The "Mighty Juggernaut" thread

[PowerSpurs]

Isn't the point of the new handball rule that if handling the ball unintentionally gives a big advantage by scoring a goal then that advantage is cancelled out. I am sure the overall effect of the new rule would be to award a penalty if a defender prevented a goal by an unintentional handball. This could only happen if the arm was away from his body.

 

[Hoddle is a god]

Isn't the point of the new handball rule that if handling the ball unintentionally gives a big advantage by scoring a goal then that advantage is cancelled out. I am sure the overall effect of the new rule would be to award a penalty if a defender prevented a goal by an unintentional handball. This could only happen if the arm was away from his body.

Exactly.

People moaning about VAR don’t really know what they’re complaining about.

VAR is simply a means of providing officials with a clear view of incidents. It doesn’t make the ultimate decision. It’s only a tool.

The real complaint about VAR is that it allegedly disrupts the flow of play, but I don’t think it does that sufficiently to justify throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Teams that park the bus, or waste time, they disrupt the flow of a game far more than VAR ever will.

 

[Libby]

Exactly.

People moaning about VAR don’t really know what they’re complaining about.

VAR is simply a means of providing officials with a clear view of incidents. It doesn’t make the ultimate decision. It’s only a tool.

The real complaint about VAR is that it allegedly disrupts the flow of play, but I don’t think it does that sufficiently to justify throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Teams that park the bus, or waste time, they disrupt the flow of a game far more than VAR ever will.

You're ****ing clueless bruv

 

[Hoddle is a god]

You're ****ing clueless bruv

How?

Explain how anything I have just written is “clueless.”

 

[Libby]

Isn't the point of the new handball rule that if handling the ball unintentionally gives a big advantage by scoring a goal then that advantage is cancelled out. I am sure the overall effect of the new rule would be to award a penalty if a defender prevented a goal by an unintentional handball. This could only happen if the arm was away from his body.

Well no cos you've just made that up. For defending teams, position of the arm along with intent and everything else gets taken into consideration.


That's just simply not true for attacking teams.

 

[PowerSpurs]

Well no cos you've just made that up. For defending teams, position of the arm along with intent and everything else gets taken into consideration.


That's just simply not true for attacking teams.

The point is that scoring a gial via a handball is a fact. Preventing one is more of a matter of opinion and can only really happen if the hand is away from the body and so it will in practise be penalised.

 

[Libby]

How?

Explain how anything I have just written is “clueless.”

Well let's start with when teams park the bus you can still celebrate a goal if/when it comes.

VAR won't stop teams parking the bus.

You say clear view, I say that close incidents won't become clearer just rewatching them. And yes it is making decisions cos it's completely re refereeing the game.

There's no allegedly about it disrupting the match, it's ****ing awful. How many games you been in the stands for a var match?

Don't know what we're talking about? I can always put my across my concerns properly and all the simpletons can say nothing but 'IT WILL GET SOME THINGS RIGHT'.



Other than that you're spot on bru.

 

[Libby]

The point is that scoring a gial via a handball is a fact. Preventing one is more of a matter of opinion and can only really happen if the hand is away from the body and so it will in practise be penalised.

Not if the arm is down by the sides...

This is very simple, in the box then the defending team are allowed accidental handball, the attackers are not.

 

[PowerSpurs]

Not if the arm is down by the sides...

This is very simple, in the box then the defending team are allowed accidental handball, the attackers are not.

But only if they gain an unfair advantage by scoring a goal. I don't see why that is wrong.

And in the defensive case, if the arm is not extending the body then it didn't prevent the goal as the body would have stopped the ball if the arm had not.

The cases are not symmetrical so the laws shouldn't be either.

 

[Hoddle is a god]

Well let's start with when teams park the bus you can still celebrate a goal if/when it comes.

VAR won't stop teams parking the bus.

You say clear view, I say that close incidents won't become clearer just rewatching them. And yes it is making decisions cos it's completely re refereeing the game.

There's no allegedly about it disrupting the match, it's ****ing awful. How many games you been in the stands for a var match?

Don't know what we're talking about? I can always put my across my concerns properly and all the simpletons can say nothing but 'IT WILL GET SOME THINGS RIGHT'.

Other than that you're spot on bru.

That is your opinion, to which you are entitled.

The fact that it exhibits a cluelessness beyond comprehension does not alter that, nor deny you the right to hold such views.

Similarly, my honed views, drawing upon my many years of experience as a match referee for the Under 10s, are merely my opinion.

There is no need to bandy about insults, Libs.

 

[The Ginger Marks]

Honed, you ****ing fat tosser.

 

[Libby]

But only if they gain an unfair advantage by scoring a goal. I don't see why that is wrong.

And in the defensive case, if the arm is not extending the body then it didn't prevent the goal as the body would have stopped the ball if the arm had not.

The cases are not symmetrical so the laws shouldn't be either.

But if the arm is by a players side and a shot towards goal strikes it with no movement towards the ball then it's not automatically given as a foul but instead consideration is given towards those things

If the above happens it's the opposite and is automatically a foul regardless of any the above.

So you saying that this rule automatically translates into the opposite situation in practice simply isn't true.

 

[Libby]

That is your opinion, to which you are entitled.

The fact that it exhibits a cluelessness beyond comprehension does not alter that, nor deny you the right to hold such views.

Similarly, my honed views, drawing upon my many years of experience as a match referee for the Under 10s, are merely my opinion.

There is no need to bandy about insults, Libs.

So you can't answer any of my points then and have settled on 'well I'm right just because'.

Well **** me, I'm really shocked that a var advocate has taken that route.


How will you feel if Spurs lose a cup final say from a completely wrong var decision?

 

[Hoddle is a god]

How will you feel if Spurs lose a cup final say from a completely wrong var decision?

It’s hard to say, Libs. One so often gets caught up in the emotion of it all.

I’d like to think that I’d be pretty casual, stood there in my underpants, scratching my balls.

Unless, of course, I’m watching the match at home, in which case I might get a bit peeved.

 

[Libby]

But only if they gain an unfair advantage by scoring a goal. I don't see why that is wrong.

And in the defensive case, if the arm is not extending the body then it didn't prevent the goal as the body would have stopped the ball if the arm had not.

The cases are not symmetrical so the laws shouldn't be either.

But you can still gain an unfair advantage by stopping a goal with your hand, and if that happens and your arm is within the silhouette and you didn't move towards the ball then there's a good chance it won't be penalised. For an attacker it will every single time.

As said I'm not against the rule itself, though I think it'd be better if directly in the goal, and if they want to make it all or nothing then fair enough but I really do think it should be one or the other.

I find it baffling that players challenging for a the same corner in live play are essentially playing by different rules.

 

[PowerSpurs]

But you can still gain an unfair advantage by stopping a goal with your hand, and if that happens and your arm is within the silhouette and you didn't move towards the ball then there's a good chance it won't be penalised. For an attacker it will every single time.

As said I'm not against the rule itself, though I think it'd be better if directly in the goal, and if they want to make it all or nothing then fair enough but I really do think it should be one or the other.

I find it baffling that players challenging for a the same corner in live play are essentially playing by different rules.

But they are not really are they. Because there is only a difference if a goal is scored and the handball is accidental and since by definition something accidental can't happen by your own actions there is nothing an attacker can change that would effect the outcome.
There is no equivalent of offside for defenders either. Rules don't have to be symmetrical.
And if your arm is within your silhouette you have not stopped a goal with your arm because the ball would rebound from your body anyway.

 

[FosseFilberto]

How?

Explain how anything I have just written is “clueless.”

... it's in the speech marks bru... happy to help

 

[Rorschach]

This attackers handball, how far back would they go?

The £ity game the other day, if the handball went to Jesus but then he played it to de Bruyne who then played it off to Aguero who then scored would it still be ruled out?

I think it should have stood anyway...

 

[FosseFilberto]

This attackers handball, how far back would they go?

The £ity game the other day, if the handball went to Jesus but then he played it to de Bruyne who then played it off to Aguero who then scored would it still be ruled out?

I think it should have stood anyway...

Fingertip to shoulder mate .... happy to help

 

[gooner4ever]

Bump