3.

The addition of number 3 by IFAB conclusively means that the player in number 2 must be the player who makes the first touch after the handball and explains why the wording of gains possession/control is there.

Therefore he would not only have to be the player that has the first touch after the handball to score in the opponents goal but also the first player to touch the ball after the handball to create a goal scoring opportunity.

The argument suggesting that Laporte created a goal scoring opportunity with the deflection is not supported by the rules, as rule 2 clearly states he must have gained possession or control of the ball.

If the deflection off the arm had gone straight into the goal then the offence would have been covered in number 3 above. If he had somehow struck the ball into the net after the handball then he would have satisfied the conditions in rule 2.

It angers me that these decisions based on flawed understanding of the rules are going to continue unchallenged, or unfortunately challenged by those with the same flawed understanding.
Click to expand...
Don't get angry, get even CB.
Are you actively challenging the decisions based on your unflawed understanding of the rules?
 
Right, sorry, I have been to the pub and as it was a £1 a pint I felt it was my duty to... anyway, is this the thread where the pretend Rag/Dipper posts under the name LoadsofDickov or similar ? if so has he been fucked off yet ?
 
Colin Bell (genuine name) said:
Yep!
Just emailed Duncan Castles at the Guardian as he seemed to be the only one to question the Premier Leagues adaption of the rules.

Why? Do you think my explanation is unflawed?
Click to expand...
I e-mailed 3 journalists of national newspaperd
Colin Bell (genuine name) said:
Yep!
Just emailed Duncan Castles at the Guardian as he seemed to be the only one to question the Premier Leagues adaption of the rules.

Why? Do you think my explanation is unflawed?
Click to expand...
I emailed 3 journalists of national newspapers this morning. Castles has popped up since saying very, very similar to what I have been saying. It could just be a coincidence.

I think you and I are reaching the same conclusion but by a slightly different route using different words.

I just want to understand why the goal was ruled out after the unbridled joy of what I thought was the much deserved winner.
 
All good.
My last line to Castles was " a perfectly good goal chopped off by incompetence masquerading as excellence".

I don't normally get wound up about things like this, city have been awesome and I was really looking forward to the new season hoping that VAR if used correctly would be good for us, but the Rodri penalty, Bernie being scythed by Danny Rose and the disallowed goal has really got my dander up.

It doesn't help that nearly every part of the media is agreeing with the decisions when they are blatantly wrong.
 
Honestly since this is the law now and as long as they apply it the same way going forward for other teams, I'm more annoyed about the penalties we didn't get:

Hoddle spotted something I didn't(worrying) in that there were actually two fouls VAR could have seen when Rodri was brought down, look at Rose and Aguero:


Here's the foul just before the corner comes in on Laporte, Skipp grabbed his arm and a bit of the sleeve of his shirt... Does anyone know the rule if someone is fouled before the ball is played, is that still a penalty? I'm pretty sure it still is.
 
Last edited:
Metalartin said:
Honestly since this is the law now and as long as they apply it the same way going forward for other teams, I'm more annoyed about the penalties we didn't get:

Hoddle spotted something I didn't(worrying) in that there were actually two fouls VAR could have seen when Rodri was brought down, look at Rose and Aguero:


Here's the foul just before the corner comes in on Laporte, Skipp grabbed his arm and a bit of the sleeve of his shirt... Does anyone know the rule if someone is fouled before the ball is played, is that still a penalty? I'm pretty sure it still is.
Click to expand...



Fuck me, never even noticed the pull on Aguero!
The only possible explanation for this now is that the VAR official was too busy having a pull on himself at the time...!
 
Last edited:
A brilliant way to protest would be for the players to agree that if they score they don’t celebrate, all walk over to the ref and just stand and stare at him, looking in disbelief for 60 seconds before then celebrating. We score so many goals it’d happen all the time and would be hilarious
 
Theengelbert said:
A brilliant way to protest would be for the players to agree that if they score they don’t celebrate, all walk over to the ref and just stand and stare at him, looking in disbelief for 60 seconds before then celebrating. We score so many goals it’d happen all the time and would be hilarious
Click to expand...

The crowd stays silent too until the opposition kick off, when we celebrate madly.
 
Theengelbert said:
A brilliant way to protest would be for the players to agree that if they score they don’t celebrate, all walk over to the ref and just stand and stare at him, looking in disbelief for 60 seconds before then celebrating. We score so many goals it’d happen all the time and would be hilarious
Click to expand...
Yes. Do this. Players planned that celebration in front of the empty away end at Milwall (Huckerbee's goal i think) to object to City supporters being excluded, this would be a time to show their views again.
 
All player and crowd celebrations need to stop. To be honest I’ve already started, not celebrated the last six times the ball has hit the net properly. But if the players did the same, everyone in the league doing a Balotelli celebration and fans just standing there, it might start to get that message home.

VAR is going to make the game seem as passionless as possible.

I don’t think the pundits and journos have really picked up on this yet as they don’t have the passion for goals like real fans do, plus they get the replays in the studio or on their laptops so they know what’s going on - the real fans in the ground don’t.

There needs to be a lot of “FUCK VAR” chanting as well! Wolves were doing it the other night, Sheffield Weds have it a huge rendition at Chelsea last season. We need to get a movement going about it.

It’s already killed the passion of the celebration of the ball hitting the net, a few games in. Let’s get rid of it before it kills all the passion in the game!

Bayern fans had it right:
wgoldbo39yl21.png


I love the idea of the players just running to the ref and standing doing nothing but stare at him until he says “goal”.
 
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