A&H

Jesus - VAR

I've not read all the previous posts so apologies if I'm repeating what other people have said but even as a City fan, I completely accept that the right decision was made under the new handball protocol. No goal,100% correct.

My issue is with the change to the law itself. I can only assume that this was discussed and brought in following the Boly goal v City last year, where a goal was correctly awarded under last year's law as the ball hit Boly on the hand unintentionally and the goal was scored. 100% correct decision at the time. I can absolutely see why we have a different interpretation of the law when a goal is scored direct from a hand/arm. That doesn't sit well with most people. But why bring it in for build up play in goals like yesterday? IFAB over thinking the issue imo. The old interpretation of intentional handball should apply and the new interpretation only applied if it hits the goalscorers hand/arm
 
The Referee Store
The law was put in because of the term "football expects". They didn't want a goal to be allowed when football expects it shouldn't count. Yet every one I know would have expected this goal to be allowed if it wasn't for the "football expects" law. Go figure. It just shows how bad they are in wording what they intend into the laws.

EDIT: Added the reason give by law. For me, football expected this goal not to be disallowed.
1566122392928.png
 
Last edited:
Ben448844 said:
I've not read all the previous posts so apologies if I'm repeating what other people have said but even as a City fan, I completely accept that the right decision was made under the new handball protocol. No goal,100% correct.

My issue is with the change to the law itself. I can only assume that this was discussed and brought in following the Boly goal v City last year, where a goal was correctly awarded under last year's law as the ball hit Boly on the hand unintentionally and the goal was scored. 100% correct decision at the time. I can absolutely see why we have a different interpretation of the law when a goal is scored direct from a hand/arm. That doesn't sit well with most people. But why bring it in for build up play in goals like yesterday? IFAB over thinking the issue imo. The old interpretation of intentional handball should apply and the new interpretation only applied if it hits the goalscorers hand/arm
Click to expand...
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.
 
..and I don't like the "build up to the goal" idea. If it was 20 pass move, with slight infringements from the attacking side, how far are they going to wind the clock back to ? This needs a total re-think in my opinion. They've totally spoilt the game.
 
JamesL said:
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.
Click to expand...

I get your point, but could he have got his arm out of the way ? Was it in an unnatural position ? Not really !
I must admit, I preferred deliberate hand ball laws, but of course that is still subjective
 
The new HB changes are just a poor attempt to formalise (and retrospectively catch up!) the way the game was being refereed around the world prior to this season (except that they've gone too far with the wording)
 
BCMilan said:
..and I don't like the "build up to the goal" idea. If it was 20 pass move, with slight infringements from the attacking side, how far are they going to wind the clock back to ? This needs a total re-think in my opinion. They've totally spoilt the game.
Click to expand...
50 passes and two minutes in City's case...
 
Ben448844 said:
I've not read all the previous posts so apologies if I'm repeating what other people have said but even as a City fan, I completely accept that the right decision was made under the new handball protocol. No goal,100% correct.

My issue is with the change to the law itself. I can only assume that this was discussed and brought in following the Boly goal v City last year, where a goal was correctly awarded under last year's law as the ball hit Boly on the hand unintentionally and the goal was scored. 100% correct decision at the time. I can absolutely see why we have a different interpretation of the law when a goal is scored direct from a hand/arm. That doesn't sit well with most people. But why bring it in for build up play in goals like yesterday? IFAB over thinking the issue imo. The old interpretation of intentional handball should apply and the new interpretation only applied if it hits the goalscorers hand/arm
Click to expand...
Nowt to do with the Boly goal. All to do with UEFA / FIFA applying a law that didn't then exist then changing the law to match (except for the Lorente goal in the CL match last season).
 
Last edited:
BCMilan said:
I get your point, but could he have got his arm out of the way ? Was it in an unnatural position ? Not really !
I must admit, I preferred deliberate hand ball laws, but of course that is still subjective
Click to expand...
True. But why is that more or less fair if the ball touches the hand/arm of the person who scores, or a team mates? (see the post I was answering to understand the context of my question...)
 
Big Cat said:
If the attacker was impeded or fouled, causing the HB (in the context of Jesus' disallowed goal on the eve of the Sabbath), would the goal have stood? I'm sure the answer is yes, but don't know how that would be reconciled with the Good Book. Guess the chronological order of incidents
Click to expand...
I'm sure the answer is No. Because that was what happened and the goal didn't stand. If he'd seen the tug MO should have disallowed the goal and awarded a penalty.

I reckon VAR would not have told him about the tug.
 
one said:
The law was put in because of the term "football expects". They didn't want a goal to be allowed when football expects it shouldn't count. Yet every one I know would have expected this goal to be allowed if it wasn't for the "football expects" law. Go figure. It just shows how bad they are in wording what they intend into the laws.

EDIT: Added the reason give by law. For me, football expected this goal not to be disallowed.
View attachment 3654
Click to expand...
Interesting phrasing - "control/possession" as it's different wording to when actually scoring a goal. Did Laporte control the ball or gain possession?
 
bloovee said:
Nowt to do with the Boly goal. All to do with UEFA / FIFA applying a law that didn't then exist then changing the law to match (except for the Lorente goal in the CL match last season).
Click to expand...

I was suggesting that the law was looked at because of the Boly law? I don't know that for sure of course. In the same way that I think the award of a drop ball when the ball hits the ref is probably a consequence of that goal in Holland (I think) last year when the ref found himself in the 6 yard box.
 
JamesL said:
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.
Click to expand...

I understand that. But for me is seperate the goalscorer from every other part of play including assists. You would then have absolute clarity. There will be a goal where the ball touches someosoes arm on the half way line soon and then the phase of play argument will commence. If it's just the scorer then it's absolute clarity, no issues and everyone can understand it easily
 
bloovee said:
Interesting phrasing - "control/possession" as it's different wording to when actually scoring a goal. Did Laporte control the ball or gain possession?
Click to expand...
Yes indeed interesting. here is the actual wording in law (from law 12)

1566124976535.png

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.
 
Ben448844 said:
I understand that. But for me is seperate the goalscorer from every other part of play including assists. You would then have absolute clarity. There will be a goal where the ball touches someosoes arm on the half way line soon and then the phase of play argument will commence. If it's just the scorer then it's absolute clarity, no issues and everyone can understand it easily
Click to expand...

Now that would be much clearer for everybody to understand
 
The Referee said:
👍 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).
Click to expand...
You might not, but those of us with greater interest in those sports (sometimes actively involved at a high level) definitely notice and definitely discuss the involvement of the video officials and how their decisions are made and the decisions themselves.
Ben448844 said:
I was suggesting that the law was looked at because of the Boly law? I don't know that for sure of course. In the same way that I think the award of a drop ball when the ball hits the ref is probably a consequence of that goal in Holland (I think) last year when the ref found himself in the 6 yard box.
Click to expand...
Laws aren't made or removed on the basis of a single incident.
People think GLT was allowed because of that disallowed goal in some European match that ended up helping knock out a team - no, it was introduced because there were many instances of goals being "scored" when they weren't, or disallowed when they should have stood, and the politics at the top finally gave technology a turn.
People think VAR was introduced because of [specific pet hate event] - no, it was introduced because of too many different wrong decisions being so obvious to everyone except the referee team themselves, because everyone else could watch a dozen slo-mo replays to make a decision, and the politics at the top finally bent to the poor publicity it created.
 
Nij said:
You might not, but those of us with greater interest in those sports (sometimes actively involved at a high level) definitely notice and definitely discuss the involvement of the video officials and how their decisions are made and the decisions themselves.

Laws aren't made or removed on the basis of a single incident.
People think GLT was allowed because of that disallowed goal in some European match that ended up helping knock out a team - no, it was introduced because there were many instances of goals being "scored" when they weren't, or disallowed when they should have stood, and the politics at the top finally gave technology a turn.
People think VAR was introduced because of [specific pet hate event] - no, it was introduced because of too many different wrong decisions being so obvious to everyone except the referee team themselves, because everyone else could watch a dozen slo-mo replays to make a decision, and the politics at the top finally bent to the poor publicity it created.
Click to expand...

...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.
 
What if the same scenario happens but lets say Jesus shot hits the post, is play then reset and if say a cross comes in and they score from that attack it will be allowed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top