The Live Match Discussion Thread: 2019/2020

[jd1981]

Another flaw is the fact that had it hit the defenders arm instead Laporte and gone out harmlessly nothing would have been given. It seems like they’ve adapted a mantra of giving the defending side as much assistants as possible.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

Its not absolute though is it? Only applies if a goal is scored, if its a defensive handball in the box someone still has to make a decision whether its intentional or not

I mean absolute in the sense that it either is or isn't an offence, there's no longer any grey area with intent or unnatural position, everyone knows now that it's a definite offence if it strikes the attackers arm which ties in well with the technology that is available to see if that has or has not occurred. If you'd left the rule as it was last year then you'd get problems just the same as VAR could give great accuracy on whether or not if had struck an attackers arm but you'd still been reliant on an individual's interpretation as to whether or not it's deemed intentional so the technology wouldn't have given any greater clarity.

 

[AndyWolves]

I mean absolute in the sense that it either is or isn't an offence, there's no longer any grey area with intent or unnatural position, everyone knows now that it's a definite offence if it strikes the attackers arm which ties in well with the technology that is available to see if that has or has not occurred. If you'd left the rule as it was last year then you'd get problems just the same as VAR could give great accuracy on whether or not if had struck an attackers arm but you'd still been reliant on an individual's interpretation as to whether or not it's deemed intentional so the technology wouldn't have given any greater clarity.

Surely we could leave the rules as they were and let the refs make the call. All VAR means is that they get to evaluate their decision as to whether it is illegal handball or not.

What's next? Snicko to determine the really marginal cases where the ball might have brushed someone's little finger

This rule is bonkers, especially when other offences which VAR can rule on are still being ignored

 

[Alan]

I agree with Adrian Durham on the handball rule they’ve turned it into a black or white rule when it shouldn’t be. Common sense has been removed and been replaced by an absolute science which it isn’t.

Common sense? With the old rule we complained of inconsistency. Now the rule has no grey area and we want it back?

The situational application of the rule is a bit shit but the minute you try to legislate for a player's intention to play the ball with his hand or not you lose any illusion of objectivity in the rule.

 

[AndyWolves]

Common sense? With the old rule we complained of inconsistency. Now the rule has no grey area and we want it back?

The situational application of the rule is a bit shit but the minute you try to legislate for a player's intention to play the ball with his hand or not you lose any illusion of objectivity in the rule.

You must agree they've got too far the other way?

The ball going directly into the net from a hand probably shouldn't be a goal, a ball grazing someone's arm and then getting finished off by another player is totally different

 

[MARKakaJIM]

Surely we could leave the rules as they were and let the refs make the call. All VAR means is that they get to evaluate their decision as to whether it is illegal handball or not.

What's next? Snicko to determine the really marginal cases where the ball might have brushed someone's little finger

This rule is bonkers, especially when other offences which VAR can rule on are still being ignored

Letting the ref make the call is exactly the problem though isn't it? That's why the wording has been changed to remove that.

You leave it open to interpretation when there's so much detail to the evidence and you're going to get inconsistency.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

"Intentional handball" was always the biggest crock of shit in the rule book anyway.

How often have you seen defenders catch or punch the ball on purpose? Sometimes you'll see them stop it on the line and that's just a penalty and a red card.

 

[AndyWolves]

Letting the ref make the call is exactly the problem though isn't it? That's why the wording has been changed to remove that.

You leave it open to interpretation when there's so much detail to the evidence and you're going to get inconsistency.

I don't remember it ever being a huge issue, Boly & Kocienlny were the two big ones and the refs applied the rules correctly in both circumstances.

Refs still have to make judgement calls with other decisions (denial of obvious goalscoring opportunity for example).

The Henry goal against Ireland was obvious as to the intent, as was Dendonckers and Cities today.

The rules needed a tweak to say maybe something like was the direction of the ball diverted sufficiently that without the handball a goal wouldn't have been scored. Gives leeway for unintentional handballs and allows goals that are ridiculous to be chalked off (i.e. Bolys + Kocienlny as examples)

 

[jd1981]

Common sense? With the old rule we complained of inconsistency. Now the rule has no grey area and we want it back?

The situational application of the rule is a bit shit but the minute you try to legislate for a player's intention to play the ball with his hand or not you lose any illusion of objectivity in the rule.

So the same contact on the arm as Laporte on a defender doesn’t result in a penalty. Why has the rule been heavily weighted in favour of the defending side? But it’s ok to be more lenient for the defending side if hits an arm.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

So the same contact on the arm as Laporte on a defender doesn’t result in a penalty. Why has the rule been heavily weighted in favour of the defending side? But it’s ok to be more lenient for the defending side if hits an arm.

I imagine it's purely because every single goal is reviewed, so you need a definitive ruling on the attacking play, whereas countless bits of defending will continue to go unmonitored and thus don't need to stand up to scrutiny in the same way.

 

[jd1981]

I imagine it's purely because every single goal is reviewed, so you need a definitive ruling on the attacking play, whereas countless bits of defending will continue to go unmonitored and thus don't need to stand up to scrutiny in the same way.

Which is why it’s flawed rule basically saying you get away with more defending than when you’re attacking.

 

[Alan]

Which is why it’s flawed rule basically saying you get away with more defending than when you’re attacking.

This I don't disagree with.

However, I don't think you can legislate it equally as if you did there would be exponentially more stoppages for VAR.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

Which is why it’s flawed rule basically saying you get away with more defending than when you’re attacking.

Indeed, it's created bias but I think something along the lines of my previous post must have been the original thinking.

 

[Johnny75]

https://twitter.com/talkSPORTDrive/status/1162795140450312199?s=19

For some reason I'm blocked from his account, what does it say?

 

[Boozad]

VAR gives a brush on the arm that denies City a goal but doesn’t get involved for Lamela foul. It’s not a fair system one bit.

It did get involved. Ruled it wasn’t a penalty.

 

[Tony Towner]

For some reason I'm blocked from his account, what does it say?

..

 

[jd1981]

It did get involved. Ruled it wasn’t a penalty.

Well that’s absurd, as was the Bournemouth decision not to give a penalty yesterday a

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

It has been applied consistently across ourselves and Manchester City. That’s fine.

However, last week pundit reaction was “it’s the rules, get on with it” but last night that changed to Danny Murphy being very critical of the rule itself.

 

[Carrotdude]

It has been applied consistently across ourselves and Manchester City. That’s fine.

However, last week pundit reaction was “it’s the rules, get on with it” but last night that changed to Danny Murphy being very critical of the rule itself.

On motd2 last week they did kind of say they didn’t agree with it but it’s the rule so you just have to get on with it. I imagine there’s more outcry as it’s City this week, hopefully they ditch the rule after this season.

 

[The Bear]

Hell of a goal from Puscas against Cardiff. Long run down the right, beats the defender inside the box and curls it left footed into the far corner.

Worthy of the name that one.