That's a very simple way of comparing sports with complex differences.And we don't talk about the referee or the video referee in those sports. Hardly notice them (which is a sign of good refereeing).
That's a very simple way of comparing sports with complex differences.And we don't talk about the referee or the video referee in those sports. Hardly notice them (which is a sign of good refereeing).
...and there's soooo much betting going on (with many teams being sponsored by betting co.s, aswell), they are striving for the perfect decision.
Good decision on the handball by VAR. Good law change as well in my opinion and one that was necessary.
I do enjoy watching the Twitter rants though.
Devils advocate and not necessarily reflective of my own view on the new HB law:
The ball striking Laportes arm did change the direction of the ball into Jesus' path. If it didn't strike the arm then Jesus doesn't get the goal scoring opportunity.
what is your reasoning?
The laws are there to prevent a team gaining an advantage by breaking the law. This new part of the handball law fundamentally adds getting a lucky break to that. But worse, it only applies to attackers, As they pointed out on MOTD (yes I know!) if that ball had brushed the arm of the defender in the same way and it fallen to him and he had belted it clear - then it would have been play on, no pen. How is that fair? Attackers can't benfit from good fortune, but defenders can?
They're two very different situations though. No one in their right minds wants to penalise an accidental handball, especially for the defender in this situation - that would be extreme and would destroy the very spirit of the game.
I personally agree with the rationale behind the penalisation of a handball for a goal or goal-scoring opportunity, and I feel it is a necessary change as there were a lot of old guards, both on here and in my refereeing circles, that were arguing that an 'accidental handball' goal was perfectly fine and justified. Which, was technically correct in the old laws but was never an intended outcome in football and should never have been. Thus for me, it was a necessary change, now there is no arguing about it as it is more or less black and white, a handled goal or handling leading to a goal scoring opportunity, accidental or otherwise is not legitimate, which is exactly what football expects IMO.
Exactly this. Switch to an appeal based system and VAR will look hugely less intrusive/interfering.
Scoring and defending a goal are two sides of the same coin, yet the laws don't treat the two with equality. Therefore your argument is one sidedThey're two very different situations though. No one in their right minds wants to penalise an accidental handball, especially for the defender in this situation - that would be extreme and would destroy the very spirit of the game.
I personally agree with the rationale behind the penalisation of a handball for a goal or goal-scoring opportunity, and I feel it is a necessary change as there were a lot of old guards, both on here and in my refereeing circles, that were arguing that an 'accidental handball' goal was perfectly fine and justified. Which, was technically correct in the old laws but was never an intended outcome in football and should never have been. Thus for me, it was a necessary change, now there is no arguing about it as it is more or less black and white, a handled goal or handling leading to a goal scoring opportunity, accidental or otherwise is not legitimate, which is exactly what football expects IMO.
But if you had one appeal per half, the captain would.usr it for the first throw-in decision...... With the intelligence of the players, we need only allow the managers to.appeal via the 4O.
Better to control the appeals, if they lose their appeal (after the first one each half) they lose a substitution. They may think about when to use them. They would also need to restrict TV replays near the tech area.
Yes indeed interesting. here is the actual wording in law (from law 12)
View attachment 3655
By this wording, the goal should have stood. Two arguments to go against disallowing the goal
1. Goal scoring opportunity was not 'created'. It existed and continued (This can be debated) EDIT: I take this point back after watching the clip again. But the second point stands.
2. Laporte never gained possession or control of the ball so this clause should not apply.
Except the laws have always treated some offences differently depending on where they are and which side commits them? The exact same offence on a particular spot can be a free kick or a penalty, depending on if an attacker or a defender commits it. And even if the defender does commit that offence, a few inches either way can determine a low % chance of scoring FK or a 9/10 chance of scoring a PK. A team literally can't be offside in 50% of the pitch. I could probably go on.Scoring and defending a goal are two sides of the same coin, yet the laws don't treat the two with equality. Therefore your argument is one sided
The result of this game was wrong. Any other debate is merely about the detail
As much as I complain about their lack of rules knowledge, when players have access to video official appeals, they get very good very quickly at asking for the review in situations they have a high chance of getting in their favour.But if you had one appeal per half, the captain would.usr it for the first throw-in decision...... With the intelligence of the players, we need only allow the managers to.appeal via the 4O.
Better to control the appeals, if they lose their appeal (after the first one each half) they lose a substitution. They may think about when to use them. They would also need to restrict TV replays near the tech area.
Except that they ware not correct. Not by the letter of the law or spirit of it.Now he (MO) and VAR perfectly correct,
Lots of other people did though didn't theyI didn't want these things
But lots and lots of people did, especially the stakeholders, such at club's and leagues which wi have put pressure on their national FAs to push for these changes.I didn't want these things