comment by palmers_spur (U8896)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by sandy (U20567)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by palmers_spur (U8896)
posted 33 minutes ago
The handball given against Laporte was an absolute joke decision but I will take it as it earned us a point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It may have been a joke Palmers, but it was absolutely the correct decision as per the rules. You cannot pick and choose which rules you choose to follow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who's picking and choosing Sandy? It might have been the 'correct' decision by the letter of the law law, but it barely touched Laporte's arm and if a similar Spurs goal was ruled out I would be annoyed.
I'm of the opinion that, rather than applying a 'one size fits all' approach and penalising any touch of the ball on the hand, a certain level of judgment and interpretation should apply. So for example the officials could consider whether the arm is in a natural position, the amount the ball has been diverted by the touch, whether any touch can be deemed deliberate etc. Of course its subjective but then football is to some extent.
It’s not a foolproof solution and leaves decisions open to interpretation but imo it’s better than the nonsensical application we have now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Palmers they don't want subjectivity because it then makes it less consistent.
Perhaps mate but I think the current application is counterproductive
I agree . Do not like any of the new handball rules .
As Sandy says, rules is rules and it deflected off the city arm. The deflection steered it to Jesus who scored. If it had hit the players hip or any other extremity the goal would have stood. The new rule states itself clearly. It hit the blokes arm accidentally or otherwise, it was ruled out. Done.
comment by SB&S (U17757)
posted 1 minute ago
As Sandy says, rules is rules and it deflected off the city arm. The deflection steered it to Jesus who scored. If it had hit the players hip or any other extremity the goal would have stood. The new rule states itself clearly. It hit the blokes arm accidentally or otherwise, it was ruled out. Done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone knows this - so why repeat it?
People are debating whether the law is a good one.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by SB&S (U17757)
posted 1 minute ago
As Sandy says, rules is rules and it deflected off the city arm. The deflection steered it to Jesus who scored. If it had hit the players hip or any other extremity the goal would have stood. The new rule states itself clearly. It hit the blokes arm accidentally or otherwise, it was ruled out. Done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone knows this - so why repeat it?
People are debating whether the law is a good one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It`s OK by me if it gives the correct decision, and every VAR decision I have seen so far has been 100 per cent correct. Sooner have VAR than some of the inept Refs who make some absolute howlers.
comment by sandy (U20567)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by SB&S (U17757)
posted 1 minute ago
As Sandy says, rules is rules and it deflected off the city arm. The deflection steered it to Jesus who scored. If it had hit the players hip or any other extremity the goal would have stood. The new rule states itself clearly. It hit the blokes arm accidentally or otherwise, it was ruled out. Done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone knows this - so why repeat it?
People are debating whether the law is a good one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It`s OK by me if it gives the correct decision, and every VAR decision I have seen so far has been 100 per cent correct. Sooner have VAR than some of the inept Refs who make some absolute howlers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not talking about VAR, I'm talking about the law - so the 'correct decision' is not relevant.
The fuss is about whether it's a good rule. Say someone brought in a rule where it was a red card to head the ball in the centre circle, then VAR adjudicated it. Should we then all say "Let's just embrace it, and VAR gets it right; well done technology!"? Or would we all say "This is ludicrous and ruins the game."?
The rule is stupid. It's been brought in /for the sake of VAR/ and not the game. Both the rule and the technology are at fault for this and it ain't going to get any better.
Every season different rules. Football keeps changes now? I remember Football version 1.0 back in the 70's.
Now you have Football version 3.6 revision number 2 handball Edition.
Nothing is consistant
comment by sandy (U20567)
posted 4 hours, 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
SteveF (U22027)
United's local rivals lost two points because of the new rule and I laughed when it happened.
However, I'm very vocal about what a terrible rule it is.
This isn't about City and it isn't about hypocrisy. From what I can see, most people are in agreement that the rules makes naff all sense and is not good for the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is it about handball that doesn`t make sense? I assume if a defender handballs it, even accidentally, you would be screaming penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But this isn't the case. The rule does not apply to defenders and penalties...
The issue with having a grey area for handball is who decides the attacker's intent. With the old rule VAR doesn't solve this problem, it just moves it to a man in an office down the road.
If people want to have every decision made 'correctly' the laws of the game have to become more black-and-white. There's no doubting now that VAR will change the game - it already is. Judging from the reaction online to this new rule many people think it's worse already.
Had the 'blatant' Rodri penalty got given, there would hardly be any talk of the daft handball decision. Incompetent officials and rules have cost a team 2 points against a rival.
comment by Eighties Glory Years (U22086)
posted 5 hours, 4 minutes ago
Every season different rules. Football keeps changes now? I remember Football version 1.0 back in the 70's.
Now you have Football version 3.6 revision number 2 handball Edition.
Nothing is consistant
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah should go back to the original rules, game was much better then
Jumpers for goalposts or I'm taking my ball and going home.
comment by Shaun M - Ran out of usernames (U9955)
posted 5 minutes ago
Had the 'blatant' Rodri penalty got given, there would hardly be any talk of the daft handball decision. Incompetent officials and rules have cost a team 2 points against a rival.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Give a f***. Maybe you can spend another 500 million to rectify it because that’s what you normally do. No sympathy whatsoever, money bags Arab FC.
comment by Dubbed the new Emery (U21076)
posted 10 hours, 1 minute ago
comment by sandy (U20567)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by SteveF (U22027)
posted 2 minutes ago
Really don't get the fuss being made by City and their players. Some of the player twitter feeds are nothing short of hilarious.
In fact City, after their constant moaning about the Llorente CL goal were instrumental in bringing about the handball change, but now they want to change it again because the reverse scenario went against them.
The fact is this ( and VAR ) is the same for every PL club and will, over time benefit and go against every club at some stage.
We have already had our fair share. The Rose "handball" in last years CL quarters, and even worse,the Sissoko "handball" in the biggest club final going.
I just think the irony of this is watching clubs, players, fans all moaning like hell when it goes against them, wanting the rules changed and staying silent or saying "them the rules" when it goes their way.
City seem to be developing into the worst " we are victims" club, when the rest of football has very little sympathy for a club who has bought just about every advantage they can, dropped only around 30 points in two season, yet can't accept it when they actually don't win every game.
The handball rule has been brought in, VAR has got to be a step forward. Both apply equally to every PL club. So for City, actually teach your players the rules ( some don't seem to know them ) stop constantly moaning about every decision and asking for the rules to be constantly changed to suit you.change
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure why you're applauding that. SteveF is one of the biggest moaners on here about refs and decisions, when he's not moaning about the media. Seems to be a "do as I say and not as I do" comment from him
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not true mate. I have never posted anything about the decisions made that did not go in Spurs favor, including the obvious one in the CL final.
Yes, I agree I do winge about the Media, the Liverpool bias/ unbearable attitude, the Sky/BBC love in with certain clubs, but hey I am no way the only one on these topics. Plus this is a forum for giving opinions last time I looked.
As for this topic, I really don't get why you would want to defend City. Don't matter who your club is, that lot are literally killing the PL in front of our very eyes. Got to the point where no one else is going to win anything in this country, because they have bought every advantage going.
And I really don't think individual players should be going onto Twitter, a totally public outlet, and giving their personal opinions / wishes regarding the rules of football, particularly when they are so thick they don't actually know the rules. That is for the governing bodies, and not for some overpaid, over privileged little tw*t, who does not live in the real world, and shows a 2 year old mentality when he does not get his way. Slag me off all you like, but I am entitled to an opinion, same as everyone else on here.
1. City should of had a blatant pen.
2. Goal should of stood otherwise whats the point.
3. You were battered from start to finish part from the goals.
Just be grateful for the point and Var and move on .
Should ‘have’
‘apart’ from the goals
comment by palmers_spur (U8896)
posted 10 minutes ago
Should ‘have’
‘apart’ from the goals
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He should of payed more attention at school
comment by blav23 (U3068)
posted 4 hours, 34 minutes ago
1. City should of had a blatant pen.
2. Goal should of stood otherwise whats the point.
3. You were battered from start to finish part from the goals.
Just be grateful for the point and Var and move on .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think people are.
Sign in if you want to comment
Why all the fuss about VAR and
Page 2 of 2
posted on 20/8/19
comment by palmers_spur (U8896)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by sandy (U20567)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by palmers_spur (U8896)
posted 33 minutes ago
The handball given against Laporte was an absolute joke decision but I will take it as it earned us a point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It may have been a joke Palmers, but it was absolutely the correct decision as per the rules. You cannot pick and choose which rules you choose to follow.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who's picking and choosing Sandy? It might have been the 'correct' decision by the letter of the law law, but it barely touched Laporte's arm and if a similar Spurs goal was ruled out I would be annoyed.
I'm of the opinion that, rather than applying a 'one size fits all' approach and penalising any touch of the ball on the hand, a certain level of judgment and interpretation should apply. So for example the officials could consider whether the arm is in a natural position, the amount the ball has been diverted by the touch, whether any touch can be deemed deliberate etc. Of course its subjective but then football is to some extent.
It’s not a foolproof solution and leaves decisions open to interpretation but imo it’s better than the nonsensical application we have now.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Palmers they don't want subjectivity because it then makes it less consistent.
posted on 20/8/19
Perhaps mate but I think the current application is counterproductive
posted on 20/8/19
I agree . Do not like any of the new handball rules .
posted on 20/8/19
As Sandy says, rules is rules and it deflected off the city arm. The deflection steered it to Jesus who scored. If it had hit the players hip or any other extremity the goal would have stood. The new rule states itself clearly. It hit the blokes arm accidentally or otherwise, it was ruled out. Done.
posted on 20/8/19
comment by SB&S (U17757)
posted 1 minute ago
As Sandy says, rules is rules and it deflected off the city arm. The deflection steered it to Jesus who scored. If it had hit the players hip or any other extremity the goal would have stood. The new rule states itself clearly. It hit the blokes arm accidentally or otherwise, it was ruled out. Done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone knows this - so why repeat it?
People are debating whether the law is a good one.
posted on 20/8/19
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by SB&S (U17757)
posted 1 minute ago
As Sandy says, rules is rules and it deflected off the city arm. The deflection steered it to Jesus who scored. If it had hit the players hip or any other extremity the goal would have stood. The new rule states itself clearly. It hit the blokes arm accidentally or otherwise, it was ruled out. Done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone knows this - so why repeat it?
People are debating whether the law is a good one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It`s OK by me if it gives the correct decision, and every VAR decision I have seen so far has been 100 per cent correct. Sooner have VAR than some of the inept Refs who make some absolute howlers.
posted on 20/8/19
comment by sandy (U20567)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by SB&S (U17757)
posted 1 minute ago
As Sandy says, rules is rules and it deflected off the city arm. The deflection steered it to Jesus who scored. If it had hit the players hip or any other extremity the goal would have stood. The new rule states itself clearly. It hit the blokes arm accidentally or otherwise, it was ruled out. Done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone knows this - so why repeat it?
People are debating whether the law is a good one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It`s OK by me if it gives the correct decision, and every VAR decision I have seen so far has been 100 per cent correct. Sooner have VAR than some of the inept Refs who make some absolute howlers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not talking about VAR, I'm talking about the law - so the 'correct decision' is not relevant.
posted on 20/8/19
The fuss is about whether it's a good rule. Say someone brought in a rule where it was a red card to head the ball in the centre circle, then VAR adjudicated it. Should we then all say "Let's just embrace it, and VAR gets it right; well done technology!"? Or would we all say "This is ludicrous and ruins the game."?
The rule is stupid. It's been brought in /for the sake of VAR/ and not the game. Both the rule and the technology are at fault for this and it ain't going to get any better.
posted on 20/8/19
Every season different rules. Football keeps changes now? I remember Football version 1.0 back in the 70's.
Now you have Football version 3.6 revision number 2 handball Edition.
Nothing is consistant
posted on 20/8/19
comment by sandy (U20567)
posted 4 hours, 8 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
SteveF (U22027)
United's local rivals lost two points because of the new rule and I laughed when it happened.
However, I'm very vocal about what a terrible rule it is.
This isn't about City and it isn't about hypocrisy. From what I can see, most people are in agreement that the rules makes naff all sense and is not good for the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What is it about handball that doesn`t make sense? I assume if a defender handballs it, even accidentally, you would be screaming penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But this isn't the case. The rule does not apply to defenders and penalties...
posted on 20/8/19
The issue with having a grey area for handball is who decides the attacker's intent. With the old rule VAR doesn't solve this problem, it just moves it to a man in an office down the road.
If people want to have every decision made 'correctly' the laws of the game have to become more black-and-white. There's no doubting now that VAR will change the game - it already is. Judging from the reaction online to this new rule many people think it's worse already.
posted on 20/8/19
Had the 'blatant' Rodri penalty got given, there would hardly be any talk of the daft handball decision. Incompetent officials and rules have cost a team 2 points against a rival.
posted on 20/8/19
comment by Eighties Glory Years (U22086)
posted 5 hours, 4 minutes ago
Every season different rules. Football keeps changes now? I remember Football version 1.0 back in the 70's.
Now you have Football version 3.6 revision number 2 handball Edition.
Nothing is consistant
----------------------------------------------------------------------
yeah should go back to the original rules, game was much better then
posted on 20/8/19
Jumpers for goalposts or I'm taking my ball and going home.
posted on 20/8/19
comment by Shaun M - Ran out of usernames (U9955)
posted 5 minutes ago
Had the 'blatant' Rodri penalty got given, there would hardly be any talk of the daft handball decision. Incompetent officials and rules have cost a team 2 points against a rival.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Give a f***. Maybe you can spend another 500 million to rectify it because that’s what you normally do. No sympathy whatsoever, money bags Arab FC.
posted on 20/8/19
comment by Dubbed the new Emery (U21076)
posted 10 hours, 1 minute ago
comment by sandy (U20567)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by SteveF (U22027)
posted 2 minutes ago
Really don't get the fuss being made by City and their players. Some of the player twitter feeds are nothing short of hilarious.
In fact City, after their constant moaning about the Llorente CL goal were instrumental in bringing about the handball change, but now they want to change it again because the reverse scenario went against them.
The fact is this ( and VAR ) is the same for every PL club and will, over time benefit and go against every club at some stage.
We have already had our fair share. The Rose "handball" in last years CL quarters, and even worse,the Sissoko "handball" in the biggest club final going.
I just think the irony of this is watching clubs, players, fans all moaning like hell when it goes against them, wanting the rules changed and staying silent or saying "them the rules" when it goes their way.
City seem to be developing into the worst " we are victims" club, when the rest of football has very little sympathy for a club who has bought just about every advantage they can, dropped only around 30 points in two season, yet can't accept it when they actually don't win every game.
The handball rule has been brought in, VAR has got to be a step forward. Both apply equally to every PL club. So for City, actually teach your players the rules ( some don't seem to know them ) stop constantly moaning about every decision and asking for the rules to be constantly changed to suit you.change
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure why you're applauding that. SteveF is one of the biggest moaners on here about refs and decisions, when he's not moaning about the media. Seems to be a "do as I say and not as I do" comment from him
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not true mate. I have never posted anything about the decisions made that did not go in Spurs favor, including the obvious one in the CL final.
Yes, I agree I do winge about the Media, the Liverpool bias/ unbearable attitude, the Sky/BBC love in with certain clubs, but hey I am no way the only one on these topics. Plus this is a forum for giving opinions last time I looked.
As for this topic, I really don't get why you would want to defend City. Don't matter who your club is, that lot are literally killing the PL in front of our very eyes. Got to the point where no one else is going to win anything in this country, because they have bought every advantage going.
And I really don't think individual players should be going onto Twitter, a totally public outlet, and giving their personal opinions / wishes regarding the rules of football, particularly when they are so thick they don't actually know the rules. That is for the governing bodies, and not for some overpaid, over privileged little tw*t, who does not live in the real world, and shows a 2 year old mentality when he does not get his way. Slag me off all you like, but I am entitled to an opinion, same as everyone else on here.
posted on 21/8/19
1. City should of had a blatant pen.
2. Goal should of stood otherwise whats the point.
3. You were battered from start to finish part from the goals.
Just be grateful for the point and Var and move on .
posted on 21/8/19
Should ‘have’
‘apart’ from the goals
posted on 21/8/19
comment by palmers_spur (U8896)
posted 10 minutes ago
Should ‘have’
‘apart’ from the goals
----------------------------------------------------------------------
He should of payed more attention at school
posted on 21/8/19
comment by blav23 (U3068)
posted 4 hours, 34 minutes ago
1. City should of had a blatant pen.
2. Goal should of stood otherwise whats the point.
3. You were battered from start to finish part from the goals.
Just be grateful for the point and Var and move on .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Think people are.
Page 2 of 2