A&H

Jesus - VAR

The Referee Store
...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.

Well, based on two games, the odds on City having goals disallowed by VAR must be fairly high...
 
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.

'necessary' interesting word - 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?

On VAR - the problem we have here is that 'football' wanted obvious errors corrected, not teams getting a 2nd chance because of an infringement no on has seen or could possibly be reasonably expected to see in real time.

Hugo Lloris' reaction yesterday said it all - he just laughed at MO. Now he (MO) and VAR perfectly correct, but if it provokes THAT sort of reaction in a player who has benefited from a decision, that surely gives us a teeny weeny clue that something might 'just' be wrong.

Just for the record QPR fan btw, so VAR not going to affect 'my' team .....until next season!;)
 
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.

OK, but if ball had hit Spurs player's arm in the same way and fallen to another Spurs player - no offence - that can't be fair?
 
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.
 
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.

Its all opinions isn't it Rob? But I would argue disallowing a goal in this manner for a complete accident, after everyone thinks it is a goal is also 'extreme and destroying the spirit of the game'
 
Exactly this. Switch to an appeal based system and VAR will look hugely less intrusive/interfering.

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.
 
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.
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
 
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.

Just say review within 10 seconds of the incident you want to review, no chance for anyone with technology to advise
 
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.

This.

Laporte never gained possession or had control. It wasn't a pass, or a deliberate play on the ball. There was no element of control IMHO. If anything, as pointed out earlier, he was fouled into handling the ball.

Goal IMHO.
 
Nearest we got today to a VAR call were two ball to hand blocked shots and the ref getting in the way of the ball, twice. Apart from that the officials had a day off!
 
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
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.

I'm far from convinced that this change was a good idea, but it's not as inconsistent with the rest of the laws as you're making it out to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nij
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.
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.
Not to say they don't also make some complete and utter stuff-ups, usually because someone's ego has been stepped on, but that's on them to maintain their head.
Leaving it to managers to make a call from 50+ metres away instead of players directly involved in the action and therefore capable of (less un-)informed opinion makes no sense either.
Just let any player call for a review at the next stoppage of play/next time the ball is in a neutral area, and only for a decision on goal scored/not scored or PK awarded/not awarded. Leave review for possible missed dismissal incident or mistaken identity to the VAR alone as it is now.
If the final decision is a PK or goal, restart as normal. If it is a "cancelled" PK or goal, give a drop ball to the keeper. If play was already stopped and no new decision made, restart as normal. If play was ongoing and no new decision made, give an IFK at the location of the ball, to the team who did not appeal.
Allow one appeal per half, per extra time, and per KFTPM, renewed if correct, lost otherwise. Simple enough to understand even for a football pundit...
 
The people wanted VAR, they wanted their opponents to be 1mm offside, they wanted it to be a handball every time the ball even looked like it was going to touch one of their opponents below the shoulder, and every time one of the their passes hit the referee they wanted to be given the uncontested dropped ball.

The problem only really occurs when things go against their team, when their player is 1mm offside its a farcical decision, when the ball looks like it is going to hit one of their players below the shoulder it is accidental and not a handball, and when one of their opponents crosses hits the referee play should continue.
 
Back
Top