I'm not sure that VAR is the issue. It is the duplicitous wankers that are running it that is the issue.There is no more evidence needed to prove that VAR is an absolute abomination.
Therefore it is by definition an abomination.I'm not sure that VAR is the issue. It is the duplicitous wankers that are running it that is the issue.
It has been clear from day 1 that it is being used to bring about the desired outcome of some games, primarily to the benefit of the red cartel and to the detriment of those that threaten their position.
You do know that this game was played with VAR? Very strange line of argument!I agree the referees aren’t good enough
But we should be really clear. If we’re all agreed that we should get rid of VAR, then this is what we’re getting. This Villa match and this kind of outcome is what we would have in the future. This is the alternative.
If we’re all fine with that, then great.
With respect, it is you that is misunderstanding the law. Let me requote the section you are relying on.No, you are failing to comprehend the rule set as it pertains to what constitutes a deliberate or a non-deliberate handball. For the GK to commit a deliberate handball would require him to be well beyond of the boundary and having no plausible deniability to him not knowing precisely where he is. The fact that not only is his body inside the box but the fact that he retreated back into it looking down pitch only furthers the point since from that perspective he wouldn't have even seen the line even in his peripheral vision.
It is VAR that has fenced us all in as it pertains to the situation not being able to be corrected, which was my point all along. Whether it was a denial of a GSO is subjective enough, then whether it would be considered a deliberate handball. Those are two levels of red tape "blocking" the correction of the incident. And I didn't hear anyone whilst making their arguments for a red card mention the term "deliberate" in their describing the handball. Only to then lecture me on the rule.
So I'm afraid you're the one fenced in here by the fact that the handball, regardless of whether it denied a GSO or not, is quite surely non-deliberate due to its proximity to the edge of the box. Which is precisely why I deemed a red card there to be "harsh" which was met with considerable resistance, from the ignorant, from those that didn't do the calculus on it needing to be "deliberate" in order to rise to the level of a red card, even if it was in fact a denial of a GSO. And further, both the retreating of the GK to get back into the box and the proximity of the handball itself to the box speak directly to it being inherently non-deliberate since it was the keeper. We can keep going on and on all you like, but I would advise you to concede the point seeing that now it is very clear where we stand on the issue.
You do know that this game was played with VAR? Very strange line of argument!
1. Was it a handball offence? YesWith respect, it is you that is misunderstanding the law. Let me requote the section you are relying on.
Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by committing a deliberate handball offence, the player is sent off wherever the offence occurs (except a goalkeeper within their penalty area).
Where a player denies the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by committing a non-deliberate handball offence and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned.
I have two questions for you.
1. Was it a handball offence?
2. Was Henderson's act deliberate?
If the answer to both of these is yes, then it is a deliberate handball offence.
You seem to be adding a third dimension, which is "did the player do this knowing he was committing a potential red card offence". But that isn't in the Laws of the Game, it is your own imagination or sense of fairness that has constructed it.
The Law does make the destinction between deliberate and non-deliberate actions. Non-deliberate (accidental) actions can sometimes be punished with a caution - see the second part of the above quote.
No, that is a completely new point! Your original point was that this is the kind of shambles that we’d get if we didn’t have VAR. I just highlighted the blindingly obviousMy point is very simple
People complain when VAR intervenes and they use this as an argument to say we should get rid of VAR.
A lot of these same people are now complaining that VAR didn’t intervene and are using it as an argument to say we should get rid of VAR.
The first argument is fine. The second argument is a non-sequitur. You can’t complain that something wasn’t implemented and use that complaint as the basis for arguing for further non-implementation. It makes absolutely zero sense.
It’s like using an onion-free meal you’ve eaten that you didn’t like as an argument for why you hate onions.
While that's a fair point, on the other hand it is merely yet another example of VAR's woeful inadequacy. VAR continues to prove that it can't get out of its own way. It shows itself to be a complete and utter failure on a continual basis, and just when you think it can't get worse and more woeful, it somehow manages to outdo itself. What the Villa incident shows it that even in a situation that would seemingly be perfectly suited for a VAR intervention and correction, it can't even do that due to yet another wrinkle into the equation.My point is very simple
People complain when VAR intervenes and they use this as an argument to say we should get rid of VAR.
A lot of these same people are now complaining that VAR didn’t intervene and are using it as an argument to say we should get rid of VAR.
The first argument is fine. The second argument is a non-sequitur. You can’t complain that something wasn’t implemented and use that complaint as the basis for arguing for further non-implementation. It makes absolutely zero sense.
It’s like using an onion-free meal you’ve eaten that you didn’t like as an argument for why you hate onions.
1. Was it a handball offence? Yes
2. Was Henderson's act deliberate? No
My reasoning is simply that it would not be considered deliberate because of his position on the edge of the box. Red cards are reserved for egregious or severe fouls. It would be hard to characterize that as such. As a GK, he's perfectly allowed to do what he did if he was a mere arm's length further back. While he did very clearly reach over the line, which makes it a handball, and while that definitely should have resulted in a free kick, I see it as being altogether harsh to conclude that he deserved to be sent off for that.
What I will say is that I can understand the calls for him to be sent off, particularly given the somewhat contradictory language in the LOTG.
I understood the original point, that without VAR, the same result ends up happening. The problem though with that logic is that, this is the kind of situation that VAR was intended to correct, and it still was unable to correct it. Maybe next time that ref won't blow the whistle so quickly, but you only get one chance to get such an important decision right, and given what happened, it only reinforces VAR's failure at trying to do what it set out to do.No, that is a completely new point! Your original point was that this is the kind of shambles that we’d get if we didn’t have VAR. I just highlighted the blindingly obvious
I'm not sure that VAR is the issue. It is the duplicitous wankers that are running it that is the issue.
It has been clear from day 1 that it is being used to bring about the desired outcome of some games, primarily to the benefit of the red cartel and to the detriment of those that threaten their position.
That’s because you’re a genius operating at a level way above us mere mortals. As is proven by your stance on the FA Cup final handball farceI understood the original point, that without VAR, the same result ends up happening. The problem though with that logic is that, this is the kind of situation that VAR was intended to correct, and it still was unable to correct it. Maybe next time that ref won't blow the whistle so quickly, but you only get one chance to get such an important decision right, and given what happened, it only reinforces VAR's failure at trying to do what it set out to do.
No, don't give your reasoning. Answer yes or no, did Henderson deliberately swat the ball away from Haaland? It is the action that I am asking about, not the thought process or the location on the pitch.
DID HENDERSON CARRY OUT AN INTENTIONAL ACTION OF SWATTING THE BALL AWAY FROM HAALAND?
Treat this as like a multiple choice exam question.
YES / NO.
You're making the same mistake that a previous poster made, which is to conflate the term handball (as in actually handing the ball) with the term handball (as in the foul of a handball). Anotherwords, acting as if a deliberate handball by a goal keeper is inherently an infraction no matter where he is.No, don't give your reasoning. Answer yes or no, did Henderson deliberately swat the ball away from Haaland? It is the action that I am asking about, not the thought process or the location on the pitch.
DID HENDERSON CARRY OUT AN INTENTIONAL ACTION OF SWATTING THE BALL AWAY FROM HAALAND?
Treat this as like a multiple choice exam question.
YES / NO.
You don't have to agree with my stance on that, but I do agree that it was farcical in that they were unable to correct that error due to what would seem to be faulty or unclear reasoning.That’s because you’re a genius operating at a level way above us mere mortals. As is proven by your stance on the FA Cup final handball farce
So, what's wrong with that? Why am I not allowed to have my own opinion on that? I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to the keeper in a borderline situation, that yes he committed a handball but that because it was borderline that he didn't deserve to be sent off.You're going to get a manipulation of the question into:
a) Yes, but he didn't mean to commit a foul
b) No
You ain't changing his mind.
I’ve been saying this,the principle of VAR and what it was intended for was in hindsight fantastic,but then they realised it could be used to manipulate outcomes in games and other situations..I personally believe VAR is being used to manipulate outcomes in certain games. Sorry to harp on about last weeks bullshit in the FAC Final, but that was certainly one of those games. Not saying they were picking the winner, but certainly manipulating the outcome in terms of the 'game as a competition' to keep the neutral TV audiences engaged instead of fairly and honestly applying the LOTG.
The way VAR is implemented, it is allowing the manipulation of outcomes in certain situations, therefore at a foundational level VAR is the issue. Not sure how that gets fixed unless we completely remove humans from the loop at Stockley Park and replace them with AI.
It certainly gives that impression, that's for sure. But I'm not sure AI is the answer either. We're stuck between a rock and a hard place as it pertains to VAR. There are an infuriating amount of problems with it and after 5-7 years the best course of action is remove it from the sport and return to normal refereeing. Yes there will still be contentious decisions and the occasional missed incident but compared to this madness it would be a huge improvement.I personally believe VAR is being used to manipulate outcomes in certain games. Sorry to harp on about last weeks bullshit in the FAC Final, but that was certainly one of those games. Not saying they were picking the winner, but certainly manipulating the outcome in terms of the 'game as a competition' to keep the neutral TV audiences engaged instead of fairly and honestly applying the LOTG.
The way VAR is implemented, it is allowing the manipulation of outcomes in certain situations, therefore at a foundational level VAR is the issue. Not sure how that gets fixed unless we completely remove humans from the loop at Stockley Park and replace them with AI.
1. Was it a handball offence? Yes
2. Was Henderson's act deliberate? No
My reasoning is simply that it would not be considered deliberate because of his position on the edge of the box. Red cards are reserved for egregious or severe fouls. It would be hard to characterize that as such. As a GK, he's perfectly allowed to do what he did if he was a mere arm's length further back. While he did very clearly reach over the line, which makes it a handball, and while that definitely should have resulted in a free kick, I see it as being altogether harsh to conclude that he deserved to be sent off for that.
What I will say is that I can understand the calls for him to be sent off, particularly given the somewhat contradictory language in the LOTG.