Get rid of VAR NOW! We want our game back! (...or not, some are happy)

[711]

To be fair, as far as I know, the intent was never part of the rule, it was just the way how it was interpreted. And indeed, it generated a lot of controversies (for example Barca vs Chelsea). Now, this has been explicitly removed, instead, it has been replaced with the silhouette (whatever it means).

I think that a middle-ground would have been better. Keep the intent, with the referee being able to personally check VAR and make his best judgement if there was intent or it was accidental. But for now they decided to go with this choice of 'if it touches the ball, it is handball'.

I think yesterday's was particularly clear though. He jumped with his arm, under any circumstances it was a penalty. It was bizarre, but it was a penalty under both the new and the old rules. Sure, there was no player near him, but if a keeper goes out of the zone with the ball in his hand, an indirect kick is given even if no player is near him.

You're not alone in thinking that to be fair, I always found it odd how many people I played football with would claim handball for everything and shout back 'there's no such thing as accidental handball'.

Anyway, this is the the Fifa book from 2014/15:

Handling the ball
Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with his hand or arm.
The referee must take the following into consideration: • the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand) • the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball) • the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an infringement • touching the ball with an object held in the hand (clothing, shinguard, etc.) counts as an infringement • hitting the ball with a thrown object (boot, shinguard, etc.) counts as an infringement.

 

[17Larsson]

Remember Sheringham's goal? Remember the instant elation/relief? It was one of the best moments of your life.

VAR would have had you half celebrating and waiting till they checked the replay.

I don't care about milimeters. I just want natural football back. There seems to be more contentious decisions these days than there ever was before VAR

 

[Pogue Mahone]

To be fair, as far as I know, the intent was never part of the rule, it was just the way how it was interpreted. And indeed, it generated a lot of controversies (for example Barca vs Chelsea). Now, this has been explicitly removed, instead, it has been replaced with the silhouette (whatever it means).

I think that a middle-ground would have been better. Keep the intent, with the referee being able to personally check VAR and make his best judgement if there was intent or it was accidental. But for now they decided to go with this choice of 'if it touches the ball, it is handball'.

I think yesterday's was particularly clear though. He jumped with his arm, under any circumstances it was a penalty. It was bizarre, but it was a penalty under both the new and the old rules. Sure, there was no player near him, but if a keeper goes out of the zone with the ball in his hand, an indirect kick is given even if no player is near him.

This doesn’t get any less wrong, the more times you say it.

What makes your repeated claim that this is the new rule even stranger is that you’ve also mentioned scenarios where the ball can hit a player’s hand/arm without it being handball. You’re trying to have your cake and eat it here.

 

[Revan]

But the (mainly stupid) discussion of changing the offside rule, and if they do it, is intrinsically linked to VAR.

Unless I'm imagining things.

What change of the offside rule? As far as I know, there has not been any change on the offside rule.

this is where we disagree, getting a few correct decisions now and again in no weigh outweighs absolutely fecking with football and all it’s been.

Honestly when a goal is scored these days I just sit and wait for the drama, there’s no excitement, and to me I want the excitement. added replays with lines and measuring centimetres and oooooooos from the crowd on the build up to a decision do not make entertainment for me

And this is fine. It is very subjective if we like VAR or not, and if we think it has improved the game or not. I think yes, you think no, totally fine. Same as it is fine if two people disagree if the handball rule is stupid or not.

What I find bizarre is when people criticize the VAR for objectively right decisions, like the handballs. It is not VAR's problem, it is the stupid rules' problem. VAR is just the messenger. Mike Dean would have still awarded a penalty yesterday, just that in case if it was outside the box (it wasn't, but let's play along), with VAR the penalty would have overruled, while without it, it would have stayed.

 

[Revan]

This doesn’t get any less wrong, the more times you say it.

I provided a link to the rules of EPL, and to those of the world's refereeing association or whatever is called. I told you that Collina said this in the World Cup. I provided countless examples where the refereeing has been totally consistent with these rules.

All you're saying is that this is not the case, without providing a single bit of evidence that what you say is true.

 

[Fully Fledged]

It does not. Under the current rules, intention does not matter, if you have opposite players near you it does not matter. The only thing that matters is if the ball touches your hand/arm or not. It did. Which is why the pen was given.

Is the rule brain dead? Yes it is. Was it a pen under the rules? Yes it was.

No it didn't. It was clearly Shoulder which is not handball in the current rules.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I provided a link to the rules of EPL, and to those of the world's refereeing association or whatever is called. I told you that Collina said this in the World Cup. I provided countless examples where the refereeing has been totally consistent with these rules.

All you're saying is that this is not the case, without providing a single bit of evidence that what you say is true.

I don’t need to provide the evidence. You’ve done that for me! If it’s possible for the ball to hit a defender’s arm without a penalty being awarded (arms in “natural“ position, breaking his fall) then the rules obviously haven’t changed to make it an automatic handball whenever it hits a player’s hand/arm.

But what we do know, from umpteen examples, is that when the ball hits an attacking player’s arm/hand in the build up to a goal, there is never any discussion about natural/unnatural positions and falling over doesn’t provide any excuse (most recent example the Spurs goal disallowed when the ball hit Moura’s arm which he had stuck out to break his fall)

There are two completely different scenarios here. Handball leading to goal and handball leading to a penalty. Different scenarios, referee’d differently. As per the links you provided.

 

[Revan]

No it didn't. It was clearly Shoulder which is not handball in the current rules.

Was it?

Looks more like biceps to me.

 

[Revan]

I don’t need to provide the evidence. You’ve done that for me! If it’s possible for the ball to hit a defender’s arm without a penalty being awarded (arms in “natural“ position, breaking his fall) then the rules obviously haven’t changed to make it an automatic handball whenever it hits a player’s hand/arm.

They obviously have changed, as it was by providing you the new rules.

In the new rules, there is absolutely nothing to say that intent matters, in fact it is explicitly said that the intent does not matter, but you decided that part covers only the handballs leading to the goals, despite that it is not said anything about it.

It also explicitly says that if the arm is above the shoulder, then it is a penalty. But I guess that was also for handballs that lead to goals, not for those that lead to penalties.

 

[Zlatan 7]

Looks outside the box to be. They could have checked that

 

[Fully Fledged]

I don’t need to provide the evidence. You’ve done that for me! If it’s possible for the ball to hit a defender’s arm without a penalty being awarded (arms in “natural“ position, breaking his fall) then the rules obviously haven’t changed to make it an automatic handball whenever it hits a player’s hand/arm.

But what we do know, from umpteen examples, is that when the ball hits an attacking player’s arm/hand in the build up to a goal, there is never any discussion about natural/unnatural positions and falling over doesn’t provide any excuse (most recent example the Spurs goal disallowed when the ball hit Moura’s arm which he had stuck out to break his fall)

There are two completely different scenarios here. Handball leading to goal and handball leading to a penalty. Different scenarios, referee’d differently. As per the links you provided.

Spoiler

 

[Revan]

Looks outside the box to be. They could have checked that

But it was inside the box, and they checked about it.

Unlike for the goal, where the line is not part of the goal (aka, the entire ball needs to pass the line for the goal to be awarded), the line is actually part of the box, which means that if even 0.00001% of the ball passes the box, it is "inside" the box. And it clearly, much more than that passed the box. In fact, if you check this line (I have no idea why it is made on Maguire's leg, instead of the beginning of the line), it still touches the ball. In fact, the majority (if not entirely) of the ball intersects with the line.

I mean, there is one thing disagreeing with referees who make decisions at the heat of the moment. However, this is reaching the anti-vaccine zone debate, with the people making their own facts, regardless of the truth.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

They obviously have changed, as it was by providing you the new rules.

In the new rules, there is absolutely nothing to say that intent matters, in fact it is explicitly said that the intent does not matter, but you decided that part covers only the handballs leading to the goals, despite that it is not said anything about it.

It also explicitly says that if the arm is above the shoulder, then it is a penalty. But I guess that was also for handballs that lead to goals, not for those that lead to penalties.

Using your deranged logic, it’s irrelevant whether an arm is above the shoulder or not. If the ball hits the arm it’s an infringement. Every time. That is literally what you’ve claimed, multiple times now.

Which makes their decision to mention the position of the arm in their rules a complete mystery, right?

 

[Fully Fledged]

But it was inside the box, and they checked about it.

Unlike for the goal, where the line is not part of the goal (aka, the entire ball needs to pass the line for the goal to be awarded), the line is actually part of the box, which means that if even 0.00001% of the ball passes the box, it is "inside" the box. And it clearly, much more than that passed the box. In fact, if you check this line (I have no idea why it is made on Maguire's leg, instead of the beginning of the line), it still touches the ball. In fact, the majority (if not entirely) of the ball intersects with the line.

I mean, there is one thing disagreeing with referees who make decisions at the heat of the moment. However, this is reaching the anti-vaccine zone debate, with the people making their own facts, regardless of the truth.

Why are they looking at such blurry pictures when the game is recorded in UHD? They should be able to pull the picture right in to get a clear picture of the contact.

 

[Revan]

Why are they looking at such blurry pictures when the game is recorded in UHD? They should be able to pull the picture right in to get a clear picture of the contact.

I've no idea. Maybe they are looking at HD figures, but when the picture was put on the web, it was compressed.

 

[Revan]

Using your deranged logic, it’s irrelevant whether an arm is above the shoulder or not. If the ball hits the arm it’s an infringement. Every time. That is literally what you’ve claimed, multiple times now.

Which makes their decision to mention the position of the arm in their rules a complete mystery, right?

No, it does not. The 'intention' rule, is just clarifying that the intention does not matter. The other rules are clarifying what counts as pen, and what does not.

Essentially, if your hand is behind the body, intention or not, it is not a penalty. On the other hand, if it is above the shoulder, intention or not, it is a penalty. I do not know how it can be clearer than that.

Here there are the IFAB rules (from which EPL derived the rules), specifying what is NOT a penalty:

There will be no penalty if:

• the ball touches a player's hand/arm immediately from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player.
• the ball touches a player's hand/arm close to their body and has not made their silhouette unnaturally bigger.
• a player is falling and the ball touches their hand/arm when it is between their body and the ground (but not extended to make the body bigger).
• additionally, should the goalkeeper attempt to clear a ball from a teammate but fails, the goalkeeper is allowed to handle the ball.

They could have easily added another rule, that says that 'if the referee judges that the player's intention was not to touch the ball', and voila, intention would have mattered. But they deliberately wanted to not consider intention anymore (probably because it is very subjective, so they wanted handballs to be totally objective decisions).

 

[Offside]

The thing that irritates me about VAR is the complete lack of common sense. They need to come out and say offsides will only be looked at if it’s above a certain distance so these stupidly tight ones can feck off, and they need to say handball in the box is only handball if it’s deliberate end of.

 

[Revan]

The thing that irritates me about VAR is the complete lack of common sense. They need to come out and say offsides will only be looked at if it’s above a certain distance so these stupidly tight ones can feck off, and they need to say handball in the box is only handball if it’s deliberate end of.

But this has nothing to do with VAR. This has to do with the rules.

First of all, the offside was always a binary choice, there was never a marginally offside but it is so close so we allow the goal. Always, if you were offside, it was ruled as offside. Just that with the referees being humans, many goals that were blatant (let alone marginally) offsides, were given (for example Terry against us, or Robben against Fiorentina), while many goals which were not offside were incorrectly ruled out. Now this problem has gone away.

While they could introduce a margin, that won't solve anything. It is what I have been saying all alone, and what Collina said (while UEFA president disagreed). Sure, now if you are 1cm offside, it counts as offside. We can make a rule that says if you are up to 10cm offside, it counts as inside. What happens when you are 11cm offside? Would it be a total lack of common sense to rule that goal out, cause after all, the player was offside for only 1cm more than it is allowed?

With regard to handball, I partially agree. The current rule in my opinion is bizarre. The previous rule IMO was even more bizarre, and meant that based on the ref, what is given and what is not given a penalty is very different. It was totally subjective and very-much referee oriented. Now, by making it totally objective, it lacks some common sense. I think that a better 'intermediate' rule is needed. But again, it has nothing to do with VAR. If you keep the rule but remove the VAR, the only thing it will change is that some handball will be missed and not given, while in some cases the ball will hit the chest but the referee think that it is the arm so award a penalty.

 

[Offside]

But this has nothing to do with VAR. This has to do with the rules.

First of all, the offside was always a binary choice, there was never a marginally offside but it is so close so we allow the goal. Always, if you were offside, it was ruled as offside. Just that with the referees being humans, many goals that were blatant (let alone marginally) offsides, were given (for example Terry against us, or Robben against Fiorentina), while many goals which were not offside were incorrectly ruled out. Now this problem has gone away.

While they could introduce a margin, that won't solve anything. It is what I have been saying all alone, and what Collina said (while UEFA president disagreed). Sure, now if you are 1cm offside, it counts as offside. We can make a rule that says if you are up to 10cm offside, it counts as inside. What happens when you are 11cm offside? Would it be a total lack of common sense to rule that goal out, cause after all, the player was offside for only 1cm more than it is allowed?

With regard to handball, I partially agree. The current rule in my opinion is bizarre. The previous rule IMO was even more bizarre, and meant that based on the ref, what is given and what is not given a penalty is very different. It was totally subjective and very-much referee oriented. Now, by making it totally objective, it lacks some common sense. I think that a better 'intermediate' rule is needed. But again, it has nothing to do with VAR. If you keep the rule but remove the VAR, the only thing it will change is that some handball will be missed and not given, while in some cases the ball will hit the chest but the referee think that it is the arm so award a penalty.

It has everything to do with VAR. Without it an offside decision that was so ridiculously tight you would need to scrutinise it for 10 minutes would mean the striker gets the benefit of the doubt instantly. Now what happens with VAR? It’s scrutinised for 10 minutes and then gets disallowed because someone’s toenail is offside.

The handball issue I agree the rule just needs clearing up.

 

[Revan]

It has everything to do with VAR. Without it an offside decision that was so ridiculously tight you would need to scrutinise it for 10 minutes would mean the striker gets the benefit of the doubt instantly. Now what happens with VAR? It’s scrutinised for 10 minutes and then gets disallowed because someone’s toenail is offside.

The handball issue I agree the rule just needs clearing up.

In some cases. In some other it gets rules offside despite that the striker was in a perfectly onside position (for example, see Milito against Barca in a high-profile match). In some others, the player is given the benefit of the doubt despite being 2 yards offside. It was a total mess.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Oh, another thread Revan is having a shocker in this weekend then.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

No, it does not. The 'intention' rule, is just clarifying that the intention does not matter. The other rules are clarifying what counts as pen, and what does not.

Essentially, if your hand is behind the body, intention or not, it is not a penalty. On the other hand, if it is above the shoulder, intention or not, it is a penalty. I do not know how it can be clearer than that.

Here there are the IFAB rules (from which EPL derived the rules), specifying what is NOT a penalty:

They could have easily added another rule, that says that 'if the referee judges that the player's intention was not to touch the ball', and voila, intention would have mattered. But they deliberately wanted to not consider intention anymore (probably because it is very subjective, so they wanted handballs to be totally objective decisions).

Jesus Christ. This is like pulling teeth. Ok, how about we look at this a different way? Can you name a single example (just one will do) where a goal was scored immediately after a possible handball and they discussed whether the arm was in a natural position or not? I can help you with this. There hasn’t been one. Because the whole “an infringement every time the ball touches an arm” thing you keep mentioning only applies in this scenario. A striker cannot claim the ball struck his arm by accident. That excuse isn’t available to him.

When it comes to penalties, intent matters, because defenders need to intentionally avoid challenging for the ball with their arms above their shoulders, or in otherwise unnatural positions. Neither of which are ever taken into account when deciding whether to disallow a goal for handball.

Hence a defender can get away with accidental handball, while strikers cannot.

 

[Zlatan 7]

But it was inside the box, and they checked about it.

Unlike for the goal, where the line is not part of the goal (aka, the entire ball needs to pass the line for the goal to be awarded), the line is actually part of the box, which means that if even 0.00001% of the ball passes the box, it is "inside" the box. And it clearly, much more than that passed the box. In fact, if you check this line (I have no idea why it is made on Maguire's leg, instead of the beginning of the line), it still touches the ball. In fact, the majority (if not entirely) of the ball intersects with the line.

I mean, there is one thing disagreeing with referees who make decisions at the heat of the moment. However, this is reaching the anti-vaccine zone debate, with the people making their own facts, regardless of the truth.

Really, you’re happy with that check? Do you know what the blue and yellow lines indicate? It’s accurate enough to tell you your 0.0001% on the line? I know the facts of the rules like you state them but VAR can’t keep up with that.

 

[Revan]

Really, you’re happy with that check?

Yes.

Do you know what the blue and yellow lines indicate?

No, but I can guess them and would be surprised if I am wrong.

It’s accurate enough to tell you your 0.0001% on the line?

Probably not, but it does not need to be. The circumference is big enough, for this to make reliable, without needing the accuracy to be 0.0001% on the line (assuming the line is 10cm, that would be 1/100th of a mm, which would be totally unneeded. I think that it is quite reliable though.

I know the facts of the rules like you state them but VAR can’t keep up with that.

Good. So why are you insisting that the ball was out of the box?

 

[Revan]

Jesus Christ. This is like pulling teeth. Ok, how about we look at this a different way? Can you name a single example (just one will do) where a goal was scored immediately after a possible handball and they discussed whether the arm was in a natural position or not? I can help you with this. There hasn’t been one. Because the whole “an infringement every time the ball touches an arm” thing you keep mentioning only applies in this scenario. A striker cannot claim the ball struck his arm by accident. That excuse isn’t available to him.

When it comes to penalties, intent matters, because defenders need to intentionally avoid challenging for the ball with their arms above their shoulders, or in otherwise unnatural positions. Neither of which are ever taken into account when deciding whether to disallow a goal for handball.

Hence a defender can get away with accidental handball, while strikers cannot.

In all honesty, I am not sure that we are even that far from each other (semantics aside). I am saying that intent does not matter, because the rules specifically say so (which you have decided to reject out of stubbornness), and giving a list of concrete cases where it is specified that it is not ruled as a handball. You on the other hand are saying that intent matters, and 'intentionally giving a handball' is defined based on the same list of the specified cases.

To make it more illustrative:

- The defender jumps with his arms above the shoulder. I am saying it is an instant-pen cause the arm is above the shoulder, while you are saying that it is an instant-pen, cause it was intentional based on the fact that the arm was above the shoulder.
- Same for the attacker, both agree that it gets ruled out, cause it touches the ball, and for an attacker it is instant-foul.
- If the defender has his hands behind the back, I guess we both agree that it is not a foul (though you are saying because it was not intentionally, while I am saying because the rules specify so).
- Same for the attacker in this position, we both agree that it gets ruled as foul, because the rules say that if an attacker touches the ball with his hands, it is foul.

The only difference seems to be in semantics. I am giving a list of what is a handball and what isn't, you are giving an abstraction (intent) that contains the same concrete list.

 

[NinjaFletch]

No, it does not. The 'intention' rule, is just clarifying that the intention does not matter. The other rules are clarifying what counts as pen, and what does not.

Essentially, if your hand is behind the body, intention or not, it is not a penalty. On the other hand, if it is above the shoulder, intention or not, it is a penalty. I do not know how it can be clearer than that.

Here there are the IFAB rules (from which EPL derived the rules), specifying what is NOT a penalty:

They could have easily added another rule, that says that 'if the referee judges that the player's intention was not to touch the ball', and voila, intention would have mattered. But they deliberately wanted to not consider intention anymore (probably because it is very subjective, so they wanted handballs to be totally objective decisions).

Why do you keep quoting Goal?

You clearly know IFAB set the laws of the Game, and it doesn't take a genius to think 'hmm, I wonder if IFAB have written the laws of the game on their website':

Handling the ball
For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.

It is an offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
• scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
• after the ball has touched their or a team-mate’s hand/arm, even if accidental, immediately:
  • scores in the opponents’ goal
  • creates a goal-scoring opportunity
• 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 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

And there in black and white you'll see it written that the offence, unless you're scoring a goal, is DELIBERATE HANDBALL. The changes to includes unnatural position and height of arm move what was previously included in a section containing things that 'a referee might want to consider when judging if a handball is deliberate' into the main judgement because IFAB want to make it clearer that making your body bigger and causing the ball to hit it is an intentional action on the part of the player in question.

This is the 18/19 wording which makes the legacy of the current wording clear:

Handling the ball
Handling the ball involves a deliberate act of a player making contact with the ball with the hand or arm.

The following must be considered:
• the movement of the hand towards the ball (not the ball towards the hand)
• the distance between the opponent and the ball (unexpected ball)
• the position of the hand does not necessarily mean that there is an offence

What they changed was to provide clarity on when the position of the hand DOES necessarily mean there is an offence.


All of which is to say that Mike Dean and Lee Mason judged that Bailly intentionally handled the ball because of the position he put his arm in. They biggest problem with the decision is this helpful little diagram that IFAB provide showing you precisely that it should not have been a penalty because the top of the shirt sleeve is not the arm:

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Why do you keep quoting Goal?

You clearly know IFAB set the laws of the Game, and it doesn't take a genius to think 'hmm, I wonder if IFAB have written the laws of the game on their website':



And there in black and white you'll see it written that the offence, unless you're scoring a goal, is DELIBERATE HANDBALL. The changes to includes unnatural position and height of arm move what was previously included in a section containing things that 'a referee might want to consider when judging if a handball is deliberate' into the main judgement because IFAB want to make it clearer that making your body bigger and causing the ball to hit it is an intentional action on the part of the player in question.

All of which is to say that Mike Dean and Lee Mason judged that Bailly intentionally handled the ball because of the position he put his arm in. They biggest problem with the decision is this helpful little diagram that IFAB provide showing you precisely that it should not have been a penalty because the top of the shirt sleeve is not the arm:

Thank you for hopefully putting an end to that tangent I got dragged down. Was banging my head off a wall there.

Re the last image, the commentators on my feed kept talking about a proposed rule change next season whereby the “t-shirt sleeve” would no longer be considered part of your arm/hand. So I wonder if the diagram is to do with an imminent rule change?

Getting back to VAR and the Bailly handball, it’s absurd that the best possible image still can’t tell us where on the arm it hit him. You had one job.... So that’s yet another example to add the the long list of VAR-mediated incidents where the technology isn’t capable of getting rid of ambiguity. Which is just not good enough to compensate for the way it’s fecked up the flow of the game.

 

[MikeKing]

Why do you keep quoting Goal?

You clearly know IFAB set the laws of the Game, and it doesn't take a genius to think 'hmm, I wonder if IFAB have written the laws of the game on their website':



And there in black and white you'll see it written that the offence, unless you're scoring a goal, is DELIBERATE HANDBALL. The changes to includes unnatural position and height of arm move what was previously included in a section containing things that 'a referee might want to consider when judging if a handball is deliberate' into the main judgement because IFAB want to make it clearer that making your body bigger and causing the ball to hit it is an intentional action on the part of the player in question.

All of which is to say that Mike Dean and Lee Mason judged that Bailly intentionally handled the ball because of the position he put his arm in. They biggest problem with the decision is this helpful little diagram that IFAB provide showing you precisely that it should not have been a penalty because the top of the shirt sleeve is not the arm:

It's really that simple isn't it. Hopefully they don't just move on, but actually review these situations and come up with a blueprint to follow for the future, so these decision gets done correctly and quickly. Hard to say if the ball even hit him but if it did it was on top of his shoulder.

 

[Zlatan 7]

Yes.



No, but I can guess them and would be surprised if I am wrong.



Probably not, but it does not need to be. The circumference is big enough, for this to make reliable, without needing the accuracy to be 0.0001% on the line (assuming the line is 10cm, that would be 1/100th of a mm, which would be totally unneeded. I think that it is quite reliable though.



Good. So why are you insisting that the ball was out of the box?

I’m not insisting its outside the box. My main point is VAR and it trying to judge mm calls when it can’t, it’s fecking pointless and it’s ruining the emotion of the game.

id like to know what your guess is out of curiosity if you’d rely on that being accurate if it was a tighter call

 

[NinjaFletch]

Thank you for hopefully putting an end to that tangent I got dragged down. Was banging my head off a wall there.

Re the last image, the commentators on my feed kept talking about a proposed rule change next season whereby the “t-shirt sleeve” would no longer be considered part of your arm/hand. So I wonder if the diagram is to do with an imminent rule change?

Getting back to VAR and the Bailly handball, it’s absurd that the best possible image still can’t tell us where on the arm it hit him. You had one job.... So that’s yet another example to add the the long list of VAR-mediated incidents where the technology isn’t capable of getting rid of ambiguity. Which is just not good enough to compensate for the way it’s fecked up the flow of the game.

Yes, you're right it's from the 20/21 laws booklet, but leagues were given the choice to follow those on the resumption to the season:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52208435

I've got to admit I have absolutely no idea if the Premier League has decided to do that, but I suppose ignoring a clarification that makes the laws a bit clearer is the sort of bafflinf nonsense we should expect from the referees in this league.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Yes, you're right it's from the 20/21 laws booklet, but leagues were given the choice to follow those on the resumption to the season:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52208435

I've got to admit I have absolutely no idea if the Premier League has decided to do that, but I suppose ignoring a clarification that makes the laws a bit clearer is the sort of bafflinf nonsense we should expect from the referees in this league.

Ah. Ok. Interesting. Based on what the BT Sport commentary team were saying, the PL is deferring that tweak until next season.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Ah. Ok. Interesting. Based on what the BT Sport commentary team were saying, the PL is deferring that tweak until next season.

Possibly, but I wouldn't say it makes it a better decision, because the new law just gives a definition to something that was generally taken as fact (top of the arm/shoulder ok, below that handball); I'm not at all sure many referees judgement of where the cut off line was was that far out of wack before hand and the line used in the Bailly one seems exceptionally high.

I do think a side effect of VAR and an unintended positive is that it has shown how poorly written some of the laws are themselves.

Handball is a huge pet peeve of mine and Revan is somewhat right that there has been a softening on the use of the word 'deliberate' because it is recognised as being problematic, hence why the guidance about hand position has been made clearer since 18/19. What they're doing is trying to put into clearer language what the laws were supposed to mean in IFAB's collective head and the situations that they were trying to govern with the old wording.


Unfortunately they're also adding in a load of nonsense too.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Really can't understand how VAR can decide the Nketiah should have been sent off but Vardy shouldn't have been sent off... in the same feckin' game no less.

 

[Buster15]

Handball isn't the only reason, or even the primary reason, VAR is terrible. The system doesn't work, slows the game down, and fundamentally alters the nature of the game in the process. Unless it can be an instant check made very sparingly, once or twice a game or sometimes never, then it should be removed.

Unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle and you cannot put it back. Unfortunately.

My biggest problem with the application is that it was supposed to only be used for clear and obvious mistakes.

But now, it is being used for everything.
We have to accept that the technology is being used for even the most marginal decisions, as opposed to clear and obvious.

It is also taking away the most important thing about football. And that is the emotion.
The ultimate excitement of scoring a goal is now inhibited. And that is a big mistake.

It certainly needs a rethink. But that is not going to happen.

 

[Fully Fledged]

Thank you for hopefully putting an end to that tangent I got dragged down. Was banging my head off a wall there.

Re the last image, the commentators on my feed kept talking about a proposed rule change next season whereby the “t-shirt sleeve” would no longer be considered part of your arm/hand. So I wonder if the diagram is to do with an imminent rule change?

Getting back to VAR and the Bailly handball, it’s absurd that the best possible image still can’t tell us where on the arm it hit him. You had one job.... So that’s yet another example to add the the long list of VAR-mediated incidents where the technology isn’t capable of getting rid of ambiguity. Which is just not good enough to compensate for the way it’s fecked up the flow of the game.

No they had a ref on BT who said that the rule was level with the armpit so that the incident was not a penalty.

The problem is that he was looking at a massive 4K screen with a clear crisp picture while Stockley Park are looking at the small grainy images that they post on the internet that tell you nothing. If they have the quality that BT and Sky have why are they not replicating them to prove they got the decision right and it did touch him on the arm as prescribed in the latest rules?

 

[Lagger]

I'll say I dislike it, because I actually quite enjoy the football culture of discussing decisions among fans. Where would we be if Germany and England couldn't discuss that infamous Wembley goal ad nauseum? It's a bit of a joke, sure, but it's fun. Same with that goal in 2010 that wasn't given despite being a foot inside the goal... and VAR robs people of the explosive rush that a goal is when it's so long after the fact. Was he offside or not? We'll find out, stay tuned!

I'm only waiting for TV broadcasters to figure out that they can squeeze a commercial in right there... "This VAR decision is brought to you by Betandwin, there are moments when anything is possible. Betandwin, in the spirit of the game!" Ugh.

 

[Pretzels81]

It seems that VAR has fully embraced corruption in Spain.

 

[awop]

Didnt watch that game but apparently from earlier :

 

[Zlatan 7]

Didnt watch that game but apparently from earlier :

It’s because they’re Not even in the room sometimes are they? I doubt they’re watching it religiously and are just eating biscuits waiting for a goal to rule out or the ref to ask them something. Well they’re obviously not watching it with a close eye or they would have seen that

 

[711]

I'll say I dislike it, because I actually quite enjoy the football culture of discussing decisions among fans. Where would we be if Germany and England couldn't discuss that infamous Wembley goal ad nauseum? It's a bit of a joke, sure, but it's fun. Same with that goal in 2010 that wasn't given despite being a foot inside the goal... and VAR robs people of the explosive rush that a goal is when it's so long after the fact. Was he offside or not? We'll find out, stay tuned!

I'm only waiting for TV broadcasters to figure out that they can squeeze a commercial in right there... "This VAR decision is brought to you by Betandwin, there are moments when anything is possible. Betandwin, in the spirit of the game!" Ugh.

If I wasn't so bone-idle I'd go out and copyright 'Betandwin' tomorrow morning. Although someone may have already done so, watch out!