*** OMT roosters Vs Magpies ***

[Whiffler]

Different player.

As his head was in the air, and inclined to the flight of the ball, does that not usually mean he is involved in play - therefore offside ?

 

[paxtonwolf]

And then to rub it in. Son picks up a hamstring injury. Out for a while it appears. Typical Tottenham luck.

Looks like the problem of who misses out when Bale is fit is sorted for a few weeks

 

[StephenH]

We did not win because we did not score from the chances we created i have already agreed with that. But for sure if it had not been for the farce that is VAR we would have walked off with 3 points.

Its not a excuse it seems that a lot of teams every week are getting fudged over by VAR, that is far more worry then dropping two points. The game is being ruined.

you are missing the point. It’s a rule and very very very sadly we have to play to it, until when and if it changed! we didn't! And cost us 2 points

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Your screenshot misses the first part, which covers the arm making the body unnaturally bigger - that does count even if the player is close.

The points in the first section apply first and are not subject to the exceptions in the second part.
Whether raising an arm when you jump is unnatural is of course another argument.
View attachment 9510

I’ll add that I’m not having a go, I’m genuinely interested how they can repeat the line twice, once for an offence and one with an exception

 

[Bedfordspurs]

And then to rub it in. Son picks up a hamstring injury. Out for a while it appears. Typical Tottenham luck.

Looks like the problem of who misses out when Bale is fit is sorted for a few weeks

That’s a missive negative for us
He is so key to the system we want to play and other than Kane the goals aren’t really coming form others

 

[DeanoAustin]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1310233562998870017

This is the free kick decision leading to the pen. It’s even more ridiculous than I remembered.

 

[elltrev]

I’ll add that I’m not having a go, I’m genuinely interested how they can repeat the line twice, once for an offence and one with an exception

Same - I read this section last week and again just now, and still can’t work out what it’s trying to say. Really weird way to structure things.

 

[parklane1]

you missing the point. It’s A rule. And very sadly we have to play to it, Until and if it changed! we didn't! And cost us 2 points

i am not missing any point mate but seeing as we are going around in circles, it is a rule that was brought in mainly because of VAR.

 

[milo]

Exactly
It’s inconsistent again yet I read that it was UEFA that enough these changes in as different leagues were using VAR differently and the handball rule was one that was cleared up....

That could be good news because there is precedent for PL refs changing how they apply the rules mid-season.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

Same - I read this section last week and again just now, and still can’t work out what it’s trying to say. Really weird way to structure things.

I’ve just heard Sam matterface talking about the rule changes.
Since David Elleray took over at IfAb in 4 heras there have been over 200 rule changes
Apparently it’s way UEFA took Var away form Ifab and how it’s applied

and on the current penalty rate we will have 269 this season... previous record was 118
Fernades at united looking at the golden boot I reckon

 

[StephenH]

i am not missing any point mate but seeing as we are going around in circles, it is a rule that was bought in mainly because of VAR.

VAR is going nowhere but the stupid NEW handball will I believe.
BUT until then DONT think a game is one won at 1-0

 

[Daisuk]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1310251876399697920

 

[Bedfordspurs]

That could be good news because there is precedent for PL refs changing how they apply the rules mid-season.

After everyone has had a negative from it

I still can’t fathom how the Arsenal one wasn’t given on Monday by comparison

 

[milo]

After everyone has had a negative from it

I still can’t fathom how the Arsenal one wasn’t given on Monday by comparison

You can't wait for it to even out because it never will to everyone's satisfaction. Changing it after the international break would make sense. It gives the refs a chance to get together and agree a new approach.

 

[Modric THFC]

Your screenshot misses the first part, which covers the arm making the body unnaturally bigger - that does count even if the player is close.

The points in the first section apply first and are not subject to the exceptions in the second part.
Whether raising an arm when you jump is unnatural is of course another argument.
View attachment 9510

You can't make you arm unnaturally bigger unless he was getting some sort of implants on the pitch.

 

[billyiddo]

i am not missing any point mate but seeing as we are going around in circles, it is a rule that was bought in mainly because of VAR.

If the ref had seen the incident in real time and given the penalty without the aid of var would you still be blaming it?

Exactly

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

And then to rub it in. Son picks up a hamstring injury. Out for a while it appears. Typical Tottenham luck.

Looks like the problem of who misses out when Bale is fit is sorted for a few weeks

Who misses out when bale is injured?

 

[Glenda's Legs]

I’ll add that I’m not having a go, I’m genuinely interested how they can repeat the line twice, once for an offence and one with an exception

I do think it’s confusing but what it is saying is :
- if the ball is hit onto the arm by a player who is close by, it is handball when the arm is extended making the body unnaturally bigger; but
- if the ball is hit onto the arm by a player who is close by, it is not handball when the arm is not extended to make the body unnaturally bigger.

So if Dier had springs for legs and could get the elevation with his arms by his side, then Carroll knocking the ball onto him would not be handball. But because Dier does not have springs for legs, he needs to raise an arm, and a close-by Carroll can head the ball onto him and win a penalty.

 

[billyiddo]

I do think it’s confusing but what it is saying is :
- if the ball is hit onto the arm by a player who is close by, it is handball when the arm is extended making the body unnaturally bigger; but
- if the ball is hit onto the arm by a player who is close by, it is not handball when the arm is not extended to make the body unnaturally bigger.

So if Dier had springs for legs and could get the elevation with his arms by his side, then Carroll knocking the ball onto him would not be handball. But because Dier does not have springs for legs, he needs to raise an arm, and a close-by Carroll can head the ball onto him and win a penalty.

Dier wasn't in control of his arms and was flailing about, that's the long and short of it.

 

[parklane1]

If the ref had seen the incident in real time and given the penalty without the aid of var would you still be blaming it?

Exactly

if my grandmother had balls, she'd be my granddad