Andy_Cole
Full Member
Shouldn’t have the Everton goal been looked at too? Foul on Cas…
It wasn’t. Deal with that and move on or don’t contribute to the discussion.It was the correct call. Deal with it and move on.
Why wouldn't they show it? If that's the case and they don't show it then they're inviting criticism for absolutely no reasonMaybe they had an angle that showed it clear that we weren't shown??
I think he's saying that VAR is just a series of replays and extra camera angles and it's the interpretation of those replays that is the issue.There’s no other to way look at it. VAR isn’t a sentient being.
You'll have to show me that because no replay has shown it clearly enough to overturn a goal, none that I've seen in any case.
Also ridiculous that if he'd squared it to an unmarked Bruno, it would've stood. Ridiculous rule.
And another also.
Who interprets them?I think he's saying that VAR is just a series of replays and extra camera angles and it's the interpretation of those replays that is the issue.
Read law 12. It was the correct call but hey, you do youIt wasn’t. Deal with that and move on or don’t contribute to the discussion.
The referee looking at them as far as I know.Who interprets them?
It didn't hit the hand. Why they decided to say that, we will never know.I saw about half a dozen replays and couldn't ascertain that the ball really hit his hand.
But what’s the rule? Doesn’t the rule only apply directly before a goal?This. The rule is the issue, not VAR.
Did he have to tear off his leg for it to be red? Leg straight, from behind, forceful, leg off the ground showing studs…Nah....yellow was right.
What goal are you talking about? Tonight’s or the Boro one?Read law 12. It was the correct call but hey, you do you
Read law 12. It was the correct call but hey, you do you
https://www.thefa.com/football-rule.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconductBut what’s the rule? Doesn’t the rule only apply directly before a goal?
Nah it’s both. VAR being there to check every goal has ruined the rush of scoring.This. The rule is the issue, not VAR.
It took me a few looks but it does hit the right arm, unfortunately.My issue is that I didn't see a replay where it was clear that it hit his arm/hand. If it did, then it's the right call. But the replays I saw weren't conclusive....
But what’s the rule? Doesn’t the rule only apply directly before a goal?
So officials had slow-mo video tech before. Got you.There’s no other to way look at it. VAR isn’t a sentient being.
But it’s not immediate, he takes it around the keeper. The officials are simply wrong because there’s another phase of play in between the handball and goal.https://www.thefa.com/football-rule.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
It is an offence if a player:
It's on the officials to interpret the time.
- deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball
- touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised
- scores in the opponents' goal:
- directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
- immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental
Did he have to tear off his leg for it to be red? Leg straight, from behind, forceful, leg off the ground showing studs…
VAR is always going to be used by officials. They aren’t distinct. It’s an additional tool to make decisions and it’s shit.So officials had slow-mo video tech before. Got you.
That's the interpretation aspect, I guess. Look, they are in charge of the match and so they get to call the time frame. I think it's daft but I don't see the point in fighting against it.But it’s not immediate
Absolutely, he commits the hand ball, and then he takes on another player. Hardly immediately.But it’s not immediate, he takes it around the keeper. The officials are simply wrong because there’s another phase of play in between the handball and goal.
Officials. With Competent officials, var wouldnt be a problem, hence var not being the problem.Who interprets them?
But Pickford also played the ball. Deliberately. Is it in the rules that it’s disallowed if one opponent touches the ball but if two do it then it’s ok?
Damn, so they thought that Boro's player had arm in natural position back then? Bloody hellhttps://www.thefa.com/football-rule.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
It is an offence if a player:
It's on the officials to interpret the time.
- deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball
- touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised
- scores in the opponents' goal:
- directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
- immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental
Just looked at it. It’s about 7 seconds between then and when he jogs towards the keeper and goes around him.That's the interpretation aspect, I guess. Look, the are in charge of the match and so they get t call the time frame. I think it's daft but I don't see the point in fighting against it.
There was a front on camera which showed it hit his hand/arm.I saw about half a dozen replays and couldn't ascertain that the ball really hit his hand.
Except rules have been adjusted off the back of VAR. It micro manages games in a way the rules were never designed for.Officials. With Competent officials, var wouldnt be a problem, hence var not being the problem.
It's down to that word interpretation again. There is zero definition of exact time so they have to interpret it. I think it should have stood but I can see why it didn't. They law should be more clear.Just looked at it. It’s about 7 seconds between then and when he jogs towards the keeper and goes around him.
It’s just not immediate. If that’s the rule then it doesn’t apply.
I’m wondering if VAR thinks he’s taking it around the keeper on the replay, it’s the only explanation
https://www.thefa.com/football-rule.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
It is an offence if a player:
It's on the officials to interpret the time.
- deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball
- touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised
- scores in the opponents' goal:
- directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
- immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental
At best it touches his bicep when his arm is down.I saw about half a dozen replays and couldn't ascertain that the ball really hit his hand.
A save/block doesn't count as a deliberate play of the ball. Because obviously if it did you'd have situations where a player is miles offside, someone else takes a pot-shot, then the goalkeeper's save plays the offside player on again for a tap in. So I would guess they counted Pickford's touch here as a block/save.
The difference between that and the Antonio goal is that in Antonio's case there was a save, then the defender unquestionably played the ball, then Antonio scored. You can see the goal here from 2.30:
That's my read of how they interpreted it anyway. But hey, I could be wrong. The rules are confusing and full of technicalities.
It should have been ruled out they made a mistakeJust looked at it. It’s about 7 seconds between then and when he jogs towards the keeper and goes around him.
It’s just not immediate. If that’s the rule then it doesn’t apply.
I’m wondering if VAR thinks he’s taking it around the keeper on the replay, it’s the only explanation