Refs & VAR 2020/2021 Discussion

[limerickcitykid]

Its definitely a new rule and that's why Bamford was offside the other week. Its been posted in this thread

It’s definitely not a new rule or you’d be able to quote it. But you can’t because it isn’t a rule.

Bam ford is offside based on the outside of his arm at armpit level. Exactly what the law states. A good 4-5 inches away from the end of a sleeve, which is mentioned nowhere in the laws.

 

[arnie_ni]

It’s definitely not a new rule or you’d be able to quote it. But you can’t because it isn’t a rule.

Bam ford is offside based on the outside of his arm at armpit level. Exactly what the law states. A good 4-5 inches away from the end of a sleeve, which is mentioned nowhere in the laws.

Edited the post

 

[sullydnl]

You are able to play the ball with the top part of the arm now but I though the Jesus handball was lower than that.

 

[arnie_ni]

You are able to play the ball with the top part of the arm now but I though the Jesus handball was lower than that.

So did I on the replay, looked like it hit skin

 

[limerickcitykid]

Edited the post

Edited the post to a tweet from a journalist who makes no mention of end of the sleeve. So what’s your point?

First of all it’s a tweet from a journalist. Not the laws of the game nor a quote from anyone even remotely involved with deciding the laws of the game.
Second he makes absolutely no mention of the bottom of the sleeve.

So yea, bottom of the sleeve isn’t a rule and is completely made up. It’s the outside of the arm in line with the armpit.

 

[arnie_ni]

Edited the post to a tweet from a journalist who makes no mention of end of the sleeve. So what’s your point?

First of all it’s a tweet from a journalist. Not the laws of the game nor a quote from anyone even remotely involved with deciding the laws of the game.
Second he makes absolutely no mention of the bottom of the sleeve.

So yea, bottom of the sleeve isn’t a rule and is completely made up. It’s the outside of the arm in line with the armpit.

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1820123

We are probably arguing semantics.

The bottom of the armpit ruling and the picture they are using is basically the bottom of the sleeve in football tops.

So if it hits the top part of your arm like delli alli against us last year it would now stand.

This one against Jesus hit his arm. So it's a fk

 

[limerickcitykid]

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1820123

So it is indeed "the bottom of the armpit" and makes absolutely no mention of the bottom of the sleeve, like I said.

We are probably arguing semantics.

It isn't semantics as they are two completely different things. One is specifically mentioned in the laws and the other is completely made up. They are also a good 4-5 inches apart.

The bottom of the armpit ruling and the picture they are using is basically the bottom of the sleeve in football tops.

And here begins the making stuff up. No, it is not basically the bottom of the sleeve, it makes no mention of it being the bottom of the sleeve nor does the picture even show a sleeve on the left arm. You've decided to make that conclusion up yourself, that isn't a law of the game.

And further to that, if for some bizarre reason we followed the laws not based on the actual words of the laws but some basic drawing, then you'll still see that the green ends on the left arm well above where the sleeve indent is on the right arm. So unless you're now trying to argue football shirts all have shorter left arms than right arms then it quite clearly isn't the bottom of the sleeve. Additionally if you own any football top, or basically any t-shirt at all, and applied just an ounce of common sense you'd know that the bottom of your sleeve most definitely doesn't end at your armpit.

So if it hits the top part of your arm like delli alli against us last year it would now stand.

So if it hits the outer part of your shoulder in line with your arm pit it would stand. If it hits your bicep which is covered by a sleeve and most certainly below your armpit, it is handball. Laws are based off of body parts, of which a shirt sleeve is not.

This one against Jesus hit his arm. So it's a fk

Yes, I agree.

 

[MattofManchester]

I sometimes wonder what the point is of Dermot Gallagher other than to spread propaganda that the referees aren't shet, when they very clearly are.

 

[arnie_ni]

Is their a VAR ref for each game? Or is there one doing all kick offs at the same time?

 

[UnrelatedPsuedo]

VAR still a wonderful addition it seems........

The support for it blows me away. It’s like Trump voters doubling down.

 

[NoneBmStore]

VAR still a wonderful addition it seems........

The support for it blows me away. It’s like Trump voters doubling down.

Once again, it’s the rules and execution that’s the issue, not technology itself. The trump equivalent would be if the COVID vaccine was developed and he chose to only vaccinate ants.

 

[arnie_ni]

Hate that keeper rule. Think its very harsh. I understand the thinking behind it but don't agree with it

 

[prateik]

Right on all calls... both pens and the retake. Anyone disagreeing is being silly.

 

[RobinLFC]

VAR still a wonderful addition it seems........

The support for it blows me away. It’s like Trump voters doubling down.

VAR is excellent if used correctly. The PL just decided to completely feck it up and make a complete joke out of it.

 

[Amadaeus]

Right on all calls... both pens and the retake. Anyone disagreeing is being silly.

Shouldn't the penalty been retaking again? I thought the keeper was off line again

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Cant see how the West Brom pen was ruled out.

think the ref was influenced by the fact VAR told him he should review, that put doubt in his mind.

the United pen and retake were the right decisions. I don’t necessarily agree with the rules, but both those decisions were right and very easy to make.

 

[sullydnl]

Shouldn't the penalty been retaking again? I thought the keeper was off line again

He was but Bruno scored so it doesn't matter. Makes no sense to cancel our goal because their goalkeeper committed an offence.

 

[cyberman]

Hate that keeper rule. Think its very harsh. I understand the thinking behind it but don't agree with it

Its now a matter of techique and down to the keeper. They shouldnt be jumping from the line anymore at any stage. At no stage was Johnston behind the line which is madness to me.

 

[Amadaeus]

He was but Bruno scored so it doesn't matter. Makes no sense to cancel our goal because their goalkeeper committed an offence.

Ah, ok didn't know the rule stated that the keeper can be off his line and if we score, it doesn't matter. The rule states something like that? Not familiar with what the rules say in this regard.

 

[prateik]

I thought the keeper was off line again

He was.

Shouldn't the penalty been retaking again?

No.

Cant see how the West Brom pen was ruled out.

think the ref was influenced by the fact VAR told him he should review, that put doubt in his mind.

VAR asked him to review because VAR thought it should be overturned..
Both VAR and the on field ref saw the replays with multiple angles and decided it wasnt a pen.. And the same happened today in the Villa-Brighton game... almost exactly the same thing..
Absolutely correct call.

 

[Sandikan]

Hate that keeper rule. Think its very harsh. I understand the thinking behind it but don't agree with it

You're joking. It's exceptionally annoying seeing a keeper cheat by stepping a metre forward and reducing the size of the goal.

 

[Sandikan]

Ah, ok didn't know the rule stated that the keeper can be off his line and if we score, it doesn't matter. The rule states something like that? Not familiar with what the rules say in this regard.

Of course. Because otherwise you'd just step off your line if you went the wrong way to get it ruled out.

Similar to not ruling a pen out that is scored if the defending team encroach.

 

[sullydnl]

Strange one with the penalty decisions in both our and the Villa game.

I don't have an issue with either not being given as penalties. But bearing in mind that the PL has that "high bar" for VAR interventions and we've seen so few overturns up to now, I'm surprised both weren't allowed stand based on previous decisions. It's like VAR have been told to send the ref to the monitor more often than they have been up to now.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

He was.


No.

VAR asked him to review because VAR thought it should be overturned..
Both VAR and the on field ref saw the replays with multiple angles and decided it wasnt a pen.. And the same happened today in the Villa-Brighton game... almost exactly the same thing..
Absolutely correct call.

it was a blatant pen for West Brom. We could see the reviews that the ref was watching. You are on the minority.

 

[prateik]

it was a blatant pen for West Brom. We could see the reviews that the red was watching. You are on the minority.

If the minority is in the right, then I don't mind.
It wasnt.. you can feel whatever you want.

 

[arnie_ni]

You're joking. It's exceptionally annoying seeing a keeper cheat by stepping a metre forward and reducing the size of the goal.

I understand it, just think its hard enough for keepers.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

If the minority is in the right, then I don't mind.
It wasnt.. you can feel whatever you want.

you are not in the right though. Agree to disagree. No need to discuss further.

 

[Sandikan]

I understand it, just think its hard enough for keepers.

I think it's never been easier for keepers. Which is why we see more pens saved these days then ever before.

Every pen is on camera and every keeper is primed with the odds and the way the player is lining up.

That's why until recently Bruno's technique was clever as it gives no indication which way the ball is going.

 

[Sandikan]

it was a blatant pen for West Brom. We could see the reviews that the ref was watching. You are on the minority.

I'm not sure he is in the minority.
I agree with him.
Var agreed with him. And then ref agreed with him

 

[cjj]

Right on all calls... both pens and the retake. Anyone disagreeing is being silly.

How isn't this a penalty?

 

[Sandikan]

How isn't this a penalty?

Skims the ball at the same time as the contact to legs?

 

[Pink Moon]

How isn't this a penalty?

Because it's a Man United forum.

 

[prateik]

How isn't this a penalty?

Gets the ball . Contact nowhere near enough to floor any human.
Any touch is not a foul. It really isnt that hard.

 

[sullydnl]

How isn't this a penalty?

I would assume the logic is that he plays the ball first and has little force in the follow through.

I'm surprised the initial decision was overturned but I think it's fine not to give a penalty for that.

 

[Pink Moon]

I'm not sure he is in the minority.
I agree with him.
Var agreed with him. And then ref agreed with him

Doesn't mean much.

VAR thought this was a penalty:

Spoiler: Penalty

VAR didn't think this was a penalty:

Spoiler: Not a penalty

 

[Sandikan]

Doesn't mean much.

VAR thought this was a penalty:

Spoiler: Penalty

VAR didn't think this was a penalty:

Spoiler: Not a penalty

I'll be honest. I couldn't care less friend. Just glad to finally see these West Brom basts off after 1 win in 5 games at OT!

 

[cjj]

Skims the ball at the same time as the contact to legs?

I would assume the logic is that he plays the ball first and has little force in the follow through.

I'm surprised the initial decision was overturned but I think it's fine not to give a penalty for that.

Playing the ball isn't in the rules with regards to a foul, and it's a made up thing.

The definition of a foul is based on whether or not you make contact with another player. You can't kick someone full pelt in the shin and say "well it skimmed the ball?"

 

[Sandikan]

Playing the ball isn't in the rules with regards to a foul, and it's a made up thing.

The definition of a foul is based on whether or not you make contact with another player. You can't kick someone full pelt in the shin and say "well it skimmed the ball?"

I think you've made that first bit up. If any challenge that had any "contact" with another player was given as a foul we'd barely have 20secs of play with out a whistle.

The actual rule is about "excessive force".

 

[sullydnl]

Playing the ball isn't in the rules with regards to a foul, and it's a made up thing.

The definition of a foul is based on whether or not you make contact with another player. You can't kick someone full pelt in the shin and say "well it skimmed the ball?"

Not every contact is a foul either though. It can still be a foul even if you play the ball first but that does still play into how they assess the tackle. As does the force of the contact, which was fairly minimal in this case.

 

[Pink Moon]

Playing the ball isn't in the rules with regards to a foul, and it's a made up thing.

The definition of a foul is based on whether or not you make contact with another player. You can't kick someone full pelt in the shin and say "well it skimmed the ball?"

He doesn't even play the ball anyway. It's a nonsense argument.