Spurs and VAR

[taidgh]

Fine but you need to explain to me this logic.

The handball is given because his arm is deemed to be in an unnatural position (by the rulebooks interpretation) right.

Then they’re are exceptions such as if the player can’t see the ball. However that exception is overruled according to you because his arm is deemed to be in an unnatural position, which was the original offence in the first place. Meaning that the exception can never be applied.

You’re literally saying the thing that nullifies the exception is what the pen was given for in the first place, if that’s the case then the exception can never be used.

I'm going to jump in here.

Just so it's clear: That. 'Exemption'. Is. Not. In. The. Laws. Of. The. Game.

Check for yourself: https://www.theifab.com/laws/chapter/32/section/92/

 

[wrd]

I'm going to jump in here.

Just so it's clear: That. 'Exemption'. Is. Not. In. The. Laws. Of. The. Game.

Check for yourself: https://www.theifab.com/laws/chapter/32/section/92/

fine but his explanation for why the exceptions would be nullified made no sense because what nullifies it is supposedly the offence itself.

 

[JCRD]

IFAB have issued many diagrams of what they regard as unnaturally bigger, and many videos
It is not a judgement of was a player unnaturally bigger for the situation he was in, it is as black and white as "Was the players arms by his side or directly in front or behind so not enlarging his silhouette YES/NO. No exception to this, however hard you want to look or argue.

Mk out of interest, do they also show when players are jumping or are the diagrams just for players on the ground?

 

[Trotter]

Fine but you need to explain to me this logic.

The handball is given because his arm is deemed to be in an unnatural position (by the rulebooks interpretation) right.

Then they’re are exceptions such as if the player can’t see the ball. However that exception is overruled according to you because his arm is deemed to be in an unnatural position, which was the original offence in the first place. Meaning that the exception can never be applied.

You’re literally saying the thing that nullifies the exception is what the pen was given for in the first place, if that’s the case then the exception can never be used.

Not in an unnatural position, but making his body unnaturally bigger, there is a difference.
The exceptions come into force if his arm was within natural silhouette, so not being able to see the ball would rule it out from being an offence in those circumstances.

 

[taidgh]

Mk out of interest, do they also show when players are jumping or are the diagrams just for players on the ground?

Both. If you are really interested, you can see most of it here: https://ussoccer.app.box.com/s/u7o23m7vxgt5gdq9adsxgw0o9wlqcddm/folder/101064277992

Bear in mind these videos haven't been updated for the latest rule (law) changes. But you will get the gist of it.

 

[wrd]

The exceptions come into force if his arm was within natural silhouette, so not being able to see the ball would rule it out from being an offence in those circumstances.

but the only reason for the offence was because his arm was out of the silhouette so he wouldn’t need the exception if that was the case.

so how can that be the decider to nullify the exception when it’s the very thing you’d want the exception for.

 

[Trotter]

but the only reason for the offence was because his arm was out of the silhouette so he wouldn’t need the exception if that was the case.

so how can that be the decider to nullify the exception when it’s the very thing you’d want the exception for.

Because being inside the silhouette does not totally preclude things from being a penalty. It then becomes a judgement call. For example an intentional handball inside the silhouette would still be a penalty. One thing on determining that judgement call explicitly to be taken into account is being able to see clearly the ball, another ricochets etc, another distance, but basically it is Inside Silhouette No Penalty, Outside Silhouette Penalty and that will cover 99% of incidents, as long as you remember what is an arm has changed and been defined as well.

Unless of course we find some loophole and soften things up a bit

 

[Trotter]

Mk out of interest, do they also show when players are jumping or are the diagrams just for players on the ground?

In the FIFA videos there was almost an exact replica of the Dier incident today, given against Pique if I recall correctly, and was stated this is to be given. (Levy should ask for the Doherty and Dier ones to be used and charge FIFA for using them next season )

This is the quote when it originally came out last year, although we found a loophole around it and didn't adopt it last season. Now Elleray is a total arse, former head teacher at Harrow, but gives the, in my view flawed, reasoning for the law.

Elleray stated the introduction of the "natural silhouette" rule was designed to prohibit defenders placing their arms behind their backs in fear of giving away a free-kick.

"We've changed it to say the body has a certain silhouette," said Elleray. "If the arms are extended beyond that silhouette then the body is being made unnaturally bigger, with the purpose of it being a bigger barrier to the opponent or the ball.

"Players should be allowed to have their arms by their side because it's their natural silhouette."

 

[taidgh]

In the FIFA videos there was almost an exact replica of the Dier incident today, given against Pique if I recall correctly, and was stated this is to be given. (Levy should ask for the Doherty and Dier ones to be used and charge FIFA for using them next season )

You might be misremembering. The Pique one was much more blatant. This was the one in the FIFA videos I saw:

 

[Bobbins]

Everyone just pretty much hates football now. Was it worth it?

 

[SirNiNyHotspur]

On a side note as shit as the calls that went against us today were why when Dier who must have knew it touched him arm and knowing the amount of shit decisions that have been made lately wasn’t being a ‘smart ****’ in the ear of the ref emphasizing or even over emphazing the push he got in the back to make his arm go out, maybe he was but I never noticed? Also PEH could have used that opportunity to put pressure about the free kick that led to it, again maybe none of it would have made a difference but putting these pressures on the ref is what the winning ****s have been doing for years. Can’t help but feel we were too nice again.

Also these rules as ridiculous as they are are probably here for the season, we need to have comprehensive tactics to make it work for us as much as possible, as we’re seeing already it’s going to have a sizable impact on the table..

 

[Serpico]

Arguably VAR didn't give the decision -the ref did. VAR couldn't decide it was a clear handball. Once this is the case-the ref shouldn't be allowed to view the action again once he has missed it on the field of play. What will he see that VAR couldn't. VAR is there to spot moments that the ref could miss NOT to encourage him to revisit a situation and give him that power. VAR is corrupt and will be used by refs to support the stronger clubs. Its a back door to allow bias for the teams that have always enjoy that advantage with refs. (yes I am angry!!)

 

[IfiHadTheWings]

@MK Yid You are definitely are ref aren't you?

 

[Deleted member 27995]

Some of the shite being offered up in this thread.

I can't believe there are people who walk among us that will defend what happened yesterday.

 

[Jamturk]

In regards to @MK Yid the rule clearly states that leeway shoud be given if the player cannot see the ball so the referee has not applied the rule properly as Dier quite clearly has his back to the ball.

Ok with that cleared up do I think VAR is corrupt no.

The problem we have is that VAR it is an industry now.
Who runs the tech?
How many people are employed?

The handball rule has been altered to aid VAR decisions, make it black and white as you say.

However the beauty of football is in it's nuance.

I fell in love with the beautiful game.

 

[riggi]

So no ones going to sing “VAR my lord” anymore then?

 

[tiger666]

Some of the shite being offered up in this thread.

I can't believe there are people who walk among us that will defend what happened yesterday.

He isn't defending it, he's explaining the rules.

 

[Deleted member 27995]

He isn't defending it, he's explaining the rules.

The rules that contradict themselves in places? He's been doing it since final whistle yesterday and once you 'explain' them once anything after that is defending those who implement.

 

[SecretLemonadeDrinker]

Possibly...or just a massive contrarian who likes to play devil's advocate.

Not the first time this has been said either, I feel he's a pretty good poster and insightful most of the time but let's himself down with things like this, there was that Aubameyang 'undoubtedly' being the best striker in the league which was clearly designed to wind people up so maybe you're right

In this context (justifiably furious Spurs fans on a Spurs message board and incontrovertible evidence to contradict his absurd claim), being a contrarian is pretty much the definition of being a troll.

 

[Deleted member 27995]

In this context (justifiably furious Spurs fans on a Spurs message board and incontrovertible evidence to contradict his absurd claim), being a contrarian is pretty much the definition of being a troll.

He's 'explaining' though.