VAR

[Gmac]

VAR was brought in to eliminate clear and obvious errors by referees and allows them to view contentious incidents. But the trouble is, what constitutes as a clear and obvious error? It's a judgement call. VAR is great for "objective" decisions only. For example the offside rule; the rule is there to stop forwwards from gaining an unfair advantage. VAR, with it's objective view completely ignores this. Objectively speaking, yes a player's toe might be offside and is technically an infringement but there is no advantage to being a toe offside surely?. VAR is great but it cannot replace human judgement which it is currently doing. Well it is the way it's being used at the moment. Context matters in football. You have to look at the situation and add some context to it. You don't get this when VAR views everything objectively. 

Our handball and resulting red card had nothing to do with the miss use of VAR. It was the correct decision to award the pen. Nothing contentious about that, the issue was in the actual rule book of the game. I can see them bringing in two separate handball rules, Deliberate and accidental handball.  Otherwise, as others have said what is stopping teams just aiming to kick the ball at the opposition's hands.

[exAtyeoMax]

https://twitter.com/petercrouch/status/1359938822444896258?s=20

[BTRFTG]

10 hours ago, Gmac said:

I can see them bringing in two separate handball rules, Deliberate and accidental handball.  Otherwise, as others have said what is stopping teams just aiming to kick the ball at the opposition's hands.

Law 12 already differentiates between 'deliberate' and 'accidental' handball, the former always being an offence. The latter is also covered in if the ball hits a player's arm or hand and they are unable, when in a 'normal' playing posture to prevent it happening, then no offence had occured (the new VAR and stupid exception being where a goal or goal scoring opportunity is created, accidental handball is an offence on the part of the attacking team.)

The problem lies in the guidance to Law 12 being rewritten to supplement VAR, such as in Mawson's case the official has to consider 4 or more factors before deciding whether an offence has occured. All of which might easily be resolved were the utterly stupid VAR be scrapped and Law 12 rewritten along the lines: "..if in the opinion of the officials a player has sought to obtain an unfair advantage by use of either arm or hand...." Though opinion based, it's better than the MULTIPLE 'opinions' required under VAR, which have been variously and inconsistently applied.

[BS13 Robin]

On 10/02/2021 at 23:00, Super said:

Pretty sure the Sheff U guy right by it appealed?

I thought a couple appealed,definately one did