VAR Discussion Thread - 2023/24 | PL clubs to vote on whether to scrap VAR (pg413)

[SWPISHOME]

Football is fucked.

I miss celebrating goals! It's fucking atrocious. I absolutely despise VAR.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Football is fucked.

I miss celebrating goals! It's fucking atrocious. I absolutely despise VAR.

fans were going mental, celebrating wildly after every goal today in what was one of the best PL games i've ever seen.

 

[TinFoilHat]

fans were going mental, celebrating wildly after every goal today in what was one of the best PL games i've ever seen.

Your boys 3-2 win?

:)

 

[BlueHammer85]

Your boys 3-2 win?

:)

absolutely!

 

[bluenova]

Because if HAD grazed his elbow it still would have been given...

No it wouldn't.

Until the ball has fully crossed the line, it's not a goal. If it touches Haaland's arm or hand before it crosses the line it's automatically ruled out. It would be a bizarre situation, given that he's in the goal at the time, but it's a very simple rule. Handball by a goalscorer, even if accidental, rules out the goal.

 

[Paladin]

Unfortunately, the Laws of the Game cannot deal with every possible situation, so where there is no direct provision in the Laws, the referee should make a decision within the spirit of the game and the Laws. This should involve the officials asking the question, 'what would football expect in this situation?'

I’ve not seen replays yet so have no idea. But if the ball touched his elbow before it fully crossed the line, the laws quite categorically say it is handball.

It would be a horrible way to have a goal disallowed. But I’m not sure too many City fans would be happy for an opposition goal to stand for the sake of the spirit of the game, if an offence was proved to have taken place?

Can you show me in the Laws exactly where it says that please? (That the Laws quite categorically say is handball).

For information, the paragraph I have quoted there from my earlier post which you referenced, is paraphrased, but almost a direct quote from The Laws of the Game.

 

[Paladin]

Indeed, it would probably be helpful if the law itself was simplified to state its purpose and the present rhetoric modified to read as examples of how this purpose should be applied.

e.g. The purpose of this law is to avoid a player’s hand making contact with the ball giving that player’s team an advantage.
This should be the first consideration of the referee. The following descriptors give examples that should guide the referee in making a judgement as to whether there has been an infringement and the nature of any penalty to be applied …….
Follows an adaption of the current wording of the law to consider what part of arm is proscribed etc…

As I said above, the first paragraph of my earlier post is almost a word for word lift from The Laws of the Game. This is the exact quote.

 

[bluenova]

Can you show me in the Laws exactly where it says that please? (That the Laws quite categorically say is handball).

For information, the paragraph I have quoted there from my earlier post which you referenced, is paraphrased, but almost a direct quote from The Laws of the Game.

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct

IFAB Laws of the Game

www.thefa.com

It is an offence if a player:

scores in the opponents' goal:
directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental
-------

In this case, had the ball touched Haaland's arm before it fully crossed the line (which it didn't, but it was very close), even accidentally, he would be committing a handball offence, and the goal would be ruled out.

 

[Paladin]

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct

IFAB Laws of the Game

www.thefa.com

It is an offence if a player:

scores in the opponents' goal:
directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental
-------

In this case, had the ball touched Haaland's arm before it fully crossed the line (which it didn't, but it was very close), even accidentally, he would be committing a handball offence, and the goal would be ruled out.

Thanks for that. It's hypothetical, but I would argue the spirit of the law should override Law 12 in this case. But it wouldn't in reality, because the bit I'm referring to is tucked away in the introduction to The Laws, it isn't in the 17 laws, and won't be known about by referees or pundits.

 

[Stephen230]

Can you show me in the Laws exactly where it says that please? (That the Laws quite categorically say is handball).

For information, the paragraph I have quoted there from my earlier post which you referenced, is paraphrased, but almost a direct quote from The Laws of the Game.

Just repeating what the other guy has already said really but think it’s a bit rude not answering a direct question.

So yeah, if it touches the goalscorer’s hand/arm, it’s an offence by default. No ambiguity in law with that really.

The pressure for that law to be introduced can probably be traced back to a goal against City, scored by a Wolves player a few years ago, who sort of inadvertently punched the ball in the goal at the far post.