VAR

Duggins81

Duggins81

Full Back
Just seen that Wolves goal that was disallowed.

Christ on a bike it’s getting ridiculous. No way man that Boly could have done anything about that hitting his arm. Game has gone imo with this shit. Every goal is scrutinised for 5 mins. Takes all the pleasure out of scoring even if it is allowed!
 


Duggins81 said:
Just seen that Wolves goal that was disallowed.

Christ on a bike it’s getting ridiculous. No way man that Boly could have done anything about that hitting his arm. Game has gone imo with this shit. Every goal is scrutinised for 5 mins. Takes all the pleasure out of scoring even if it is allowed!
Click to expand...
The way they are applying the handball rule is perverse.
It seems if the shot was deflected for a corner the 'handball' would be ignored and a corner given.
Also if a defender had jumped instead of an attacker would a penalty have been awarded?
 
worcestermakem said:
The way they are applying the handball rule is perverse.
It seems if the shot was deflected for a corner the 'handball' would be ignored and a corner given.
Also if a defender had jumped instead of an attacker would a penalty have been awarded?
Click to expand...

Not really. It's just stating that a goal can't be scored if it's gone in off an attacker's hand.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
Here's the explanation. Premier League statement reveals why Dendoncker's goal for Wolves was ruled out by VAR. Dendoncker gained control of the ball after it had come off another attacker's hand.
Click to expand...
My point still stands.
The 'handball' by Boly was only an offence if a goal is subsequently scored.
The new law states "even if accidental, will be a free kick if the ball goes into the goal after touching an attacking player’s hand/arm"

The law doesn't define if the law applies when a goal was scored directly as the result of the 'handball' or if the goalscoring opportunity resulted from a handball.

Until this rule came into force the same handball law applied to all players on the pitch with the exception of a goalkeeper in his own penalty area.
 
Last edited:
worcestermakem said:
My point still stands.
The 'handball' by Boly was only an offence if a goal is subsequently scored.
The new law states "even if accidental, will be a free kick if the ball goes into the goal after touching an attacking player’s hand/arm"

The law doesn't define if the law applies when a goal was scored directly as the result of the 'handball' or if the goalscoring opportunity resulted from a handball.

Until this rule came into force the same handball law applied to all players on the pitch with the exception of a goalkeeper in his own penalty area.
Click to expand...

Surely every single goal scored in any match is a direct result of every single second of that match from kick off.
Its complicating what is, and was, a beautiful and simple game
 
worcestermakem said:
My point still stands.
The 'handball' by Boly was only an offence if a goal is subsequently scored.
The new law states "even if accidental, will be a free kick if the ball goes into the goal after touching an attacking player’s hand/arm"

The law doesn't define if the law applies when a goal was scored directly as the result of the 'handball' or if the goalscoring opportunity resulted from a handball.

Until this rule came into force the same handball law applied to all players on the pitch with the exception of a goalkeeper in his own penalty area.
Click to expand...

The intention is that a goal can't be scored as a result of a handball (accidental or not) by a member of the attacking side. My reading of what happened here is that a free kick should have been given even if Dendoncker hadn't scored, as the goal scoring opportunity was created by the ball coming off Boly's hand. It's to address the perception that a goal scored after coming off the hand/arm of an attacker is unfair.
 
Grumpy Old Man said:
The intention is that a goal can't be scored as a result of a handball (accidental or not) by a member of the attacking side. My reading of what happened here is that a free kick should have been given even if Dendoncker hadn't scored, as the goal scoring opportunity was created by the ball coming off Boly's hand. It's to address the perception that a goal scored after coming off the hand/arm of an attacker is unfair.
Click to expand...

But what is a 'goal scoring opportunity '? How is it defined ? People can score from anywhere on the pitch, there endless examples of people scoring from their own half. Its f***ing bollocks the whole thing.

Complicating a game that is beautiful in its simplicity. For what ends I'm yet to work out. Something to do with marketability/tv audiences/creating drama/making money
 
tunstallhill said:
But what is a 'goal scoring opportunity '? How is it defined ? People can score from anywhere on the pitch, there endless examples of people scoring from their own half. Its f***ing bollocks the whole thing.

Complicating a game that is beautiful in its simplicity. For what ends I'm yet to work out. Something to do with marketability/tv audiences/creating drama/making money
Click to expand...
We could have a ball hitting the arm of a winger, not deliberate etc, the winger crosses the ball to another attacker who provides a pass to a third attacker who scores, would this goal stand or be disallowed?
What a clusterfuck.
Grumpy Old Man said:
The intention is that a goal can't be scored as a result of a handball (accidental or not) by a member of the attacking side. My reading of what happened here is that a free kick should have been given even if Dendoncker hadn't scored, as the goal scoring opportunity was created by the ball coming off Boly's hand. It's to address the perception that a goal scored after coming off the hand/arm of an attacker is unfair.
Click to expand...
The premier league statement says goals will be disallowed if goals are scored or created with the use of a hand or arm even it is accidental under the laws of the game.
The laws of the game do not state what the premier league claim.
They state 'the player gains control or possession of the ball', clearly Boly didn't do either.
 
Last edited:
tunstallhill said:
But what is a 'goal scoring opportunity '? How is it defined ? People can score from anywhere on the pitch, there endless examples of people scoring from their own half. Its f***ing bollocks the whole thing.

Complicating a game that is beautiful in its simplicity. For what ends I'm yet to work out. Something to do with marketability/tv audiences/creating drama/making money
Click to expand...

What they mean here is that the handball creates the opportunity for a shot on goal. This one was unusual in that the ball didn't come off the arm of the scorer. If the ball had come off Dendoncker's arm, I don't think there'd have been the same fuss.
worcestermakem said:
We could have a ball hitting the arm of a winger, not deliberate etc, the winger crosses the ball to another attacker who provides a pass to a third attacker who scores, would this goal stand or be disallowed?
What a clusterfuck.

The premier league statement says goals will be disallowed if goals are scored or created with the use of a hand or arm even it is accidental under the laws of the game.
The laws of the game do not state what the premier league claim.
They state 'the player gains control or possession of the ball', clearly Boly didn't do either.
Click to expand...

Boly didn't, but Dendoncker did. That's the point. Wold your opinion be different of the ball had come off Dendoncker's arm, and not Boly's. If so, why? Dendoncker gained an advantage from an unintentional handball; that's why the law change is supposed fo deal with.
rocky said:
Whilst I despise VAR the Wolves goal was because of ridiculous law change. Correct decision but the law is a joke
Click to expand...

So you'll be happy the next time a player scores against us when it either goes in off his arm, or he can only shoot because it's come off his or a teammate's arm?
rokerexile said:
Yeah and that's bollocks too!
Click to expand...

Why?
 
Last edited:

Back
Top