VAR

Status
Not open for further replies.
Grumpy Old Man said:
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.


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.


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?


Why?
Click to expand...
If its completely unintentional? Yes I could and would accept that.
 


Grumpy Old Man said:
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.


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.


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?


Why?
Click to expand...
I have been on the IFAB website and it explains the rule more clearly than the web site I visited last night.
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
From that I can see why the goal was disallowed.
My gripe is the rule only applies to an attacker, not a defender, and makes the accidental handball an offence only when a goal is scored or creates a goal scoring opportunity, not when it results in a corner.
The rule is unnecessarily complicated and the referee can not always immediately decide it is a handball offence as he has to wait for a passage of play before he decides if a goal scoring opportunity was created.
The logical and simplest rule was and still is 'deliberate handball.
 
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...
I wish someone neutral would get on sky sports. It’s basically a VAR love in - no reason why other than it gives them the opportunity to create an industry out of it. Honestly man this will ruin the game on the way to commercialising it to the endth degree. Wait for the VAR sponsor to be announced......
 
I really don't like VAR. We'd lasted more than 100 years without it and in that time part of the great joy of the game, even if it went against you, was the controversy of the debatable, frustration inducing decisions. It's one of the things that makes football 'real' and loved. Yes, Sterling's shoulder was a few cms offside on Saturday so those supporting VAR will defend it (like that clown Sutton on Five Live) and say it was right. It was right, I know that but I don't want to get those ones right. They aren't clear mistakes and if we are going to have VAR that's what it should be for, it should be for the clear handball on the line that the ref has somehow missed not the infinitesimally tight decisions which spoil the game and mean every goal has a question mark on it because we're waiting for something we had very little chance of noticing. I want the game to be the game we love with all the imperfections.
 
johnny69 said:
I wish someone neutral would get on sky sports. It’s basically a VAR love in - no reason why other than it gives them the opportunity to create an industry out of it. Honestly man this will ruin the game on the way to commercialising it to the endth degree. Wait for the VAR sponsor to be announced......
Click to expand...
It's nth. ;);)
This expression comes from mathematics, where to the nth means “to any required power” (n standing for any number). It was first recorded in 1852.
 
Leeds Mackem Reborn said:
I really don't like VAR. We'd lasted more than 100 years without it and in that time part of the great joy of the game, even if it went against you, was the controversy of the debatable, frustration inducing decisions. It's one of the things that makes football 'real' and loved. Yes, Sterling's shoulder was a few cms offside on Saturday so those supporting VAR will defend it (like that clown Sutton on Five Live) and say it was right. It was right, I know that but I don't want to get those ones right. They aren't clear mistakes and if we are going to have VAR that's what it should be for, it should be for the clear handball on the line that the ref has somehow missed not the infinitesimally tight decisions which spoil the game and mean every goal has a question mark on it because we're waiting for something we had very little chance of noticing. I want the game to be the game we love with all the imperfections.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more. Absolutely spot on.
 
Worst invention ever.
Leeds Mackem Reborn said:
I really don't like VAR. We'd lasted more than 100 years without it and in that time part of the great joy of the game, even if it went against you, was the controversy of the debatable, frustration inducing decisions. It's one of the things that makes football 'real' and loved. Yes, Sterling's shoulder was a few cms offside on Saturday so those supporting VAR will defend it (like that clown Sutton on Five Live) and say it was right. It was right, I know that but I don't want to get those ones right. They aren't clear mistakes and if we are going to have VAR that's what it should be for, it should be for the clear handball on the line that the ref has somehow missed not the infinitesimally tight decisions which spoil the game and mean every goal has a question mark on it because we're waiting for something we had very little chance of noticing. I want the game to be the game we love with all the imperfections.
Click to expand...

Depends on the freeze frame var uses. The player that passed to Sterling had his foot on the ball for 5/6 frames. The first 4 of which Sterling was onside. By the 5th frame he had moved offside.

Guess which frame VAR decided to use?
 
Last edited:
Don't like it at all to be honest. Hate the fact that a goal can be celebrated and then wiped off only for the other team to then start celebrating. Some of the offside decisions are ridiculously close. I'd rather it was used to see if the ball had crossed the goal line or for penalties. Beyond that we should all have to accept that we'd win some and lose some.
 
Had the fortune of seeing Man utd v Chelsea at OT yesterday and I must admit the doubt that surrounds every goal totally ruins the goal celebration. Before all it took was a quick glance at the lino before you could properly celebrate. Now though, everyone's stood around half celebrating staring at the ref waiting for his finger to go to his ear. Totally spoiling the moment of celebration. This will become a big issue.
 
samaistonsrightfoot said:
Worst invention ever.


Depends on the freeze frame var uses. The player that passed to Sterling had his foot on the ball for 5/6 frames. The first 4 of which Sterling was onside. By the 5th frame he had moved offside.

Guess which frame VAR decided to use?
Click to expand...
Am I wrong in thinking it’s when the ball leaves the players foot that you have to still be onside?
I really don’t agree with var at all, but the fans have to suffer it our stop going and paying to get in to watch it, if fans are paying to get in they know what is happening and have to accept it, if it ruins the game enough will people stop going?and if so will there be people to take there seats? Only way to get rid of it is if fans don’t turn up as playing in front of a empty stadium is not what the tv companies want
 
Last edited:
Geronimo said:
It's nth. ;);)
This expression comes from mathematics, where to the nth means “to any required power” (n standing for any number). It was first recorded in 1852.
Click to expand...
I’ll ask VAR to check.
Leeds Mackem Reborn said:
I really don't like VAR. We'd lasted more than 100 years without it and in that time part of the great joy of the game, even if it went against you, was the controversy of the debatable, frustration inducing decisions. It's one of the things that makes football 'real' and loved. Yes, Sterling's shoulder was a few cms offside on Saturday so those supporting VAR will defend it (like that clown Sutton on Five Live) and say it was right. It was right, I know that but I don't want to get those ones right. They aren't clear mistakes and if we are going to have VAR that's what it should be for, it should be for the clear handball on the line that the ref has somehow missed not the infinitesimally tight decisions which spoil the game and mean every goal has a question mark on it because we're waiting for something we had very little chance of noticing. I want the game to be the game we love with all the imperfections.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. What is incredible is that the premier league now have a VAR ambassador (shearer) and sky are obsessed about all things good VAR - what utter nonsense
 
Last edited:
myleftfoot1978 said:
Am I wrong in thinking it’s when the ball leaves the players foot that you have to still be onside?
I really don’t agree with var at all, but the fans have to suffer it our stop going and paying to get in to watch it, if fans are paying to get in they know what is happening and have to accept it, if it ruins the game enough will people stop going?and if so will there be people to take there seats? Only way to get rid of it is if fans don’t turn up as playing in front of a empty stadium is not what the tv companies want
Click to expand...

I've not seen anything to say when it is applied. Especially since freeze frames at 1/25th of a second are being used.

However the offside rule on the FA website reads:

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:...

*The first point of contact of the 'play' or 'touch' of the ball should be used

So if they are doing it by the frame the ball leaves the players foot they are contravening offside rules altogether.
 
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...

Everyone knew the rules before the game.

VAR was used successfully over the weekend. Hats off to the PL.
 
Don't personally get the problem that people have with a goal being disallowed as a consequence of the ball hitting an attackers arm. For me it seems unfair that a side should concede a goal in this way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top