VAR

[TheBlueGibbon]

I've said it before but isn't Arnold handballing it and liverpool scoring the same as if silva handled it and sterling scores although further from goal?
How far up the pitch are you not allowed to handball it and score?

Given how VAR ruled out Sheff Utd's first goal against Spurs for something that happened in the previous phase of play, then probably.

 

[Everton1970]

I've said it before but isn't Arnold handballing it and liverpool scoring the same as if silva handled it and sterling scores although further from goal?
How far up the pitch are you not allowed to handball it and score?

I agree with you, Oliver hasnt seen either offence. if it goes to VAR, its not a pen as the initial offence was Silva, its a free kick to the RS. Play should have been dragged back but they were obviously scared of that outcome as it would gave meant chalking the goal off.

 

[Tubey]

Its not a pen though, as the original 'foul' was Silva. So if Oliver blows for a pen and its reviewed by VAR, its not a pen as the offence (assist, if you like) was by Silva. It that ball passes by Alexander and Sterling slots it, its no goal as its handball. I don't need to check any rules to know that the original offense was Silvas, and City would have gained an advantage from a handball, intentional or not. As I say, the argument then becomes whether to disallow the goal and it should have been chalked off but it's not a pen. I suggest you check the rules.

I really think you do.

He needs to gain possession of the ball AND THEN create the goalscoring chance. The ball deflects up, Silva's arm is not in an unnatural position and the ball goes away from his possession. The rules specifically state that in that scenario, the hand ball has to be deliberate. Silva's handball is not deliberate, therefore not a penalty.

For Alexander-Arnold, his arm is in an unnatural position and it's a blatant penalty.

You have no idea what you are talking about, so unless you're going to read the rules, I'd suggest not talking about them. Here they are on the offchance you do: http://www.thefa.com/football-rules.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

 

[The binman chronicles]

Is there a way of multi liking 500 posts in one go that have the key words "made the situation more problematic", "couldn't have been implemented worse", "VAR is a load of expletives"?

Basically where we hoped this would be the end of bias, it is just a second layer to ensure the bias continues and to a greater extent.

 

[Alanbileysfeathercut]

Farcical explanations on skys ref watch.

 

[Milk]

It’s rubbish. Burn it with fire

 

[Everton1970]

I really think you do.

He needs to gain possession of the ball AND THEN create the goalscoring chance. The ball deflects up, Silva's arm is not in an unnatural position and the ball goes away from his possession. The rules specifically state that in that scenario, the hand ball has to be deliberate. Silva's handball is not deliberate, therefore not a penalty.

For Alexander-Arnold, his arm is in an unnatural position and it's a blatant penalty.

You have no idea what you are talking about, so unless you're going to read the rules, I'd suggest not talking about them. Here they are on the offchance you do: http://www.thefa.com/football-rules.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

A penalty is not a goal scoring opportunity? Silvas arm creates the opportunity with his arm. He gained possession of the ball, intentionally or not, with his arm. I accept that, in isolation, Alexander Arnold was a definite penalty. As usual, it comes down to interpretation, you interpret differently to me. But if that exact same incident happens v Norwich and Séamus handles it after a handball by a Norwich player, you’d change your interpretation. No need for such an arrogant slant to your posts though.


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

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

 

[Tubey]

A penalty is not a goal scoring opportunity? Silvas arm creates the opportunity with his arm. He gained possession of the ball, intentionally or not, with his arm. I accept that, in isolation, Alexander Arnold was a definite penalty. As usual, it comes down to interpretation, you interpret differently to me. But if that exact same incident happens v Norwich and Séamus handles it after a handball by a Norwich player, you’d change your interpretation. No need for such an arrogant slant to your posts though.


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

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

Look at the word "after" and "and", helpfully highlighted in blue above, and then come to the correct conclusion of the rules please.

It's not an interpretation; it's clear as day.

 

[Tubey]

But if that exact same incident happens v Norwich and Séamus handles it after a handball by a Norwich player, you’d change your interpretation. No need for such an arrogant slant to your posts though.

Oh, I'm extremely objective on these things. It wouldn't change my view at all if it's an Everton player. Similarly, if this wasn't handball, I'd simply say so.

And I do need basically laugh at you, not because you're wrong, but because you've said you won't bother reading the rules, then rant on about what the rules are.

 

[ToffeeDan]

true enough - by the way its bignosey here from the guardian forum. just became a grand old team member! dreaming of a trip to goodison.

Welcome to the forum

 

[ToffeeDan]

true enough - by the way its bignosey here from the guardian forum. just became a grand old team member! dreaming of a trip to goodison.

Welcome to the forum

 

[bcblue1878]

Careful, that doesn't suit the "VAR was brought in so the rs can win the league" agenda that people seem to have on here. Refs are rubbish, refs run VAR therefore VAR is rubbish.

Precisely this, the two main ones in charge of it are Neil Swarbrick and Mike Riley - two of the worst referees ever to disgrace a football field!

 

[DixieScoresAgain]

Precisely this, the two main ones in charge of it are Neil Swarbrick and Mike Riley - two of the worst referees ever to disgrace a football field!

Yeah the demise of Refs in the PL coincided with Riley's appointment.

When you have one of the worst as the Head of Refs, no wonder the game is being ruined by bad officiating.

 

[The binman chronicles]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50380641

The use of video assistant referees (VAR) in Premier League games has been given a mark of seven out of 10 by the man in charge despite strong criticism.

Neil Swarbrick says VAR will evolve and asked for fans to be patient after another weekend of controversy.

Sheffield United had a goal ruled out for a marginal offside at Spurs while Manchester City saw two penalty appeals for handball turned down at Liverpool.

"I'm really pleased, honestly, with how we have started out," said diehard Liverpool fan Swarbrick.

 

[N.S.N.O.]

Shearer and Crouch saying they couldn´t have brought it back for a penalty because there would have been bedlam with the Liverpool fans. Getting the decision right isn´t important, keeping the Anfield faithful happy is.

It sadly is that simple though...

To start with, Oliver didn't want to give a potentially title deciding peno against Liverpool at the Kop end... He bottled it, even though he had an amazing view...

When Liverpool score down the other end, now VAR has a problem... They know the critisism they've already been getting, they know the critisism was worse whenever it's gone against Liverpool... At any other ground, likely the goal is cancelled and the peno is given down the other end (after about 5 minutes of a review)..... But no chance of it happening at Anfield, against Liverpool...and it was the quickest review possible too...

Any other week, Oliver likely gives the peno to begin with, and let's VAR does it job....atleast had he done that, even if the peno wasn't awarded, the game would have been stopped and the Liverpool