VAR impact and consequence log - game 27

[sir baconface]

on the contrary, im imposing the rules as they were originally touted

But not as they currently stand. Every goal is scrutinised routinely.

The problem yesterday, IMO, is a stupid handball law. VAR interpreted a stupid handball law correctly. So it’s the handball law, and not VAR, that you should be railing against.

 

[asahartford1]

But not as they currently stand. Every goal is scrutinised routinely.

The problem yesterday, IMO, is a stupid handball law. VAR interpreted a stupid handball law correctly. So it’s the handball law, and not VAR, that you should be railing against.

And railing against the VAR high bar interpretation, that means they can give a penalty (against lamela) If they want or not. Depending on who it benefits, then quote the high bar definition, as they will on Sky tomorrow to justify it.
It's all pony really.

 

[Deleted member 77198]

I’ve read, re-read, and read again, the laws today and I change my stance.

The goal should have stood because the law states that [if a player]:

• gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
  • scores in the opponents’ goal
  • creates a goal-scoring opportunity

Laporte didn’t gain control of the ball after it accidentally hit his arm and then create a goal-scoring opportunity. The ball accidentally hit Laporte’s arm, there’s no doubt about that, it definitely his his arm, but he did not gain control of it and create a goal-scoring opportunity. It hit his arm and it went straight to Jesus.

That is not hand ball even by these new laws.

- 2 points

 

[ancoats]

just watching the cricket and wonder why not bring in them earphones to VAR reviews ?? in cricket they use to listen to the commentary and you can also hear the 4th officials reviewing the incident now that would be better than a scoreboard just saying goal or no goal

so easy to fix and sell them at the ground and use all season even at £10 i would be happy with getting the info right away

 

[I'm With Stupid]

But not as they currently stand. Every goal is scrutinised routinely.

The problem yesterday, IMO, is a stupid handball law. VAR interpreted a stupid handball law correctly. So it’s the handball law, and not VAR, that you should be railing against.

Kind of, although I'm convinced that VAR was the entire reason that the handball law was changed in the first place. Getting rid of interpretation makes it easier to make a black and white decision, which is what they want VAR to do. The problem with that, as we saw in the women's World Cup, is that it leads to decisions that are fundamentally unfair and against the spirit of what the rules are trying to achieve. If that happened a year ago, literally no-one from Tottenham would have complained about the goal.

 

[sir baconface]

I’ve read and re-read the laws today, and I change my stance.

The goal should have stood because the law states that [if a player]:

• gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
  • scores in the opponents’ goal
  • creates a goal-scoring opportunity

Laporte didn’t gain control of the ball after it accidentally hit his arm and then create a goal-scoring opportunity. The ball accidentally hit Laporte’s arm, there’s no doubt about that, it definitely his his arm, but he did not gain control of it and create a goal-scoring opportunity. It hit his arms and it went straight to Jesus.

That is not hand ball even by these new laws.

You have a point.

 

[flook]

But not as they currently stand. Every goal is scrutinised routinely.

The problem yesterday, IMO, is a stupid handball law. VAR interpreted a stupid handball law correctly. So it’s the handball law, and not VAR, that you should be railing against.

i'm aware, however I stand by my position that VAR was sold as for clear and obvious errors, the underhand constant refining of this is tedious and is killing the game

 

[Deleted member 77198]

You have a point.

And for that reason Llorente’s goal was right to stand against us in the CL last season because Llorente did not gain control of the ball and score a goal, the ball accidentally hit his arm and hit his hip and went in.

By the laws of the game VAR was correct for the CL goal but incorrect yesterday.

 

[sir baconface]

i'm aware, however I stand by my position that VAR was sold as for clear and obvious errors, the underhand constant refining of this is tedious and is killing the game

Yeah, we aren’t so far apart really. When VAR was mooted, I was of the view that reviews should take place on appeal and that appeals should be limited to, say, two per match. I think that’s similar to cricket. It rankles that every goal is subjected to forensic examination even when nobody (apparently) appealed against it.

 

[ballinio]

And for that reason Llorente’s goal was right to stand against us in the CL last season because Llorente did not gain control of the ball and score a goal, the ball accidentally hit his arm and hit his hip and went in.

By the laws of the game VAR was correct for the CL goal but incorrect yesterday.

So basically it just depends who they want to benefit & ultimately win the match ?