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.

 

[SWP's back]

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.

That and that twat scoring with his elbow for Spurs in the CL again against us.

I think the handball law is pretty clear on the one and we wouldn’t need to revert back to any law about the spirit of the game. If the ball had touched his arm on the way in then it HAS already been clearly defined in law.

 

[SWP's back]

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?'

For this reason, Haaland's second goal only needed a cursory check for handball, and even if the ball had touched Haaland's hand before crossing the goal line, I'd like to think it would have still resulted in a goal.

I think the issue is that the refs (and me personally) think the laws cover that specific provision already quite clearly bud.

 

[pride in battle]

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.

It would have been given.

 

[Blue Maverick]

You can see Haalnd purposely put his hand in the air not to touch it, he physically couldn’t do anymore, it’s a bizarre one because if he’s ahead of the ball and it’s following him into the net he’s not actually doing anything to make the ball go forward unless there’s a a gent in his arm and the ball. Had that not been given it would’ve been criminal.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

You can see Haalnd purposely put his hand in the air not to touch it, he physically couldn’t do anymore, it’s a bizarre one because if he’s ahead of the ball and it’s following him into the net he’s not actually doing anything to make the ball go forward unless there’s a a gent in his arm and the ball. Had that not been given it would’ve been criminal.

It nearly hit his other arm though. His left elbow was centimetres away from it as the ball trickled over the line.

 

[Cassandra]

You can see Haalnd purposely put his hand in the air not to touch it, he physically couldn’t do anymore, it’s a bizarre one because if he’s ahead of the ball and it’s following him into the net he’s not actually doing anything to make the ball go forward unless there’s a a gent in his arm and the ball. Had that not been given it would’ve been criminal.

I would have thought that had the goal been disallowed for it touching Haarland's arm then VAR would have checked for a penalty (and possible red card). But then as the song says "I'm only a cockeyed optimist".

 

[stonerblue]

Good effort , but there will always be examples of exceptions to the rule.

Those above were seen on a much wider scale frequently.

Were they? Have you proof of this?

 

[BlueHammer85]

Were they? Have you proof of this?

The Premier League reported that 82 per cent of decisions were correct in the season before VAR was introduced, rising to 94 per cent being correct in 2019/20.

What is VAR, how does it work and what are the biggest problems?

PGMOL are coming under increasing pressure for domestic incidents while Uefa’s officials have also been criticised

www.independent.co.uk

would have thought it has increased more now more has evolved.

 

[Paladin]

I think the issue is that the refs (and me personally) think the laws cover that specific provision already quite clearly bud.

Yes, I agree. There are the 17 Laws and guidance that goes with them, and clarifications. And then there is the preamble and the introduction, which includes the references to the spirit of the game.

The spirit of the game is what gets lost though. If the ball had brushed Haaland's arm en route to the goal, it would not have been a goal. The strict laws would supercede the spirit of the game, and that isn't right in my view.

How can the spirit of the game even be applied, given that the Laws are so prescriptive? In the olden days, with proper good referees like Keith Hackett, Neil Midgeley et al, it used to be called common sense.

 

[BlueHammer85]

it used to be called common sense.

But that's gone out the window with social media/forums who go completely mental over any incident and everyone seems to have a different take.