Post Match Leicester 0 Manchester City 1

[Robin127]

I have no problem with that goal being called onside, it looked like it to me even on the television.

 

[Jeff]

there are several frames where the ball is at the foot of the player making the final pass. In this example, if you take an early frame (which they did), Jesus was onside, and if you take a later frame, he's offside.

They're supposed to take it from the first moment of contact with the ball.

 

[Jimmy Lad]

Where did the picture come from?

Is it a DIY one someone did, and it wasn't at the moment the ball was played?

It came from twitter. I actually cropped it to zoom in. The bit that missing shows the ball on Mahrez’s foot

 

[Jimmy Lad]

Full image

 

[M17TT C]

Where's Macky when you need him?

Teh pixels look suspect to me on that one.

 

[big_mac4824]

The issue is not VAR it is the definition of the law and the human implementing it. The simple solution is to change the law so that it reads offside is to be given if the attacking players foot is ahead of the last defender. Not arm, head or any other body part, if there is any doubt then advantage must go to the attacking player.

Back to the game itself the referee was either incompetent or he was bent! not to use VAR to look at the debruyne hand ball or the Goalkeeper thinking he was Schumaker beggars belief. VAR imo should have been speaking to the referee as soon as each incident occurred saying they were reviewing it. It felt as though they did not want to do anything about it.

It works in rugby union really well just do the same and make the referees live, if players want to swear at the ref then he can book them for dissent that way the player, manager, club has no grounds for any form of defence.

 

[Jeff]

not to use VAR to look at the debruyne hand ball or the Goalkeeper thinking he was Schumaker beggars belief.

The VAR looks at things like that without the ref asking them.

 

[big_mac4824]

The VAR looks at things like that without the ref asking them.

Clearly not Jeff or they would have intervened it was black and white on both situations. BT have the ex referee to provide clarity and the first things they say is "there was contact" so the man city goalkeeper smashing into Kelechi was firstly dangerous and it was a foul. The decision should have been a penalty and a minimum of a yellow card, keepers are not exempt discipline, the result was piss poor officiating.

Can the referee ignore intervention from the VAR?

 

[Jeff]

Clearly not Jeff or they would have intervened it was black and white on both situations. BT have the ex referee to provide clarity and the first things they say is "there was contact" so the man city goalkeeper smashing into Kelechi was firstly dangerous and it was a foul. The decision should have been a penalty and a minimum of a yellow card, keepers are not exempt discipline, the result was piss poor officiating.

The Premier League website says this:

"The VAR is constantly monitoring the match. "

"For subjective decisions, either the referee informs the VAR that a decision should be reviewed or the VAR identifies a “clear and obvious error” in one of the four match-changing situations and communicates this to the referee. "

So they should have told the ref, if they believed it was a clear and obvious error.

Can the referee ignore intervention from the VAR?

The referee always makes the final decision.

 

[big_mac4824]

The Premier League website says this:

"The VAR is constantly monitoring the match. "

"For subjective decisions, either the referee informs the VAR that a decision should be reviewed or the VAR identifies a “clear and obvious error” in one of the four match-changing situations and communicates this to the referee. "

So they should have told the ref, if they believed it was a clear and obvious error.




The referee always makes the final decision.

So the only logical inference to take, is that the pair of them deliberately took the decision not to see the blindingly obvious? It was bent there is no other way to look at it.

 

[Feriol]

While I think all three should have been penalties, it is not as black and white as some people seem to think.

De Bruyne was protecting his face, his body movement, particularly his head was also trying to move away from the ball, so it can be seen as completely accidental, i can also see that it can be argued that protecting his face is a natural posistion. ( I would argue he should have headed it, but I can see there is room for debate)

Praet's was different as he was moving to charge down the ball, and his elbow was further out from his body at the point of contact.

Ederson got to the ball first, Iheancho was close, so with both making an honest attempt at the ball contact was unavoidable. Ederson could have pulled out, but as he got to the ball first he would argue that Iheancho should have pulled out. My argument would be that Ederson went in with both fists which looks very dangerous, but this isn't unusual and it isn't clear that Ederson had any intent other than to play ball.

While most people agree they should have been penalties, there is some room for interpretation so Perhaps VAR couldn't overturn the descisions. I would like to see the Referee use the screen at least though.

 

[Skitzo]

getting the ball first doesn't save an outfield player for dangerous play it shouldn't save a keeper either

 

[Robin127]

getting the ball first doesn't save an outfield player for dangerous play it shouldn't save a keeper either

Exactly.

 

[Brown Nose]

There are two issues which are creating all the nonsense.

1. Referees are fecking idiots
2. Some laws of the game are open to interpretation

Neither of these are to do with VAR. If you fix these, VAR works fine.

 

[pork pie fox]

De Bruyne was protecting his face, his body movement, particularly his head was also trying to move away from the ball, so it can be seen as completely accidental, i can also see that it can be argued that protecting his face is a natural posistion. ( I would argue he should have headed it, but I can see there is room for debate)

That is no defence under the handball law.

 

[Feriol]

That is no defence under the handball law.

Have the rules changed? Intent and natural position are part of the rules for defensive handballs as far as know?

 

[Matt_B]

Have the rules changed? Intent and natural position are part of the rules for defensive handballs as far as know?

The excuse of protecting one's face is not a defense. Pretty sure intent has gone as well.

 

[Jeff]

The handball law:

HANDLING THE BALL

It is an offence if a player:

• deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball
• gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
  • scores in the opponents’ goal
  • creates a goal-scoring opportunity
• scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper

It is usually an offence if a player:

• touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
  • the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger
  • the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)

The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close.


Except for the above offences, it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:

• directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)
• directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close
• if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally bigger
• when a player falls and the hand/arm is between the body and the ground to support the body, but not extended laterally or vertically away from the body

 

[pork pie fox]

Have the rules changed? Intent and natural position are part of the rules for defensive handballs as far as know?

There are no rules of handball, only laws.

(Bit of referee pedantry)

 

[Robin127]

The handball law:

HANDLING THE BALL

...It is usually an offence if a player:

• the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm)...

There it is.