Jump to content

Itsintheblood89

Following our Nearest & Dearest Rivals 2019/20

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, dkw said:

But it wasn't a handball, that's the point. A handball is a moverment of a hand towards a ball with intent, that was none of that. 

Either way, it hit his arm, and I just don't think it's fair to get a goal from that, even if it's an accident.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Scott Harris said:

Either way, it hit his arm, and I just don't think it's fair to get a goal from that, even if it's an accident.

I completely disagree, the arm and hand is just another body part unless used deliberately, its no different to hitting a knee or shoulder and getting a goal from it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, dkw said:

I completely disagree, the arm and hand is just another body part unless used deliberately, its no different to hitting a knee or shoulder and getting a goal from it. 

I agree with that, if there's no intent or evidence of a deliberate movement of the arm or hand to the ball it shouldn't stop play. Even what we've seen in recent years about "his arm is in an unnatural position" isn't clear cut - ever tried jumping, falling or sliding without moving your arms for balance? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, carrickblue said:

I agree with that, if there's no intent or evidence of a deliberate movement of the arm or hand to the ball it shouldn't stop play. Even what we've seen in recent years about "his arm is in an unnatural position" isn't clear cut - ever tried jumping, falling or sliding without moving your arms for balance? 

Its gonna be farcical soon, with players running around with there hands behind there backs the whole game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, dkw said:

Its gonna be farcical soon, with players running around with there hands behind there backs the whole game. 

The mot extreme of players may well get their arms removed so there can be no question about this...jeez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VAR will decide the title this season, only needs 2-3 games to change course to decide the title. That goal probably involved an accidental handball, but they only checked it because it's 92nd minutes of the game, even no Spurs players complained about the goal. VAR slow motioned the whole sequence from the corner kick ( surprised they didn't rewind the last 90 minutes to spot a wrong doing), so looked like the referee didn't see much wrong but was unsure if any wrong doing, but decided to run with VAR because it's the timing of the goal, I bet it wouldn't be checked if the goal was scored in the 2nd minute. The problem with slow motion is you bound to see something wrong ( just like that infamous United penalty against PSG), but football is played in real time. If VAR is to be used, it should replay at real time, not frame by frame, because doing that you already made the decision before you use it. As with the no VAR penalty call, if the referee unsure, he should have checked, but he didn't and completely contradicted to the 92nd event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on yesterday's VAR, I thought the discussion on MOTD was (for once) quite helpful. it's the rule change that's the problem, where an accidental handball by the attacking side will mean a resulting goal is ruled out. it is fair in one way, being applied to both teams but it seems unfair because defenders can get the benefit of the doubt where attackers do not. 

MOTD could not understand why City weren't awarded a pen in the first half - me neither

I still don't like VAR so far in the PL  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

our commentator was sure that the ball here hit mctominay's hand (not to mention taylor twat didn't stop the game due to possible head injury)

no slow motion replay with better camera zoom angle was shown, no VAR check

dfghj.gif

gjhjkk.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, mojo said:

our commentator was sure that the ball here hit mctominay's hand (not to mention taylor twat didn't stop the game due to possible head injury)

no slow motion replay with better camera zoom angle was shown, no VAR check

dfghj.gif

gjhjkk.gif

yeah but the way the rules are working, defenders are allowed an accidental handball where attackers are not - crazy  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VAR supporter here - anything that makes final results more accurate gets my vote.  VAR will never be 100% accurate but it will improve the level of accuracy.

How we would all have wished for VAR when Ovebro mishandled that infamous match - or are we saying that some fans were happy with the outcome because the game flowed quickly, spontaneous excitement/outrage wasn't stifled and there was plenty to debate in the pub afterwards?

***

Re the handball yesterday: too bad if it would not have been spotted if VAR was not in action.  Surely that is one facet of VAR that we would all welcome - it makes the game fairer surely?

I see that KDB is confused by the new rules - this despite every club manager and captain was briefed fully in the pre-season and ditto many journalists/pundits for that matter so I'm not sure why most parties that really matter are confused.

***

I'm comfortable with the new rule and tbh I don't see why the rule has to be the same for attackers and defenders.  The two situations are entirely different and as a general rule I'd wager that a goal from an 'accidental' handball by an attacker, a rare occurrence in itself, is more likely to be skewed towards foul play than a defender who stops a shot on target with an accidental handball - the latter often being a by-product of the, not uncommon, arms tucked in body block that is used in defensive situations where the defender simply cannot move their arm out of the ball's flight-path quick enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But as someone else said, it’s not a handball. It’s some situation that has been introduced by someone to cover very certain circumstances which don’t fully make sense. 

Cant someone explain when the newly invented ‘accidental handball’ comes into and out of play in the build up to a goal.

In the city match had the ball went to Jesus via another player, either City or Spurs, after the brush contact with Laporte, would the goal have been allowed. Remember the brush contact did not appear to affect the ball in any way, either by deflection or pace.

In the case of the Chelsea Utd match should the VAR went back to the handball incident in Utd penalty area before the break for the second goal.

I agree with VAR and the fact that it should get most decisions right re offside, contact in penalty area etc however I think they have introduced a new definition of ‘accidental handball by the attacking team which results in a goal’ which wasn’t really needed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/08/2019 at 08:14, Argo said:

Apparently Conte wants Alexis now :laugh2:

This is the guy some of you wanted to be trusted with a blank cheque.

I had far more trust in a guy who delivered us an unexpected title in his first season than with someone who had won nothing in his career before he joined us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jezz said:

I had far more trust in a guy who delivered us an unexpected title in his first season than with someone who had won nothing in his career before he joined us.

That's a really poor way to look at things, if Conte decided he wanted to resign Torres would you have let him just because he won the league? It's more appropriate look at a managers record with signings when it comes to how much rope you give them in the market. For example, Ranieri is not a proven winner on the pitch but he has a good track record in the market.

Conte has many strengths as a manager but the transfer market isn't one of them, as he's spectacularly showing now.

Not only has he signed Lukaku and is trying to sign Sanchez, he wants shot of two players (Radja and Perisic) that he desperately wanted us to splash what would have been about a combined £100m on.

His record with transfers is about as bad as it gets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Argo said:

That's a really poor way to look at things, if Conte decided he wanted to resign Torres would you have let him just because he won the league? It's more appropriate look at a managers record with signings when it comes to how much rope you give them in the market. For example, Ranieri is not a proven winner on the pitch but he has a good track record in the market.

Conte has many strengths as a manager but the transfer market isn't one of them, as he's spectacularly showing now.

Not only has he signed Lukaku and is trying to sign Sanchez, he wants shot of two players (Radja and Perisic) that he desperately wanted us to splash what would have been about a combined £100m on.

His record with transfers is about as bad as it gets.

I'm interested in seeing how he does, I agree his transfers at Inter do not look inspired yet seeing how he got Moses to play right wing back, I'll leave it a bit longer before judging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VAR ruined the Neves goal and when it was reviewed it actually looked like one of the Wolves players was offside (his arm was outstretched beyond the offside line when it was passed to him). 

Something that was interesting was Wolves just accepting the penalty (which wouldn't have been given 100% of the time) because they knew it would be VARd, no arguing with the ref at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, DP2 said:

VAR ruined the Neves goal and when it was reviewed it actually looked like one of the Wolves players was offside (his arm was outstretched beyond the offside line when it was passed to him). 

Something that was interesting was Wolves just accepting the penalty (which wouldn't have been given 100% of the time) because they knew it would be VARd, no arguing with the ref at all.

Didn’t see the incident but you can only be offside with a part of the body that you can score with. So the arm offside is ok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, goose said:

Didn’t see the incident but you can only be offside with a part of the body that you can score with. So the arm offside is ok.

Didn't know that. No need to chop off the arms yet so. Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didn’t see the incident but you can only be offside with a part of the body that you can score with. So the arm offside is ok.
Thus explaining why Tammy Abraham should never be given offside!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...