VAR

[Drummond]

I actually think it's ok. It takes away the endless debate of ball to hand, hand to ball, deliberate or not.

I absolutely reserve the right to change my mind when it happens to us, to suddenly bemoan the change and frankly to be completely hypocritical.

[dave shelley]

Why is it that football seems to be the only sport where those in charge feel the need to change the rules, or the interpretation of them every bloody year? A sport that has been played for over 150 years still hasn't got the rules right apparently.

As I've posted before: the answer to your question is so that those that make these changes can justify their phoney-baloney jobs.

[Drummond]

I actually think it's ok. It takes away the endless debate of ball to hand, hand to ball, deliberate or not.

I absolutely reserve the right to change my mind when it happens to us, to suddenly bemoan the change and frankly to be completely hypocritical.

Though it has to be said, we'll start to see players aiming to kick the ball at an opponent's hand in order to gain a penalty. Which is just shit.

[Risso]

I actually think it's ok. It takes away the endless debate of ball to hand, hand to ball, deliberate or not.

I absolutely reserve the right to change my mind when it happens to us, to suddenly bemoan the change and frankly to be completely hypocritical.

Though it has to be said, we'll start to see players aiming to kick the ball at an opponent's hand in order to gain a penalty. Which is just shit.

A few people have said similar, and I think it's correct.  Nothing on in the box, just blast it at roughly waist height towards one or more defenders and you've upped your chances of a penalty substantially.

[fbriai]

Exactly. Andy Carroll is a Messi-level player in this new handball-world we now live in.

[Lastfootstamper]

I actually think it's ok. It takes away the endless debate of ball to hand, hand to ball, deliberate or not.

I absolutely reserve the right to change my mind when it happens to us, to suddenly bemoan the change and frankly to be completely hypocritical.

Though it has to be said, we'll start to see players aiming to kick the ball at an opponent's hand in order to gain a penalty. Which is just shit.

It doesn't seem all that long ago that apparently it'd be impossible for centre-forwards to jump without swinging an elbow, or for centre-halves to tackle without going through the back of someone. Rules is rules, players and fans adapt, the game carries on.
It's not like the laws came down from the mountain with moses, anyway. Somebody made all of them up at some point.

[Legion]

So did Moses.

[Smithy]

I actually think it's ok. It takes away the endless debate of ball to hand, hand to ball, deliberate or not.

I absolutely reserve the right to change my mind when it happens to us, to suddenly bemoan the change and frankly to be completely hypocritical.

Though it has to be said, we'll start to see players aiming to kick the ball at an opponent's hand in order to gain a penalty. Which is just shit.

A few people have said similar, and I think it's correct.  Nothing on in the box, just blast it at roughly waist height towards one or more defenders and you've upped your chances of a penalty substantially.

I think it'll be even more nuanced than that.  There are a few ways to get round a defender by bribbling, either side, through the legs - but now you can add flick it up over their legs.  That's always been there, but it's harder and has less success than the others - but now it might win you a penalty.

I think refs will get wise to players flicking it up against arms, and will use their discretion under the "how far the ball travelled" rule to not give them.  BUT, if the player is making a genuine attempt to dribble round the defender and flicks it up?

It's going to be chaos for a while, certainly.  Short of defenders playing in straight jackets, I don't know how you ensure you don't give at least a few away over the season?

[The Edge]

I actually think it's ok. It takes away the endless debate of ball to hand, hand to ball, deliberate or not.

I absolutely reserve the right to change my mind when it happens to us, to suddenly bemoan the change and frankly to be completely hypocritical.

Though it has to be said, we'll start to see players aiming to kick the ball at an opponent's hand in order to gain a penalty. Which is just shit.

A few people have said similar, and I think it's correct.  Nothing on in the box, just blast it at roughly waist height towards one or more defenders and you've upped your chances of a penalty substantially.

I think it'll be even more nuanced than that.  There are a few ways to get round a defender by bribbling, either side, through the legs - but now you can add flick it up over their legs.  That's always been there, but it's harder and has less success than the others - but now it might win you a penalty.

I think refs will get wise to players flicking it up against arms, and will use their discretion under the "how far the ball travelled" rule to not give them.  BUT, if the player is making a genuine attempt to dribble round the defender and flicks it up?

It's going to be chaos for a while, certainly.  Short of defenders playing in straight jackets, I don't know how you ensure you don't give at least a few away over the season?

bribbling? That's a new one 😁

[paul_e]

It is and was a ridiculous decision. I remember Mark Delaney having a pen against him for exactly the same in a match against Middlesbrough or maybe Sunderland. No VAR back then just a ref who didn’t like us much from my recollection. 

and this is why VAR and a strict interpretation of the rules isn't without merit. Too many times we've seen shocking decisions from someone with no real accountability cost us in games. An attempt to stop that isn't a waste of time.

[Risso]

It is and was a ridiculous decision. I remember Mark Delaney having a pen against him for exactly the same in a match against Middlesbrough or maybe Sunderland. No VAR back then just a ref who didn’t like us much from my recollection. 

and this is why VAR and a strict interpretation of the rules isn't without merit. Too many times we've seen shocking decisions from someone with no real accountability cost us in games. An attempt to stop that isn't a waste of time.

How does VAR stop that?  We've seen just as many shocking decisions, only from a different set of unaccountable people.

[Somniloquism]

It is and was a ridiculous decision. I remember Mark Delaney having a pen against him for exactly the same in a match against Middlesbrough or maybe Sunderland. No VAR back then just a ref who didn’t like us much from my recollection.

Sunderland. Elleray.

Yep, that and being able to see a ball brushing the keepers studs from 60- yards away shows what good eye sight he had. Especially as he wasn't looking back at the time.

[Somniloquism]

I'm pretty sure the "unnatural motion" and defenders being penalised for making themselves big was one from a few years ago. As with most of these rules, it rained pens for several matches and then was quietly reduced back. The difference now is VAR reviewing it all the time.

[paul_e]

It is and was a ridiculous decision. I remember Mark Delaney having a pen against him for exactly the same in a match against Middlesbrough or maybe Sunderland. No VAR back then just a ref who didn’t like us much from my recollection. 

and this is why VAR and a strict interpretation of the rules isn't without merit. Too many times we've seen shocking decisions from someone with no real accountability cost us in games. An attempt to stop that isn't a waste of time.

How does VAR stop that?  We've seen just as many shocking decisions, only from a different set of unaccountable people.

because so far we've seen more consistent shocking decisions, the good or bad of the decisions isn't the point, that can be addressed later, but by taking away the crowd pressure and the pressure from players in the face of the ref we're seeing, in my opinion, the same overly-strict rules being applied to everyone. I'd be pissed off if I were a palace fan having conceded the penalty they did this weekend but I'd know that a similar decision had gone in our favour the week before, that's not been the case before, those decisions have been made but you've been able to pick examples from games around the same time where the interpretation was different, right now that doesn't appear to be the case with this specific rule (and wasn't the case with the iffy offside decisions last season).

[sickbeggar]

VAR positives

1. Overall has cut down on complete rickets refs make each season.

VAR negatives

1. Amplified the number of bad decisions made through interpretation of the rules and personal opinion and personal bias. I.e. what I call playing Subutteo against yourself decisions.

2. Turning refs into cowards - they are more than happy to let VAR take the contentious decision for them, ie, give a yellow when they think its a red, and wait for VAR to overrule them. The refs don't get the blame for the decision, and the faceless VAR are hundreds of miles away so do not face the wrath of the players/crowd (in normal circumstances)

Overall, on balance, fuck if off