Var debate 2019/20

Bandofblues said:
But you are still wrong.

See the IFAB presentation of changes to the laws and clarification: http://theifab.com/presentation-of-ifab-log-2019-20/

"Football does not accept:
A player gaining possesion/control of the ball from their hand/arm and then scoring or creating a goal scoring opportunity."

In your interpretation of the OR in that sentence it would mean that "Football does not accept - a goal scoring opportunity"
The player has to gain possession/control in order to create the goal scoring opportunity.

Also in the clarification presentation there are several videos used as examples which all show the player handling the ball and then scoring or shoooting.
There are no examples given where one player handles and it deflects to another, they are all where the player themselves have created the goal scoring opportunity themselves.

Go take a look....
Click to expand...

I have and still disagree on your interpritation....the OR means that he doesnt have to be in possession or control....


I can see that this is going to spoil peoples enjoyment of the game this season.....i can see poeple are going to spend so muh time focussing on VAR instead of the performances and its already happening 9f you look at the pre match thread.....

last week we didnt finish our chances 30 created and only scored 2 (3 if you could the disallowed goal).....we need to be more clinical and this will come but people are going to have to get used to it for at elast this season..

was I a supported of VAR - no i wasnt.....Do i want it...no i dont but people like PEP who know better than me do - maybe this will change, maybe (and more likely) the rules will be readdressed which definitely needs to happen.

Even if I take your point of view:

And as also argued previously on a number of occasions if the ball hits the arm and then defelcts towards our own player (as it has done)we have gained possession from the deflection...even momentarily Laporte is in possession and has controlled (changed) the flight of the ball

so ill give you an example - KDB feeds the bal to silve down the left channel, without taking control of the ball but with his first (and only) touch he first time passes ot the on rushing aguero who slots it into the net.....I ask you who has created the goal.???....KDB or silva? Of course its Silva - city and the players have been in possession of the ball the whole time even on Silva's first touch pass....no replace silvas action with KDB hitting the bal towrds silva, it inadvertantly hits him onthe arm and falls to an on rushing aguero....the goal is disallowed......

Is the rule wrong - absolutely

Was the interpritation of the rule wrong on this occasion - no it wasnt.
 
Metalartin said:
Then someone should tell the refs. They are clearly looking for any handball in the buildup to a goal, "accidental or not" has been repeated from the start of the season by every pundit.

Refs and VARs, should be required to pass a test on all the rule changes, before the start of every season.
Click to expand...
I’ve been banging this drum since last week.

In every description of the laws of the game for handball, everyone (but Martin Samuel) from the refs to the pundits to Gundogan to de Bruyne to our fans have it wrong!

In either the IFAB or FA description of the handball law, you stop as soon as it says “gains possession/control” because everything after that in both descriptions is irrelevant because Laporte did not gain possession/control.

It doesn’t mention “for his team” it is read as if it’s HIM gaining possession/control for HIMSELF. And he didn’t !
 
Last edited by a moderator:
blue b4 the moon said:
He was doing great until his last few words.

In a quick line he basically goes for a full-on incompetence stance, if he makes mention of City fans he should have the grace to report what our real feelings are even if he's not got no bottle to call 'bent' himself.
Click to expand...
The last 2 paragraphs aren't Martin Samuels words, they're @Florida Blue s take on the article.
 
simon23 said:
the OR means that he doesnt have to be in possession or control....
Click to expand...
No it doesn’t.

You’re not reading it correctly.

“
Football does not accept

A player gaining possession/control of the ball from his hand/arm

And then

Scoring

Or

Creating a goal scoring opportunity
”

As soon as Laporte didn’t gain possession/control of the ball you stop reading the law and play on. Because he did not gain possession or control of the ball.
 
Ultimately, it’s already been shown that the PLs interpretation is a valid one as they’ve ruled out two goals for it already and IFAB haven’t said they’re wrong. There isn’t much point debating the semantics of the rule, it is what it is and it’s the same for everyone now. Had they given ours, then that would actually have been more worrying as they wouldn’t be consistently applying their own interpretation given they’d already ruled the Wolves goal out.
 
Laporte did not gain possession but he did control the ball's way for that reason its a freekick.

The only valid proof of your opinion would be if we see a a goal given in the PL where there is an accidental touch like Laporte's and they give the goal based on what you try to say like player didnt gain posession/control.
But we ony saw one more case with Wolves getting a goal taken away in first round in Wolves-Leicester game of course Nuno Santo and the whole Wolves were very angry blaming VAr and thinking about players have to chop off their hands in future.

This the same Wolves that were very happy last season when Boly scored a goal with his hand in Wolves-City 1-1 game.
 
Damanino said:
Laporte did not gain possession but he did control the ball's way for that reason its a freekick.

The only valid proof of your opinion would be if we see a a goal given in the PL where there is an accidental touch like Laporte's and they give the goal based on what you try to say like player didnt gain posession/control.
But we ony saw one more case with Wolves getting a goal taken away in first round in Wolves-Leicester game of course Nuno Santo and the whole Wolves were very angry blaming VAr and thinking about players have to chop off their hands in future.

This the same Wolves that were very happy last season when Boly scored a goal with his hand in Wolves-City 1-1 game.
Click to expand...
“Gain possession/control”

He did not gain control of the ball, it deflected off him.
 
Damanino said:
His arm changed the way of the ball. Accident clearly but thats how it is. Gaining possession, gaining control is the same. The "/" I guess means or here.
Click to expand...

Laporte did not gain possession (or control) of the ball. Everything else is irrelevant because this did not happen. Even if we accept that City / Jesus did gain possession after the ball hit Laporte's hand, which we do, does not change the fact that Laporte did not gain possession of the ball. Therefore no offence was committed. Therefore it was a goal.

Personally, I blame the English teachers.
 
Why are people still arguing it? You can argue it’s wrong all you like but the PL and PGMOL have said it was correct so now we know that if someone scores after an accidental handball then it’s going to be ruled out.
 
simon23 said:
I have and still disagree on your interpritation....the OR means that he doesnt have to be in possession or control....
Click to expand...

Deconstruct the sentence:

"Football does not accept:
A player gaining possesion/control of the ball from their hand/arm and then scoring or creating a goal scoring opportunity."

It is either:

Football does not accept:
- A player gaining possesion/control of the ball from their hand/arm and then scoring
Football does not accept:
- A player gaining possesion/control of the ball from their hand/arm and then creating a goal scoring opportunity."

Or it is:

Football does not accept:
- A player gaining possesion/control of the ball from their hand/arm and then scoring
Football does not accept:
- Creating a goal scoring opportunity.


The 2nd interpretation does not make any sense.
The examples given by IFAB clearly indicate the situations the new rule was introduced for.
 
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