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

[montpelier]

I just find it utterly ridiculous that goals are being ruled offside because an attacker has his big toe beyond the last defender.

If they do this right, I think it's OK, actually. If...

1 - the frame just before the ball is kicked - you draw the lines - in the next frame the ball has been played

2 - if the player is 1mm offside, on his first frame he is only likely to be 'more off' than he actually appears - which ought to be confirmed in the next frame

I mean, it is possible that someone could play him back onside in the next frame but I think this must be unlikely, I don't see that defenders move so rapidly & often in that direction. You would think that they have looked at this & not found many occurences?

Offside - back to onside - then going through to score. It's possible, on a line of defenders. Maybe they give it the attacker for having got himself back onside. Defence must keep him off between frames.

This would give the attacker any advantage going - from the frame just before the ball is played, so as I say 1mm off is only likely to be more.

If they are going totally going with after the ball is played then it's not an accurate picture (cough) at all really. 2 people moving in different directions will move a distance apart I think - just judging from the close run out decisions in the cricket, for example.

And now I've completely talked myself out of this - because moving from onside to 1mm off in the next frame, you can't know where he is when the ball is played. Dare I say then, that to get the decision the defence need to have the man offside in both of the 2 frames? Theoretically, even that might not be right, because you still don't know the position when the ball is kicked.

Good luck to anyone who reads that.

 

[montpelier]

I find this funny..

VAR doesn’t intervene on obvious foul that could change outcome of game due to a penalty awarded = it’s not VAR fault it’s the rules and it was subjective.

VAR intervenes on handball against a goal = yay, VAR works again and we get the right call ensuring everything is fair and wonderful, no more wrong results.

All while fans in the ground twiddle their thumbs and look around at each other in amazement at what’s going on and why. It’s pathetic at the moment.

Essentially, this is 2 refs leaving it to each other - most people would think someone ought to be giving that somehow or other. next week Salah will probably get one of his specials from the on-field guy & VAR will not over rule because - well, it's all subjective isn't it & we can't tell the extent of the contact. Tammy Abraham for example.

Just handball then, if we can't do offsides & fouls, .

 

[cyberman]

I find this funny..

VAR doesn’t intervene on obvious foul that could change outcome of game due to a penalty awarded = it’s not VAR fault it’s the rules and it was subjective.

VAR intervenes on handball against a goal = yay, VAR works again and we get the right call ensuring everything is fair and wonderful, no more wrong results.

All while fans in the ground twiddle their thumbs and look around at each other in amazement at what’s going on and why. It’s pathetic at the moment.

Whats so funny about that? If the ref has a clear view of a foul and doesn't give it then why would the VAR officials opinion matter?
Your point doesn't make sense to me. Your argument seems to be I hate VAR but it should be used more often?

 

[Zlatan 7]

Whats so funny about that? If the ref has a clear view of a foul and doesn't give it then why would the VAR officials opinion matter?
Your point doesn't make sense to me. Your argument seems to be I hate VAR but it should be used more often?

My point is VAR is used sometimes, when they feel like, maybe they didn’t that time, maybe they will next time. There’s absolutely no consistency or apparently fair order to it.

Handball outside the box that could lead to a sending off, who cares that’s not VARs job, wrongly awarded corner leading to a goal, shit happens, nothing to do with VAR, obvious foul in the box, nah the ref seen that obviously so someone with unlimited replays seeing it’s a foul need not get involved.
Yet all I see off pro VAR people is how amazingly fair it makes the game and the correct result will now always prevail.

I don’t see the need to or agree to change the rules and emotion of the game just to get a few right calls while totally ignoring clearly obvious errors.

And the best reason I see for that is that there’s lots of money at stake so we neeeeeed VAR, that’s such a strange one to me. What football has been for decades is what’s made it into this massive financial juggernaut and now because of that we change the rules and introduce ‘technology’. Technology Which is actually just watching a replay, something we could have introduced in the 80’s if it was that needed.

 

[Anustart89]

I find this funny..

VAR doesn’t intervene on obvious foul that could change outcome of game due to a penalty awarded = it’s not VAR fault it’s the rules and it was subjective.

VAR intervenes on handball against a goal = yay, VAR works again and we get the right call ensuring everything is fair and wonderful, no more wrong results.

All while fans in the ground twiddle their thumbs and look around at each other in amazement at what’s going on and why. It’s pathetic at the moment.

If you refuse to read pretty much every post on the subject and prefer to make up an argument that you can counter, then I suppose you have a point.

Everyone’s been saying that VAR should’ve intervened for the foul in the box.

 

[montpelier]

You could make football a series of 'plays' like Rugby or American football. The ref on the field just does the admin - organises restarts & so on.

Except for the pesky offside & play being almost entirely of ''amber level'' infringements & teams finding ways to cheat the system during the long 'plays,' it could work really well. Total accuracy apart from all the stuff that is still subjective.

 

[montpelier]

Everyone’s been saying in unison that VAR should’ve intervened for the foul in the box.

It didn't though.

 

[Rafaeldagold]

My point is VAR is used sometimes, when they feel like, maybe they didn’t that time, maybe they will next time. There’s absolutely no consistency or apparently fair order to it.

Handball outside the box that could lead to a sending off, who cares that’s not VARs job, wrongly awarded corner leading to a goal, shit happens, nothing to do with VAR, obvious foul in the box, nah the ref seen that obviously so someone with unlimited replays seeing it’s a foul need not get involved.
Yet all I see off pro VAR people is how amazingly fair it makes the game and the correct result will now always prevail.

I don’t see the need to or agree to change the rules and emotion of the game just to get a few right calls while totally ignoring clearly obvious errors.

And the best reason I see for that is that there’s lots of money at stake so we neeeeeed VAR, that’s such a strange one to me. What football has been for decades is what’s made it into this massive financial juggernaut and now because of that we change the rules and introduce ‘technology’. Technology Which is actually just watching a replay, something we could have introduced in the 80’s if it was that needed.

Spot on.

Every single point & they won’t be able to refute any of thise points.

 

[Anustart89]

It didn't though.

People aren’t saying it isn’t VARs fault and it’s the rules like you just pulled from your arse.

Everyone’s agreeing that VAR failed there and my conspiracy theory is that Scott wasn’t stuck in traffic for Chelsea-Leicester but demoted for that feck-up.

Edit: sorry, you were not the original poster, typing on phone. My bad.

 

[RochaRoja]

2006 WC final was the only good and relevant use of VAR in history.

 

[montpelier]

People aren’t saying it isn’t VARs fault and it’s the rules like you just pulled from your arse.

Everyone’s agreeing that VAR failed there and my conspiracy theory is that Scott wasn’t stuck in traffic for Chelsea-Leicester but demoted for that feck-up.

Edit: sorry, you were not the original poster, typing on phone. My bad.

.

I think demotion has to be possible, isn't it? Or just keep him out of the way.

I said earlier though, Oliver didn't want to give either of them. And they weren't that hard to spot.

 

[Scaring Europe to Death]

A few points after I've finally calmed down.
Firstly, we were sold VAR, mainly on the premise that it would eradicate "clear and obvious errors"

Last Saturday, VAR referred the referee to 2 decisions.
He refused to be overruled for the "clear and obvious" penalty appeal, yet allowed himself to be overruled for the handball which nobody in the stadium (including all the Tottenham player) had witnessed in real time.

We used to be told that poor decisions would balance-out over a season, yet bizarrely, we're now informed that VAR (which was supposedly introduced to eradicate poor decisions) will balance-out over a season.

Secondly, (and this will slowly happen at Old Trafford), once you've experienced a couple of VAR decisions, you find yourself refusing to celebrate properly until the opposition have kicked off.
I've attended more than 1400 City games, but on Saturday, I didn't celebrate a single goal.


Thirdly,(and again you'll have to take my word for it), having a last minute goal disallowed by VAR is actually worse than conceding a last minute winner. It also provides a platform for the idiots of both sides to prove just how stupid English football fans can behave in the immediate post match atmosphere. Not seen so many random punches outside the ETIHAD since the 2009-10 season.

 

[Zlatan 7]

If you refuse to read pretty much every post on the subject and prefer to make up an argument that you can counter, then I suppose you have a point.

Everyone’s been saying that VAR should’ve intervened for the foul in the box.

Not everyone, so looks like we’re both making things up

 

[RK]

I recognise this might be an unpopular opinion, but it's something I feel strongly about.

The football community should prioritise the experience of the people in the stadium. They represent the roots of the simple game that's now a global phenomenon. Fair enough it's so popular that we now show all the games on TV in ultra-hd super slow-mo with hours of punditry and millions of social media comments, but now the TV audience is controlling the experience of the people who actually go to games and support the club tangibly. It's not necessarily a new thing (kickoff times) but the current VAR format is a step too far. At the end of the day I can only speak (for myself) as a former match-goer now confined to the armchair, but it's in-line with the mood I've picked up from people I know and some posters on here.

Let's be realistic - VAR wouldn't exist if it weren't for neutrals and armchair fans who represent the availability of video replay options. Watching from the comfort of home removes you from the human element of the game, where in the stands you can't really tell if your striker was 1 metre offside let alone 1 centimetre. The officials still get hammered as part of the atmosphere but nobody's 100% sure what is and isn't the correct decision. You get no replays, no slow-mo, just one real-time angle at 100mph. You're more likely to accept how it goes but at least it's all in-the-moment and you can live on the edge of your seat. You still kick off at the ref, but they're probably correct more often than you, and deep down everyone there knows it. That said, I noticed this acceptance deteriorate over the years, but mainly as a result of information being fed to the live crowd from the TV crowd.

I watch on TV as a neutral fan and understand the extra drama VAR brings, sometimes I enjoy the schadenfreude but it's not quality football that's entertaining us. It's more like reality TV show drama. Mostly though I just feel sorry for the fans whose emotions went from 100 to 0 in such an artificial way, much more so than I feel sorry for fans "wronged" by a 1cm offside goal or debatable handball which they only find out about after the game. VAR is new and interesting, both in technological and sporting senses, but that doesn't mean it's right for the game.

Another aspect is blame culture. People who end up on the wrong side of a result (sport or society in general) often look for someone to blame, whether laying it on players, managers, refs, opponents or even other fans. Blaming the officials has always been the easiest route, and often the tactical route for managers. That strong vocal frustration led to a breaking point and we over-corrected with this rushed, shoddy patchwork of assistance. People in general have such a poor grasp of randomness that we didn't see these bad decisions as the drop in the ocean of chance that they actually are. Yeah it could be nice to improve, but rather than bending to the will of the masses (the money) and changing the game under pressure, football should've resisted and waited for a more perfect form of technological assistance (e.g. Goal Line tech) that doesn't leave people in the stadium waiting in the dark.

 

[kouroux]

Hahaha Let’s laugh at something which is making our game worse & less enjoyable.

Haha we’re so funny & cool

You are a tad too dramatic IMHO. I can understand you being against it, your opinion is respected but there is a sense of blowing things out of proportion I feel.

 

[kouroux]

It is so mental to me that the people I go to matches with every week who all support different teams are all against VAR, yet here it is opposite.

The idea they’re all against technology is awful as well.

I have several match going Friends in the ligue 1, I have asked them about it and they seem to like it and they also asked fans they go to games with and all of them like it, even if they say the process could do with some speeding up

 

[Zlatan 7]

@RK I agree entirely

 

[kouroux]

I recognise this might be an unpopular opinion, but it's something I feel strongly about.

The football community should prioritise the experience of the people in the stadium. They represent the roots of the simple game that's now a global phenomenon. Fair enough it's so popular that we now show all the games on TV in ultra-hd super slow-mo with hours of punditry and millions of social media comments, but now the TV audience is controlling the experience of the people who actually go to games and support the club tangibly. It's not necessarily a new thing (kickoff times) but the current VAR format is a step too far. At the end of the day I can only speak (for myself) as a former match-goer now confined to the armchair, but it's in-line with the mood I've picked up from people I know and some posters on here.

Let's be realistic - VAR wouldn't exist if it weren't for neutrals and armchair fans who represent the availability of video replay options. Watching from the comfort of home removes you from the human element of the game, where in the stands you can't really tell if your striker was 1 metre offside let alone 1 centimetre. The officials still get hammered as part of the atmosphere but nobody's 100% sure what is and isn't the correct decision. You get no replays, no slow-mo, just one real-time angle at 100mph. You're more likely to accept how it goes but at least it's all in-the-moment and you can live on the edge of your seat. You still kick off at the ref, but they're probably correct more often than you, and deep down everyone there knows it. That said, I noticed this acceptance deteriorate over the years, but mainly as a result of information being fed to the live crowd from the TV crowd.

I watch on TV as a neutral fan and understand the extra drama VAR brings, sometimes I enjoy the schadenfreude but it's not quality football that's entertaining us. It's more like reality TV show drama. Mostly though I just feel sorry for the fans whose emotions went from 100 to 0 in such an artificial way, much more so than I feel sorry for fans "wronged" by a 1cm offside goal or debatable handball which they only find out about after the game. VAR is new and interesting, both in technological and sporting senses, but that doesn't mean it's right for the game.

Another aspect is blame culture. People who end up on the wrong side of a result (sport or society in general) often look for someone to blame, whether laying it on players, managers, refs, opponents or even other fans. Blaming the officials has always been the easiest route, and often the tactical route for managers. That strong vocal frustration led to a breaking point and we over-corrected with this rushed, shoddy patchwork of assistance. People in general have such a poor grasp of randomness that we didn't see these bad decisions as the drop in the ocean of chance that they actually are. Yeah it could be nice to improve, but rather than bending to the will of the masses (the money) and changing the game under pressure, football should've resisted and waited for a more perfect form of technological assistance (e.g. Goal Line tech) that doesn't leave people in the stadium waiting in the dark.

That is an excellent post tbh. I am pro VAR (so far at least, you never know in the future) but I really enjoyed this. You raise some very good points

 

[Stadjer]

A few points after I've finally calmed down.
Firstly, we were sold VAR, mainly on the premise that it would eradicate "clear and obvious errors"

Last Saturday, VAR referred the referee to 2 decisions.
He refused to be overruled for the "clear and obvious" penalty appeal, yet allowed himself to be overruled for the handball which nobody in the stadium (including all the Tottenham player) had witnessed in real time.

We used to be told that poor decisions would balance-out over a season, yet bizarrely, we're now informed that VAR (which was supposedly introduced to eradicate poor decisions) will balance-out over a season.

Secondly, (and this will slowly happen at Old Trafford), once you've experienced a couple of VAR decisions, you find yourself refusing to celebrate properly until the opposition have kicked off.
I've attended more than 1400 City games, but on Saturday, I didn't celebrate a single goal.


Thirdly,(and again you'll have to take my word for it), having a last minute goal disallowed by VAR is actually worse than conceding a last minute winner. It also provides a platform for the idiots of both sides to prove just how stupid English football fans can behave in the immediate post match atmosphere. Not seen so many random punches outside the ETIHAD since the 2009-10 season.

Goals will always be checked, clear and obvious is not a requirement for checking when a goal is scored. The moment a goal is scored it will be checked and if something which is against the rules happened which made the goal possible (like the handball from the City player) the goal will be ruled out. The clear and obvious thing that keeps being mentioned does not apply when it comes to goals. Goals are usually rare in football so they are too important to not be 100% fairly scored.

It sucks that your match going experience has degraded because of the VAR. However i am sure Spurs fans wouldnt like it if they lost the title because a goal which involved a hand ball and therefore against the rules decided the title race.

 

[Rafaeldagold]

You are a tad too dramatic IMHO. I can understand you being against it, your opinion is respected but there is a sense of blowing things out of proportion I feel.

Just don’t really like snarky comments from those in favour of it who cannot see anything wrong with VAR & mock those who bring up valid points

 

[kouroux]

Just don’t really like snarky comments from those in favour of it who cannot see anything wrong with VAR & mock those who bring up valid points

Best system to accomodate the 2 sides is to limit the number of use of VAR per teams.
One thing is sure, no system will ever satisfy everyone.

 

[1988]

"Huge decision" is subjective. Different people will have different opinions on what constitutes a huge decision. I'd rather have consistency, even if the margins are small. Think it's good they've changed the rules to make decisions like yesterday black and white.

And yes I am fully aware it's going to go against us at some point and I am going to be devastated. But at least itll be fair.

I don't know man. I feel like the word "intentional" is the key here. If someone intentionally cheats and the referee doesn't spot it but VAR does etc. There was no intentional handball when Jesus scored (I have rewatched the replay so I could be wrong). I don't need those petty errors to be called and I've never needed it. And that'll go against us too and sometimes it wont.

 

[Rafaeldagold]

Best system to accomodate the 2 sides is to limit the number of use of VAR per teams.
One thing is sure, no system will ever satisfy everyone.

I honestly think the only way that VAR could be a net plus for the game is if it’s used so little & only for obviously terrible decisions (probably 5-10 a season) but this world never happen after promoting it so much it’s going to be used more & not less.

So that bring the case it just shouldn’t be a part of the game, it’s negatives outweigh any positives & it isn’t making football a better sport to watch.

 

[kouroux]

I honestly think the only way that VAR could be a net plus for the game is if it’s used so little & only for obviously terrible decisions (probably 5-10 a season) but this world never happen after promoting it so much it’s going to be used more & not less.

So that bring the case it just shouldn’t be a part of the game, it’s negatives outweigh any positives & it isn’t making football a better sport to watch.

That's the crux of the issue right here. We would need (or the governing bodies) to establish a clear list of "obviously terrible mistake". For instance, Laporte's handball fall into that category for me as it's completely opposed to the rule as it is written now.
One thing I would say is that whatever the stance, we should all be open each other's arguments.

 

[Rafaeldagold]

That's the crux of the issue right here. We would need (or the governing bodies) to establish a clear list of "obviously terrible mistake". For instance, Laporte's handball fall into that category for me as it's completely opposed to the rule as it is written now.
One thing I would say is that whatever the stance, we should all be open each other's arguments.

Exactly. VAR is never going to work in football

 

[Rista]

Goals will always be checked, clear and obvious is not a requirement for checking when a goal is scored. The moment a goal is scored it will be checked and if something which is against the rules happened which made the goal possible (like the handball from the City player) the goal will be ruled out. The clear and obvious thing that keeps being mentioned does not apply when it comes to goals. Goals are usually rare in football so they are too important to not be 100% fairly scored.

Which is exactly one of the problems with the idea of this being fair. Cherry picking moments which to check as if other big mistakes do not technically affect the flow and outcome of the game. Even worse, checking those moments with magnifying glass and frame by frame trying to find anything to rule out the goal. But if the foul or handball happened a minute earlier, no one cares, not a VAR's problem, everything is fine. The only way you can possibly present this as being fair is that these decisions will even out over a course of a season possibly but then you could apply similar reasoning to pre-VAR refereeing too.

 

[bleedred]

That's the crux of the issue right here. We would need (or the governing bodies) to establish a clear list of "obviously terrible mistake". For instance, Laporte's handball fall into that category for me as it's completely opposed to the rule as it is written now.
One thing I would say is that whatever the stance, we should all be open each other's arguments.

The main problem for me is that I feel its being rushed too soon. I don't think any of the higher ups even possibly discussed the various scenarios discussed among the fans and they just said, lets wing it and see. And that has become a pro-VAR narrative as well, "with time it will get better". Maybe,maybe not.

Cricket has had VAR and TV replays for nearly a decade and yesterday they weren't sure if a ball was caught or not. There is going to be and there still is imperfections with VAR as well and people have to acknowledge that to fix it, rather than burying their head in sand and claiming "its not VARs fault", "it will be better","its an neandrathal agenda".

 

[sullydnl]

Regarding the City penalty incident, I think it highlights the glaring flaw in the PL's iteration of VAR.

They say they don't want to re-referee the game, which is why they have a high threshold for what's required to overturn an incident like this. However, they're also discouraging the referees from having a look at incidents themselves as they're worried about slowing things down further.

I don't think you can have it both ways. Either you give the referee the responsibility and have VAR ask him to take a look at the incident again (accepting the delays we saw when this was the system during the world cup) or you speed things up by giving VAR allowance to overrule closer subjective decsions like this without the ref getting involved. Currently the PL system falls between both stools, which means a lot of subjective decisions will be passed through as the ref's original decision carries too much relative weight.

I'd sooner have a system where in incidents like this the referee was told to take a second look at it himself. That way the question being asked is "was it a penalty?" rather than "was it so clearly a feck up on the ref's part that we have to step in?" as the latter will result in worse decisions.

 

[bleedred]

Regarding the City penalty incident, I think it highlights the glaring flaw in the PL's iteration of VAR.

They say they don't want to re-referee the game, which is why they have a high threshold for what's required to overturn an incident like this. However, they're also discouraging the referees from having a look at incidents themselves as they're worried about slowing things down further.

I don't think you can have it both ways. Either you give the referee the responsibility and have VAR ask him to take a look at the incident again (accepting the delays we saw when this was the system during the world cup) or you speed things up by giving VAR allowance to overrule closer subjective decsions like this without the ref getting involved. Currently the PL system falls between both stools, which means a lot of subjective decisions will be passed through as the ref's original decision carries too much relative weight.

I'd sooner have a system where in incidents like this the referee was told to take a second look at it himself. That way the question being asked is "was it a penalty?" rather than "was it so clearly a feck up on the ref's part that we have to step in?" as the latter will result in worse decisions.

I think what actually happened was that there was clear lack of communication between the two. Oliver thought if he missed it then VAR would have had a look at it. He clearly signaled to someone that he didn't hear back from VAR regarding that. I think the VAR ref either thought that Oliver had a good look at it and left it as it is or saw the incident and didn't deem it worth a pen (which is preposterous).

You are right in that the VAR should have asked Oliver to take a look at it, but then again, does PL even encourage that?, I mean are there TV monitors like we see in other leagues/WC for the ref to look at it in PL?.

Edit: It does look like there is that option.

• The VAR speaks to the on-field referee through an earpiece, or vica versa, and the referee will put his hand up to pause play and inform the players a decision is being reviewed.
• VAR reviews the video footage of the incident and advises whether or not action should be taken. If there has been an error, the referee will draw a rectangle with his arms to replicate a TV a screen to change his original decision.
• In the case of more subjective incidents, the VAR will instruct the referee to watch a replay on a pitchside screen. This is known as an on-pitch review.
  

 

[Mrs Smoker]

Was there some pushing/showing/pulling, or Lamela just put his hands on Rodri? Of course, saw them called a lot, but I personally liked that refs let them play on in this game. Unless I did miss pushing/showing/pulling...

 

[sullydnl]

I think what actually happened was that there was clear lack of communication between the two. Oliver thought if he missed it then VAR would have had a look at it. He clearly signaled to someone that he didn't hear back from VAR regarding that. I think the VAR ref either thought that Oliver had a good look at it and left it as it is or saw the incident and didn't deem it worth a pen (which is preposterous).

You are right in that the VAR should have asked Oliver to take a look at it, but then again, does PL even encourage that?, I mean are there TV monitors like we see in other leagues/WC for the ref to look at it in PL?.

Edit: It does look like there is that option.

• The VAR speaks to the on-field referee through an earpiece, or vica versa, and the referee will put his hand up to pause play and inform the players a decision is being reviewed.
• VAR reviews the video footage of the incident and advises whether or not action should be taken. If there has been an error, the referee will draw a rectangle with his arms to replicate a TV a screen to change his original decision.
• In the case of more subjective incidents, the VAR will instruct the referee to watch a replay on a pitchside screen. This is known as an on-pitch review.

They do have that option but it is indeed being discouraged by the PL. They have outright stated that they will have a much higher threshold for subjective decisions than other iterations of VAR have.

Which in isolation one might think is fine. After all, the high threshold will apply to both teams equally and it will certainly result in fewer VAR interventions. However, you simultaneously have two areas of objective decision making (offsides and handballs) where there is an extremely low threshold, with marginal infringements being ruthlessly exposed. That creates too much of a disparity between one type of offence and another imo, as the City Spurs game demonstrated. One dealt with very strictly, one dealt with very leniently, hardly fair.

The only way to bridge that disparity would be to either change the offside/handball rules to allow for more discretion (and thus a higher threshold for intervening on them too) or have the lower threshold on subjective incidents we saw at the WC, with referees given more opportunity to review their own decisions.

 

[sullydnl]

This is a really good thread on the City penalty incident, explaining how/why they likely decided not to review it. As I said above, it's a direct result of the PL opting for a much higher threshold. However, it's interesting that this may change based on referee feedback, as it apparently did in Germany.

 

[Fully Fledged]

It's hilarious seeing City robbed of points but...I don't know, i'd be angry if that goal was taken off United. I know it hits his hand but there's no attempt to cheat or gain advantage, the ball just brushed his hand on the way through. I know there are new rules that govern handball but it's getting too pedantic and it's a big joykiller at the stadiums.

All the new rules, the handball rule and VAR are all designed to take goals out of the game. If it was only ruled out if the ball went into the net off of an arm that would be fair enough but 2,3 or 4 touches before the ball is turned into the goal is just a joke.

 

[sullydnl]

All the new rules, the handball rule and VAR are all designed to take goals out of the game. If it was only ruled out if the ball went into the net off of an arm that would be fair enough but 2,3 or 4 touches before the ball is turned into the goal is just a joke.

The bigger problem for me is that if the defender handled the ball in the exact same way nothing would happen.

It would be fairer if an accidental handball on the defender's part resulted in a penalty but then you'd have to put up with more penalties and attackers deliberately playing the ball off defenders' hands.

 

[Fully Fledged]

The bigger problem for me is that if the defender handled the ball in the exact same way nothing would happen.

It would be fairer if an accidental handball on the defender's part resulted in a penalty but then you'd have to put up with more penalties and attackers deliberately playing the ball off defenders' hands.

I agree that's what I meant by taking goals out of the game rather than being balanced.

 

[Irwin99]

If it's anything like Adebayor's goal against us in 08 at OT then VAR should come in and chalk it off but the new hand ball rules are just too strict IMO. Hypothetically, if it's a really pressurised/packed penalty box and a defender kicks the ball purposefully against the attackers hand at close range does that mean any resulting goal is cancelled? Granted that's a bit far fetched perhaps but you never know.

 

[montpelier]

I don't understand how some of you are happy to allow accidental handballs that give the attacking team a goal. It contradicts the idea of bringing in VAR to make stuff fairer, for me.

It's not cheating or anything horrible, it's just gaining a massive unfair advantage. And especially now we are clamping down on defensive handballs.

 

[montpelier]

If it's anything like Adebayor's goal against us in 08 at OT then VAR should come in and chalk it off but the new hand ball rules are just too strict IMO. Hypothetically, if it's a really pressurised/packed penalty box and a defender kicks the ball purposefully against the attackers hand at close range does that mean any resulting goal is cancelled? Granted that's a bit far fetched perhaps but you never know.

hmm, that's an interesting scenario though

knowing what footy players are like, not massively super far-fetched either

I don't know now,

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

I look forward to the day when we can be told the result a week or so after after a thorough VAR examination

Anyone that says this should be banned.

Not for anything even vaguely topic related.

It’s the most ridiculous pish that anyone could write. Only equaled by “Would you rather every decision was wrong”

I hate VAR. but everyone, stop the ridiculous fantasy scenarios. Live in reality. Comment on that. You’re all going nuts.

 

[bleedred]

The bigger problem for me is that if the defender handled the ball in the exact same way nothing would happen.

It would be fairer if an accidental handball on the defender's part resulted in a penalty but then you'd have to put up with more penalties and attackers deliberately playing the ball off defenders' hands.

Its all like opening a can of worms. The attacker is penalized only when it results in the goal and its not really a foul if nothing happens after that. Like instead of Jesus scoring, if lloris palms it for a corner. Its still a corner rather than FK for spurs because of the handball and if city score from it, its still a goal.

Or say for example, if ball touched laporte's arm, fell to a spurs player who miscues it and then Jesus scores. I don't think the goal can then be disallowed. or will it?. Its too confusing and very ambiguous.