Video Assistant Referee (VAR)

[Bredbury Blue]

As VAR is already proving to be a big talking point with its introduction to the Premier League this season, i thought I'd open a thread.

 

I have actually been for bringing in VAR in to our league, but i in the way used in rugby union where the ref requests a review of an incident, and not in its actual format of checking every penalty and goal incident and taking the decision away from the ref to the VAR. Guess I'll get used to it in time.

 

[Bredbury Blue]

Couple of good articles in the Mail about Jesus' disallowed goal vs WHU and was Sterling's armpit offside?

 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7367673/THE-GREAT-VAR-DEBATE-Tech-said-Sterling-2-4cm-offside-allowed-13cm-margin-error.html

 

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7367933/An-offside-decision-never-black-white-VAR.html

 

 

[Bredbury Blue]

With regards Jesus VAR disallowed goal vs Spurs (poor guy had 2 goals disallowed this season in 2 games), Shearer makes a good point:

 

“That handball law is just ridiculous,” he claimed.

“It is ridiculous.

“There’s not one player on that pitch who appealed or even thought [it was a handball].

“Two players making similar actions towards the ball, if it hits the defender’s arm it’s not given as a penalty.

“That is not fair, is it?”

 

 

 

[Bredbury Blue]

Just been reading the new handball law - link below - and im still not convinced that was handball by Laporte and the goal by Jesus should have been ruled out.

 

Laporte and a Spurs player (Sissoko?) both go for the ball with their head, both miss it and the ball unintentionally and non deliberately glances off Laporte's arm. Why is that handball? Had the ball dropped to Laporte who scored i might understand why it could be considered handball under the new law but it shoots past to Jesus who stretches and controls it, composes himself and puts it in. 

 

 

 

So which exact words of the handball law are being applied by VAR to rule handball on Laporte

 

 

http://theifab.com/laws/chapter/32/section/92/

Edited August 18, 2019 by Bredbury Blue

[dode57k]

Some form of video assistance is long overdue. Not entirely sure about this version though. We need to forget all the locker room and bar arguments about it spoiling the game. The cold hard fact remains that football is a business where clubs can lose or gain millions of pounds down to incompetent refereeing or players blatantly cheating to con the referee. What fans want or think doesn't come in to it anymore for clubs in the top divisions. There are figures out there to show that more than half of the English premier division clubs would still be in profit if they played to empty stadiums.

I agree the new hand ball rule is going to turn people right off VAR. My preferred option would be to give Captains 3 calls per half rather like tennis. If they are right they don't lose any.

[jellydog]

22 minutes ago, dode57k said:

Some form of video assistance is long overdue. Not entirely sure about this version though. We need to forget all the locker room and bar arguments about it spoiling the game. The cold hard fact remains that football is a business where clubs can lose or gain millions of pounds down to incompetent refereeing or players blatantly cheating to con the referee. What fans want or think doesn't come in to it anymore for clubs in the top divisions. There are figures out there to show that more than half of the English premier division clubs would still be in profit if they played to empty stadiums.

I agree the new hand ball rule is going to turn people right off VAR. My preferred option would be to give Captains 3 calls per half rather like tennis. If they are right they don't lose any.

What a load of crap. Football is about the fans. Period. "What fans want or think doesn't come in to it anymore...". You should have your mouth washed out with soap.

[RichardColeman]

VAR is a good idea, but inspecting it for just about anything to the point of the extreme is madness. Next it will be was the scoring side goalkeeper picking his nose and distracting players.

 

The city goal should have stood. Yes, it hit his arm, but it was not arm to ball it was ball to arm - either that or he had remarkable basketball reflexes !

Edited August 18, 2019 by RichardColeman

[dode57k]

21 minutes ago, jellydog said:

What a load of crap. Football is about the fans. Period. "What fans want or think doesn't come in to it anymore...". You should have your mouth washed out with soap.

Football, (in the top divisions, is about money). I won't tell you you're talking crap but I will say if you really believe it's about the fans you're living in the past.

[alfieconn]

11 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

VAR is a good idea, but inspecting it for just about anything to the point of the extreme is madness. Next it will be was the scoring side goalkeeper picking his nose and distracting players.

 

The city goal should have stood. Yes, it hit his arm, but it was not arm to ball it was ball to arm - either that or he had remarkable basketball reflexes !

The law doesn't mention ball to arm.

 

The following ‘handball’ situations, even if accidental, will be a free kick:

• A player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm•and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity.

 

 

 

[dabhand]

2 hours ago, alfieconn said:

The law doesn't mention ball to arm.

 

The following ‘handball’ situations, even if accidental, will be a free kick:

• A player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm•and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity.

 

 

 

Yes, very clear in mentioning a goal scoring opportunity.

By coincidence, just watching the Union Berlin/Leipzig game on Fox. Exact same circumstance as the City 'goal' with the ball coming off a Leipzig players arm straight to a team mate who smashed it into the goal. VAR verdict: no goal. As per the new Law.

No complaints from any of the Leipzig players/manager.

[Bredbury Blue]

11 hours ago, alfieconn said:

The law doesn't mention ball to arm.

 

The following ‘handball’ situations, even if accidental, will be a free kick:

• A player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm•and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity.

 

 

 

But LaPorte didn't gain control/possession of the ball after it touches his ("their" must mean his) hand/arm, and then LaPorte didn't score, or create a goal scoring opportunity did he.

 

[JaiMaai]

The interesting words are "gains possession/control" and "then creates a goal scoring opportunity".  

 

At which point did Laporte gain control of the ball?

[Bredbury Blue]

12 hours ago, dode57k said:

Some form of video assistance is long overdue. Not entirely sure about this version though. We need to forget all the locker room and bar arguments about it spoiling the game. The cold hard fact remains that football is a business where clubs can lose or gain millions of pounds down to incompetent refereeing or players blatantly cheating to con the referee. What fans want or think doesn't come in to it anymore for clubs in the top divisions. There are figures out there to show that more than half of the English premier division clubs would still be in profit if they played to empty stadiums.

I agree the new hand ball rule is going to turn people right off VAR. My preferred option would be to give Captains 3 calls per half rather like tennis. If they are right they don't lose any.

Isn't that similar to cricket as well? I think that's a reasonable suggestion.

 

VAR is killing the spontaneity and the joy of a goal being scored for your team, but I guess in time we will get used to it in time and only celebrate and jump around when the team other team kicks off the restart.

 

 

[Bredbury Blue]

Just now, JaiMaai said:

The interesting words are "gains possession/control" and "then creates a goal scoring opportunity".  

 

At which point did Laporte gain control of the ball?

EXACTLY!

[Bredbury Blue]

For those interested here's the link to the current set of laws; interesting section on VAR

 

http://theifab.com/laws

[Bredbury Blue]

Here's the handball law

 

Handling the ball

It is an offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball

• 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

• scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper

It is usually an offence if a player:

• touches the ball with their hand/arm when:

  • the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger

  • the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)

The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close.

Except for the above offences, it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:

• directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)

• directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close

• if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally bigger

• when a player falls and the hand/arm is between the body and the ground to support the body, but not extended laterally or vertically away from the body

 

 

[Bredbury Blue]

So Laporte
1 DID NOT deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
2 DID NOT gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm
3 DID NOT and then: scores in the opponents’ goal
4 DID NOT and then: creates a goal-scoring opportunity (i accept that this one is debatable in the case of Jesus, but if the PRECEDING ACTIONS 1-2 DID NOT apply how can 4 apply as the condition "and then" must met as referred to by the use of "and then: creates a goal-scoring opportunity" but it wasn't).

 

 

Edited August 19, 2019 by Bredbury Blue

[Essex Reject]

12 hours ago, dode57k said:

Some form of video assistance is long overdue. Not entirely sure about this version though. We need to forget all the locker room and bar arguments about it spoiling the game. The cold hard fact remains that football is a business where clubs can lose or gain millions of pounds down to incompetent refereeing or players blatantly cheating to con the referee. What fans want or think doesn't come in to it anymore for clubs in the top divisions. There are figures out there to show that more than half of the English premier division clubs would still be in profit if they played to empty stadiums.

I agree the new hand ball rule is going to turn people right off VAR. My preferred option would be to give Captains 3 calls per half rather like tennis. If they are right they don't lose any.

Hands down one of the most vile things I've ever read. You should be ashamed.

[owl sees all]

The offside law has been changed 5 times since the start of the EPL. Not sure what the rule is now, but I'm sure VAR will sort it out for us this season.

 

City goal should have stood IMO.

[Essex Reject]

41 minutes ago, Bredbury Blue said:

But LaPorte didn't gain control/possession of the ball after it touches his ("their" must mean his) hand/arm, and then LaPorte didn't score, or create a goal scoring opportunity did he.

 

Would the ball still have found it's way to the player that scored if it hadn't touched laporte's arm? If yes then it should not have been disallowed, if no then it should have been. Pretty simple really.

[alfieconn]

54 minutes ago, JaiMaai said:

The interesting words are "gains possession/control" and "then creates a goal scoring opportunity".  

 

At which point did Laporte gain control of the ball?

Ha ha nice try, but you have left out a very small thing called a comma and the word OR which basically separates the 2 actions.If they would have wanted to show it as one action they would have worded it as follows :

 

• A player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm and then scores/creates a goal scoring opportunity.

Edited August 19, 2019 by alfieconn

[alfieconn]

18 minutes ago, Essex Reject said:

Would the ball still have found it's way to the player that scored if it hadn't touched laporte's arm? If yes then it should not have been disallowed, if no then it should have been. Pretty simple really.

Spot on ER and the fact that Laporte was nearly standing on the penalty spot and Jeus was standing on the 6 yard line proves that the ball was diverted by Laporte's arm.

[wilai]

"Any goal scored or created with the use of the hand or arm will be disallowed this season, even if it is accidental," says the Premier League.

Jesus' goal, technically, was created by the use of Laporte's arm, regardless of whether there was any intent.

 

That's the PL interpretation of the law. The refs/VAR have to adhere to that.....like it or lump it!

 

 

[Bredbury Blue]

2 hours ago, alfieconn said:

Ha ha nice try, but you have left out a very small thing called a comma and the word OR which basically separates the 2 actions.If they would have wanted to show it as one action they would have worded it as follows :

 

• A player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm and then scores/creates a goal scoring opportunity.

Alfie, below is how it is presented in the Laws (i've added the bold and underline for you) and NOT as you have posted it. As you can see i did not leave out "a very small thing called a comma and the word OR" because they do not exist in the Law:

 

Handling the ball

It is an offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball

• 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

• scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper

[Bredbury Blue]

1 hour ago, wilai said:

"Any goal scored or created with the use of the hand or arm will be disallowed this season, even if it is accidental," says the Premier League.

Jesus' goal, technically, was created by the use of Laporte's arm, regardless of whether there was any intent.

 

That's the PL interpretation of the law. The refs/VAR have to adhere to that.....like it or lump it!

 

 

You're saying the Premier League does not follow the rules of the Law of football or they are misinterpreting them. 

Edited August 19, 2019 by Bredbury Blue

[wgdanson]

3 hours ago, Bredbury Blue said:

• 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

• scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper

What if a player scores an own goal after it touches his arm accidentally, would that be dis-allowed?

[Bredbury Blue]

Here's another one for you to *ponder, which has been the subject of several articles in the media. Why was Lamela's 'contact' on Rodri (arm around the neck, pulled him down to the ground) not given as a penalty and why was it not reviewed by VAR? 

 

*I'm using the City examples as i watch City games and so far only a couple of other teams games in full before someone chips up that i'm moaning about City, i'm not, i just want to understand the reasoning of some of these decisions and interested in other's opinion.

[Bredbury Blue]

1 hour ago, wilai said:

"Any goal scored or created with the use of the hand or arm will be disallowed this season, even if it is accidental," says the Premier League.

Jesus' goal, technically, was created by the use of Laporte's arm, regardless of whether there was any intent.

 

That's the PL interpretation of the law. The refs/VAR have to adhere to that.....like it or lump it!

 

 

 

Earlier i posted this season's handball law; here's IFAB's official explanation to Law 12 on Handling the ball (on Pages 162 & 163 of IFAB Laws of the Game 2019/20 pdf)
Law 12 – Fouls and Misconduct
1. Direct free kick – Handling the ball
Amended text

The main part of the ‘Handling the ball’ section on handball has been re-written
(see p. 104-105)

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 hand/arm it is often impossible to avoid contact
with the ball

Don't think that alters what i posted earlier about Laporte's and Jesus' role in the disallowed goal.

However, as stated earlier by Wilai, and as I've copied below from the Premier League's website, the Premier League is taking its own interpretation of the handball rule (will the handball rule be applied differently in the CL? We wait to see).

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1263332

Handballs

Any goal scored or created with the use of the hand or arm will be disallowed this season even if it is accidental.

The handball rule now has extra clarity because it does not consider intent by a player.

Another big change is to do with the position of a player's hand/arm.

If the ball hits a player who has made their body "unnaturally bigger" then a foul will be awarded.

IFAB says that 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.

It is, however, considered natural for a player to put their arm between their body and the ground for support when falling, so long as the arm is not extended to make the body bigger.

Mystery solved, thank you Wilai.

 

[alfieconn]

1 hour ago, Bredbury Blue said:

Alfie, below is how it is presented in the Laws (i've added the bold and underline for you) and NOT as you have posted it. As you can see i did not leave out "a very small thing called a comma and the word OR" because they do not exist in the Law:

 

Handling the ball

It is an offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball

• 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

• scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper

Well it appears Refs are adhering to different laws https://www.the-ra.org/news/ifab-law-changes-2019-2020

[dode57k]

4 hours ago, Essex Reject said:

Hands down one of the most vile things I've ever read. You should be ashamed.

Great, thanks for the measured response. Don't bother replying you're on ignore