VAR impact and consequence log - game 27

[Eds]

Did anyone notice that a Aston Villa player got booked for putting a arm into the face of a City player during the on Sunday close to the half way line. However when the same incident happened in the Villa penalty area nothing happened. two questions need to be answered

1st did the ref. Mr J. Moss see the incident, and if not why did VAR not give a pen by reviewing the incident.

2nd if the Villa player got booked for that incident, why didn't the Villa player get booked for the 1st one.

Think you need to be in the 'is the game bent' thread. Why only one minute injury time in the second half which included three goals (I think two had a small delay due to VAR checking a possible offside and the penalty) and six substitutions. They make it up as they go along

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Did anyone notice that a Aston Villa player got booked for putting a arm into the face of a City player during the on Sunday close to the half way line. However when the same incident happened in the Villa penalty area nothing happened. two questions need to be answered

1st did the ref. Mr J. Moss see the incident, and if not why did VAR not give a pen by reviewing the incident.

2nd if the Villa player got booked for that incident, why didn't the Villa player get booked for the 1st one.

It would depend on what happened, obviously. Not all fouls lead to bookings, not all contact is a foul.

Footage needed to provide any meaningful opinion.

 

[BaldyBoy68]

So glad we don’t have var in league 2. Prefer football with on field refs warts and all.

 

[King KdB of Belgium]

beryblue that still does not answer my question. The way I look at it, 1 of those decisions was wrong. Either the hand in the face in the 1st half was a penalty. As that was not a penalty then the shove in the face in the 2nd half was not a booking. which ever way you look at it, one of those decisions was wrong.

 

[Metalartin]

While I did think that the Wolves player created the contact, you're wrong on the rule change, I think.

The change was that a genuine attempt to play the ball that results in a penalty should cause a yellow card not red. A pullback should still be red, as it's not an attempt at the ball - a main reason was to allow keepers/defenders to make an attempt and take the player out.

The other point is that it must result in a penalty to count - I assume the reasoning is that that is still a clear goal-scoring opportunity. Bayern fell foul of this earlier in the season - a penalty and yellow card was given against the keeper; Bayern players insisted that it was outside the area, so the ref checked the monitor; he agreed with them, changed the penalty to a freekick and sent the keeper off! Clearly the Bayern players hadn't worked that part out, and Bayern got hammered about 5-1.

Well a pullback can't be a genuine attempt at getting the ball, so I'm not sure why you mentioned that at all. There's no honest way to pull a player back by his shirt or arm, the intent alone should be enough for a foul, as it should have been against Spurs in 3 different instances. Which you will no doubt try and defend.

Yes I did consider that it was freekick and not a penalty but that seems a stupid rule if they are treated differently. I saw no reason why they would be. Do you have a quote for what you said about it "needing to be a penalty to count" because I can't find it, it doesn't appear to be what the IFAB rules say.

Thinking along the lines of the spirit of the game, keepers are allowed out of their area and they have every right to challenge for the ball, just as any other player. Would it be a red card for an accidental foul outside the area for a defender? I think not. As you conceded, he looked for the contact and as I said it appears Ederson tried to avoid it(impossible) if you watch him closely. It all happened very fast but putting the two together you could perhaps conclude that Ederson trying to avoid it, is the reason Jota felt the need to make it certain. I don't think it was a red card either way.

 

[Metalartin]

Why do you think they have changed the interpretation?

Because they set the precedent when they ruled Gabriel Jesus' goal out, we were given a reason that any handball in the the leadup to a goal will result in a disallowed goal(I'm pretty sure a response was posted on BM around the time). I've read that particular IFAB law, there is no mention of it going to team mate after an accidental handball. If he'd have gained control and passed it to a team mate you'd have a point. Also if you're going to act like you're the authority on matters like this, can you atleast provide links or quotes? It's not that I don't believe you but people often misread things, or interpret them how they want to.

http://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/documents/786/111531_110319_IFAB_LoG_at_a_Glance.pdf

•Deliberate handball remains an offence
•The following ‘handball’ situations, even if accidental, will be a free kick:
•the ball goes into the goal after touching an attacking player’s hand/arm
•a player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity
•the ball touches a player’s hand/arm which has made their body unnaturally bigger
•the ball touches a player’s hand/arm when it is above their shoulder (unless the player has deliberately played the ball which then touches their hand/arm)

Explanation Greater clarity is needed for handball, especially on those occasions when ‘non-deliberate’ handball is an offence. The re-wording follows a number of principles:
•football does not accept a goal being scored by a hand/arm (even if accidental)
•football expects a player to be penalised for handball if they gain possession/control of the ball from their hand/arm and gain a major advantage e.g. score or create a goal-scoring opportunity
•it is natural for a player to put their arm between their body and the ground for support when falling.
•having the hand/arm above shoulder height is rarely a ‘natural’ position and a player is ‘taking a risk’ by having the hand/arm in that position, including when sliding
•if the ball comes off the player’s body, or off another player (of either team) who is close by, onto the hands/arms it is often impossible to avoid contact with the ball
•When the GK clearly kicks or tries to kick the ball into play, this shows no intention to handle the ball so, if the ‘clearance’ attempt is unsuccessful, the goalkeeper can then handle the ball without committing an offence

Riley has instructed that the PL ignore the VAR protocol to some extent, but he can't/shouldn't overrule IFAB.

Do you know for sure IFAB actually have any authority over the PL/FA and what laws they apply or do the leagues have the final say on the interpretations they will use? Otherwise that's just another assumption.

Again I disagree about the Ederson red card, do the bundesliga even have the same rules as the PL?

Even if that was the case, we still have a case where the player is seeking the contact for an accidental foul at most, so it's not a red card. As I said earlier, it wouldn't be for an outfield player outside the box. Think about it, it was accidental, not dangerous and outside the box, when have you seen that? Why should it be different for a goalkeeper?

The player dips his shoulder while leaning in to find the contact and the other player tries to pull out after an honest attempt to play the ball, surely common sense should prevail here, in the interests of the spirit of the game? Otherwise that's basically saying sweeper keepers shouldn't come out and do their role properly, or they will be punished differently than an outfield player would just because it's not a penalty.

Thinking objectively about it, the chance is a better one if a keeper is that far out as opposed to a defender, fair enough there is a difference but penalising different positions differently for the same offence, is not the way to go about it. If the argument is that a freekick is not enough, then surely it would be better to give a penalty(for the weight of the chance) even if it was outside the area, than to send the player off. Rather than ruining the whole game on an ill thought out technicality because we are still talking about an accidental foul at most here. Had he cleaned the player out deliberately and the Wolves player hadn't actively looked for it, it's a different conversation.

Wrong decision, against the spirit of the game whichever way you look at it.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

IFAB set the rules for the world game. So, absolutely yes, they set the laws that England should abide by. I think only last week there was a directive to Riley to sort his act out (I think this was over VAR pitchside reviews).

The comments I have seen here about the handball law are about interpretation, with many interpreting it as you have. While I agree that that is AN interpretation, it is not the one that IFAB have stated; I don't know why the law is written as it is! Wolves had a goal disallowed for the ball dropping to a teammate the week before the Spurs game - the 'falling to a teammate' interpretation was not down to the City-Spurs game.

I think it could be argued more strongly that Jesus had to create his own goalscoring opportunity, but I suspect Elleray's interpretation is that would also be covered; definitely more arguable, in my opinion.

Elleray replied to an email from @Paladin and he posted the exchange here; I put it up somewhere earlier this week, but it was #7162 of the VAR debate thread, or #3096 of the is the game bent thread, I'm pretty certain he's said it on camera, but I don't have a link.
*
Ederson's sending off can be seen either way. If the ref thinks Ederson has run into him, it's a red card. If he thinks the Wolves player has made the contact, it should be a booking for the Wolves player. In that case, I think it is plausible that the onfield ref saw it as Ederson's fault; it's also going to be a matter of opinion whether VAR could see it as a clear and obvious error.

I think the fact that it's the keeper is irrelevant. Any last defender who gets the timing of an honest challenge wrong would be sent off for it, and that's even if the keeper is in place. If a keeper is outside the area and with no-one behind him, he's got to have the same punishment, or otherwise he'd be better off trying to get the ball and getting the man [effect: stopping the initial DOGSO] than not trying at all [effect: goal]. I think that would be absurd.

Keepers have laws which only apply to them in the area (not many, but some), but when they leave the area, that's their own choice and they are treated like any other player. The laws were changed to prevent the multiple jeopardy of sending off+penalty from a keeper diving at a player's feet and just missing the ball, something people have complained about for ages; giving a penalty for any DOGSO challenge isn't something I've heard raised often.

 

[Metalartin]

The comments I have seen here about the handball law are about interpretation, with many interpreting it as you have. While I agree that that is AN interpretation, it is not the one that IFAB have stated; I don't know why the law is written as it is! Wolves had a goal disallowed for the ball dropping to a teammate the week before the Spurs game - the 'falling to a teammate' interpretation was not down to the City-Spurs game.

I think it could be argued more strongly that Jesus had to create his own goalscoring opportunity, but I suspect Elleray's interpretation is that would also be covered; definitely more arguable, in my opinion.

So IFAB could do what exactly, if the PL decide not to follow their laws and use their own? I wasn't arguing that don't they write laws for leagues to use but I've yet to see any action from them which shows this authority, that you claim they have. The way you tell it, they have clout at the level of FIFA and UEFA, yet I haven't seen an example of any authority at all. Suggesting Riley should do this or that isn't saying much, that could be basic criticism which anyone is able to do, you'd expect them to criticise given their role with or without authority.

That was just a side point anyway, I've given you IFABs actual laws of the game 2019-2020 (sources, quotes), there's no mention of teammates where accidental handballs are concerned. Where is Elleray's interpretation if you are going to rest your whole argument on it?
Edit - never mind I've found it myself:

The view of the technical experts is that the situation you describe falls within the 'spirit/intention' of the Law and thus should be penalsied - the purpose of the change was that coaches/players etc... were very clear that they did not believe a goal should result from the ball having made contact (even accidental) with the hand/arm of an opponent as a goal should only 'result' from use of the rest of the body.

Best wishes

David

David Elleray
Technical Director of The IFAB

So even IFABs head is using the line of reasoning that no handball accidental or not should be allowed? Why don't they just say that instead then? We'd already agreed that Laporte did not gain possession, score a goal or create a goal scoring opportunity with the use of the arm. The only mistake I made was interpreting IFABs rules how they are written.

The rest of what I said was in response to others on here complaining that PGMOL have gone back on that(every handball will be penalised) with a recent statement. I can't even remember what was said or over what incident(Henderson's possible handball perhaps?) but I can only assume that means they are going to allow some handballs now. If you notice in my post I said "if that's true then that takes the biscuit", perhaps if you weren't looking to prove me wrong, you'd have noticed that and addressed what other members were discussing on here instead of aiming it at me.

Anyway, I'm not sure I like Ellaray's explanation, falling back on a vague term like "spirit of the game", I thought the hole point under VAR was to have everything defined. If it's not defined anywhere who defines what is or isn't against the "spirit of the game"(unless it's every handball, is what I take from it). Otherwise this is all rather convenient for those not wanting others to question authority.

I don't get how you can hide behind the interpretation of the way the laws are currently written either: "Ah, yes, erm.. It might look that way, because of the way it's actually written but what we mean is something that's not actually stated. We've covered that but just didn't feel the need to write it down anywhere and be held accountable for it. You'll have to trust us on that".

And yes Jesus merely gained possession, not a goal scoring opportunity(that was never in doubt we covered that on matchday), the shot wasn't on before he made an opportunity to do so for himself. Well, as poorly thought out as it appears, as long as they stick to it and apply it evenly across all teams... oh wait.

I noticed how you skipped the 3 pull backs in the penalty area that went ignored that I mentioned. Well at least you didn't defend those mistakes. Is it VAR you're defending so vigorously or the "integrity" of the PL?

Any last defender who gets the timing of an honest challenge wrong would be sent off for it

Outside the area for an accidental trip or a follow through? Not always a red, doubly so when the player looks for contact, in or out of the penalty area. I think that was clear and obvious enough, since most people who watched the replay can see the same thing.

There's also no mention of this "it needs to be a penalty to count". I asked for quotes and sources.

 

[flook]

Outside the area for an accidental trip or a follow through? Not always a red, doubly so when the player looks for contact, in or out of the penalty area. I think that was clear and obvious enough, since most people who watched the replay can see the same thing.

There's also no mention of this "it needs to be a penalty to count". I asked for quotes and sources.

From the beeb

"Players who commit a foul to deny a goalscoring opportunity will no longer automatically be sent off, football's rule-making body has confirmed.

The previous 'triple-punishment' rule required a red card - and therefore a suspension - as well as the award of a penalty under those circumstances."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36047575

from the IFAB website

"The previous 'triple-punishment' rule meant that a player who denied a goal-scoring opportunity was automatically red-carded and handed a suspension, as well as giving away a penalty.
However, the law has now changed so that players committing accidental fouls, that deny a goal-scoring opportunity, are not automatically sent off, but cautioned instead."

https://www.skysports.com/football/...-softening-rules-on-fouls-in-the-penalty-area

 

[Metalartin]

From the beeb

"Players who commit a foul to deny a goalscoring opportunity will no longer automatically be sent off, football's rule-making body has confirmed.

The previous 'triple-punishment' rule required a red card - and therefore a suspension - as well as the award of a penalty under those circumstances."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36047575

from the IFAB website

"The previous 'triple-punishment' rule meant that a player who denied a goal-scoring opportunity was automatically red-carded and handed a suspension, as well as giving away a penalty.
However, the law has now changed so that players committing accidental fouls, that deny a goal-scoring opportunity, are not automatically sent off, but cautioned instead."

https://www.skysports.com/football/...-softening-rules-on-fouls-in-the-penalty-area

I know what normally happens in the area when a deliberate foul is made, I concede that was a law change for inside the box.

So while it wasn't a relevant law change, what I said is still true, the last man does not always receive a red card for accidental fouls outside of the box. Are you telling me you've never seen that? A freekick and a yellow card for the last man on an accidental foul/coming together? That's one reason it didn't have to be red card, in the interests of the spirit of the game. Who really wants to see red cards for none dangerous, accidental fouls anyway? Where is the justification for that in the spirit of the game? Reason two, you're also ignoring that Jota looked for the contact(dipped shoulder, leaned in) while Ederson tried to avoid it(made himself smaller, pulled away). All easily seen in the replay, which covers clear and obvious. Wrong decision.