Var debate 2019/20

Imo Laportes accidental handball did change the direction of the ball. So for me its not a goal as I certainly wouldnt want to go out ever again to a goal like Lorrentes last season vs Spurs.

If any attacker touches the ball with his arm during an attack and it results a goal than its a freekick.

Last season Lorrente goal (this cost us the CL semifinal vs Ajax) and the Wolves goal by Boly froom Wolves vs us (this costed us 2 points) both would be ruled out under this new law. I am happy with that.
Also this takes away the chance if refs cheating like "I didnt see it".
Certainly we wont score any goals like this anymore either we also had some, remember Kun scored one last season and ref gave it.

Of course we only remember these if we drop points or if its a big game.

If this Jesus goal would have been taken away in a City- Norwich 5-1 game at 5-1 so not 6-1 but 5-1 hardly anyone would care.

Problem will be when next time a ref gives a goal when somebody from the attacking team accidently handles the ball and they say it was accidental so the goal is good. Then I will be livid.
 
Marvin said:
I thought the handball rule changed?
Click to expand...

Yeah. It's pointless banging on about that goal. The rule was different then. IMO you can make a case for letting it stand last season but not at all this season. I don't understand why some think Rose's at WHL wasn't a pen. He threw himself in the way of the ball like a keeper and his arm was stuck out. Otamendi's at Schalke was never a penalty under any version of the laws. That was as bad as Saturday's heist. VAR involved again.
 
SWP's back said:
I think most people would be ok with it being in place to stop obvious offsides like Miler at a West Ham last season when he was two yards offside or to stop erroneous decisions like Milner playing a ball back and Sané being given as offside when he couldn’t have been.

That sort of obvious error is fine, but they’ve gone OTT in their pursuit of perfection that can’t be attained. It’s now a cheats charter.
Click to expand...
Yep. Every goal being scrutinised is wank.
 
danielwood5 said:
That's what I don't get with the changes to the handball law, last season handball was given if it was judged to be a deliberate action. This meant the referee had to judge if handball was deliberate in real time with only one viewing. Technology is then introduced to allow referees to view an incident from multiple angles and in slow motion so they change the rule to make it easier to use the technology! That seems pretty backward to me.
Click to expand...

And then they establish a principle that minimizes the ref's access to the monitor.
 
Obvious pen for Chelsea not given. VAR didn’t even look at it apparently. Just scrap it. Complete waste of time.
 
SWP's back said:
I think most people would be ok with it being in place to stop obvious offsides like Miler at a West Ham last season when he was two yards offside or to stop erroneous decisions like Milner playing a ball back and Sané being given as offside when he couldn’t have been.

That sort of obvious error is fine, but they’ve gone OTT in their pursuit of perfection that can’t be attained. It’s now a cheats charter.
Click to expand...
I think that’s all it should be used for. Quick offside check on a goal.
 
GSW Blue said:
Obvious pen for Chelsea not given. VAR didn’t even look at it apparently. Just scrap it. Complete waste of time.
Click to expand...
This is why the ‘clear and obvious’ rule needs to be better explained.

The best explanation I’ve heard is that if there were ten refs in the VAR room viewing the incident, 9 or even possibly all 10 of them would have to agree it’s a penalty. Anything less than that (such as at ours last week) and they won’t tell the ref to look at it on his pitch side monitor.

This, we are led to believe, is because they don’t want refs tottering over to review incidents several times a game (after they trialled that in the cups last season and managers moaned about players getting cold and pulling muscles) and therefore the PL have set “a very high bar” for subjective decisions like that.
 
If Atkinson awarded the goal, how was it a clear and obvious error and over ruled when Rodri being rugby tackled isn’t clear and obvious. What happened to this “high bar” to over rule the ref?
 
Mraitch said:
If Atkinson awarded the goal, how was it a clear and obvious error and over ruled when Rodri being rugby tackled isn’t clear and obvious. What happened to this “high bar” to over rule the ref?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure how anyone can still ask this question two weeks into the season.

Every goal is checked, at that point, the clear and obvious threshold doesn’t need to be met. That’s been in the rules since before the season.

I’m not saying I agree with it, just explaining why the two are different.
 
Do we have pitchside monitors ? I ask because posters keep saying we do and yet I cannot recall one incident this season where it has been used.
 
Blue Mist said:
Do we have pitchside monitors ? I ask because posters keep saying we do and yet I cannot recall one incident this season where it has been used.
Click to expand...
There are pitch side monitors yes but they’re trying to avoid using them hence the high bar/threshold on telling the ref to use it.
 
It is clear to overrule a referee, with VAR, and award a penalty, is way beyond the definition of most peoples understanding of ‘clear and obvious’ and only resulting in more confusion.

In some ways it almost an impossible task for the VAR referee to instead of making a factual decision, is it a pen or not, they have to decide if its ‘clear and obvious’ also which is can only lead to more inconsistency of interpretation. It really needs scrapping now until it is used correctly as its pointless having a technology which can come to the correct decision but, although being utilised, is not overruling the refs decision.

Chelsea had some shocking decisions against them today and although I would rarely want them to win I am glad VAR did not impact on another match result.
 
franksinatra said:
It is clear the penalty, with VAR, to overturn a decision is way beyond the definition of most peoples understanding of ‘clear and obvious’ and requires some guidance from the powers that be.

In some ways it almost an impossible task for the VAR referee to instead of making a factual decision, is it a pen or not, they have to decide if its ‘clear and obvious’ also which is can only lead to more inconsistency of interpretation. It really needs scrapping now until it is used correctly as its pointless having a technology which can come to the correct decision but, although being utilised, is not overruling the refs decision.

Chelsea had some shocking decisions against them today and although I would rarely want them to win I am glad VAR did not impact on another match result.
Click to expand...
The way they’ve interpreted ‘clear and obvious’, I can’t think of many situations that could occur where they would over rule the ref if they continue (not) utilising it like they are at present.
 
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