VAR

How hasn't the Villa player not been sent off for the forearm smash especially after VAR review unbelievable

How hasn't the Villa player not been sent off for the forearm smash especially after VAR review unbelievable

Looked like a red, obviously down to opinions

Looked like a red, obviously down to opinions

But I thought VAR was to stop opinions

But I thought VAR was to stop opinions

Not theirs  Don't worry Mr clit-bait  will tell us VAR is right coz it's never wrong in his book. 

Did anyone see the disallowed goal for Villa today? To me it was a goal, Schmeichel did not have control of the ball when Ramsey hit the ball into the net.

I know what Rule 12 is - taken from FA website - https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:

-the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save

-holding the ball in the outstretched open hand

-bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air

-A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).


Now what pisses me off is the wording as it open to misinterpretation and change of context.


Schmeichel had his fingers on the ball, not the palm of his glove. Now that to me is not a sign of control of the ball. To be in control of the ball would mean you would have the ability to pick the ball up or roll it back to your body to protect it from an attacker. He did neither. It would not have been possible for him to roll that ball back into his body or arm.


Another thing that pisses me off is that VAR is there to assist the referee, if anything it hinders the referee. Again, due to the wording of the law being open to misinterpretation it just creates more chaos. The VAR official eventually asking that sh*t stain Oliver to have a look at it himself.


Now i have no problem with the law if it is interpreted correctly. Just because your fingers are touching the ball it does not mean you are in control of the ball, that is total and utter bollocks. Schmeichel could not reach out far enough to gather the ball, he could only rest his fingers on the ball, he was unable to roll it back to gather it. Only then would he be deemed to be in control of the ball.


Then some stupid thick c**t on the commentary likened it to Rugby Union!!! How f**king stupid are these cu*ts?


That rule regarding control is regarding the grounding of the ball in the event of a try being scored. You have to have any part of the body from the waist to the neck in contact with the ball with a downward momentum.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/home


21.1 GROUNDING THE BALL

Law 21.1 b - In-Goal

LAWS OF THE GAME RUGBY UNION 2017 p162

There are two ways a player can ground the ball:

(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and
touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in
the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.

(b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the
in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of
the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive.


Now what the f**k does this have to do with a goalkeeper in football? F**k me, these cu*ts are thick as f**k. Honestly, you are commentating on a football match, know the football rules you stupid cu*ts. The Rugby Rule bears no relevance at all to Rule 12 you fuckwits!


With all due respect to Paul Merson, the bloke is thick as f**k! I mean that with all due respect and that useless c**t David Jones, what a pussy c**t! All he f**king does is talk absolute crap and pretend he knows football. They start these shows so early that after thirty minutes the c**t has run out of stuff to say. Due to the fact he is a pussy he then loads the gun for others to fire, he's a f**king piece of sh*t.

Anyway, to finish my point. In my opinion the definition of 'being in control of the ball' means that the keeper has the ability to gather the ball, throw the ball or kick the ball. If you are unable to do any of them, which Scmeichel wasn't, then how can you be deemed to be in control of the ball?

Just because the ball is between the ground and your finger/s does not determine control of the ball.

Did anyone see the disallowed goal for Villa today? To me it was a goal, Schmeichel did not have control of the ball when Ramsey hit the ball into the net.

I know what Rule 12 is - taken from FA website - https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball with the hand(s) when:

-the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save

-holding the ball in the outstretched open hand

-bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air

-A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hand(s).


Now what pisses me off is the wording as it open to misinterpretation and change of context.


Schmeichel had his fingers on the ball, not the palm of his glove. Now that to me is not a sign of control of the ball. To be in control of the ball would mean you would have the ability to pick the ball up or roll it back to your body to protect it from an attacker. He did neither. It would not have been possible for him to roll that ball back into his body or arm.


Another thing that pisses me off is that VAR is there to assist the referee, if anything it hinders the referee. Again, due to the wording of the law being open to misinterpretation it just creates more chaos. The VAR official eventually asking that sh*t stain Oliver to have a look at it himself.


Now i have no problem with the law if it is interpreted correctly. Just because your fingers are touching the ball it does not mean you are in control of the ball, that is total and utter bollocks. Schmeichel could not reach out far enough to gather the ball, he could only rest his fingers on the ball, he was unable to roll it back to gather it. Only then would he be deemed to be in control of the ball.


Then some stupid thick c**t on the commentary likened it to Rugby Union!!! How f**king stupid are these cu*ts?


That rule regarding control is regarding the grounding of the ball in the event of a try being scored. You have to have any part of the body from the waist to the neck in contact with the ball with a downward momentum.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/home


21.1 GROUNDING THE BALL

Law 21.1 b - In-Goal

LAWS OF THE GAME RUGBY UNION 2017 p162

There are two ways a player can ground the ball:

(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and
touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in
the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.

(b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the
in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of
the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive.


Now what the f**k does this have to do with a goalkeeper in football? F**k me, these cu*ts are thick as f**k. Honestly, you are commentating on a football match, know the football rules you stupid cu*ts. The Rugby Rule bears no relevance at all to Rule 12 you fuckwits!


With all due respect to Paul Merson, the bloke is thick as f**k! I mean that with all due respect and that useless c**t David Jones, what a pussy c**t! All he f**king does is talk absolute crap and pretend he knows football. They start these shows so early that after thirty minutes the c**t has run out of stuff to say. Due to the fact he is a pussy he then loads the gun for others to fire, he's a f**king piece of sh*t.

Anyway, to finish my point. In my opinion the definition of 'being in control of the ball' means that the keeper has the ability to gather the ball, throw the ball or kick the ball. If you are unable to do any of them, which Scmeichel wasn't, then how can you be deemed to be in control of the ball?

Just because the ball is between the ground and your finger/s does not determine control of the ball.

For English refs, rules are merely suggestions...

Would love to hear VAR's number one fan on here explain that City penalty today...

Would love to hear VAR's number one fan on here explain that City penalty today...

It’s simple, he will just agree with VAR 

It’s simple, he will just agree with VAR 

I swear the guys got a poster of a VAR monitor on the ceiling above is bed and offline coloured lines instead of skirting boards.

I swear the guys got a poster of a VAR monitor on the ceiling above is bed and offline coloured lines instead of skirting boards.

 

Would love to hear VAR's number one fan on here explain that City penalty today...

With my Red specs on no way a penalty
Without them on deffo not a penalty. 

With my Red specs on no way a penalty
Without them on deffo not a penalty. 

and if you close your eyes it is still never a penalty f***in John Moss the fat old c**t should not be near a prem game. He had his back to the ball it hit him in the arm pit this is the type of decision that costs manager their Job .The most lucrative league in the world has Refs on the Cheap.

and if you close your eyes it is still never a penalty f***in John Moss the fat old c**t should not be near a prem game. He had his back to the ball it hit him in the arm pit this is the type of decision that costs manager their Job .The most lucrative league in the world has Refs on the Cheap.

Walt agree with all that. Worst penalty decision given I have seen in a long while. John Moss should retire along with a few others

Walt agree with all that. Worst penalty decision given I have seen in a long while. John Moss should retire along with a few others

mate I am no lean mean machine these days but he is fat and slow he should not be near a football pitch

With my Red specs on no way a penalty
Without them on deffo not a penalty. 

I agree never a penalty and even VAR fcuk up. However, I honestly thought it was a penalty to city at the end of the first half. I’ll never work out how VAR works, 

With my Red specs on no way a penalty
Without them on deffo not a penalty. 

You can't ref a game with any bias at all.

From what I've seen so far, the arm is up, so if the ball hits it the decision is clear. Some angles show it may have hit his arm, it may not, but it's hard to say conclusively that it didn't. In that case, you go with the ref's call on the pitch.

In fairness, it's fairly similiar to the one we got in Madrid, and even with our red hat on, not many of us complained about that.

You can't ref a game with any bias at all.

From what I've seen so far, the arm is up, so if the ball hits it the decision is clear. Some angles show it may have hit his arm, it may not, but it's hard to say conclusively that it didn't. In that case, you go with the ref's call on the pitch.

In fairness, it's fairly similiar to the one we got in Madrid, and even with our red hat on, not many of us complained about that.

you are wrong so many times but at least you are consistent even the SKY ref would not have given a penalty if you cant see that get yourself of to specsavers

Surely this guy is just pulling our leg now? A referee and VAR fanboy can’t be a thing surely? 

Surely this guy is just pulling our leg now? A referee and VAR fanboy can’t be a thing surely? 

 

Surely this guy is just pulling our leg now? A referee and VAR fanboy can’t be a thing surely? 

If the past few years has taught us anything, it's that anything is possible!!

You can't ref a game with any bias at all.

From what I've seen so far, the arm is up, so if the ball hits it the decision is clear. Some angles show it may have hit his arm, it may not, but it's hard to say conclusively that it didn't. In that case, you go with the ref's call on the pitch.

In fairness, it's fairly similiar to the one we got in Madrid, and even with our red hat on, not many of us complained about that.

Only just seen this post. Whilst I admire your consistency on defending VAR  and in fairness  it probably gets most decisions right, the penalty that City got on Saturday was definitely not one of them.
I'm sure anyone could see that it hit under his arm so therefore not a pen. Even the ref who writes in the Daily Mail said it was inconclusive so therefore should not of stood.

Only just seen this post. Whilst I admire your consistency on defending VAR  and in fairness  it probably gets most decisions right, the penalty that City got on Saturday was definitely not one of them.
I'm sure anyone could see that it hit under his arm so therefore not a pen. Even the ref who writes in the Daily Mail said it was inconclusive so therefore should not of stood.

100% never a penalty but they should of had one in last min of first half.

100% never a penalty but they should of had one in last min of first half.

was a joke eh.

VAR ref and onfield ref clueless.