[BaggieSteve]

The new 'handball' definition is ridiculous.    Handball used to mean deliberate handball, and the ref's decision on deliberate was final...full stop.
If I was a Coach I'd be coaching attackers, now, how to just chip the ball at a defender's arm, and get a penalty. F-f-f-farcical.

Talksaft, I think you're right. It's becoming like hockey - if the ball hits your foot, it's automatically an infringement so, as you say, aim at the defender's arm and then appeal like crazy

---

I am happy with VAR for goal line and offside.  No matter how painful some decisions can be when a toe nail makes a difference but it can be defined and ruled by.

The fact they use it to review violent conduct is also another great thing. the head butt by the Arsenal player is a great example (despite the theatric by the Leeds player, it was violent conduct and should not be tolerated).

But then, penalties. These people watch different video to what we see - how they conclude things the way they do is astounding.

It would be interesting to see what you guys thought of these following incidents and if we all agree:

1. Villa v Brighton Penalty not given:  My view, correct decision.  (But I am confused why the Villa player was not booked for 'simulation')
2. West Brom v Man Utd Penalty not given. My view wrong decision. (In the modern world there was clear contact and it should have been a penalty. I hate the modern world and 'there was contact' as in the old days it would not have been given and Gallagher deserved to be booked for falling over).
3. Man Utd v West Brom Penalty given. My view wrong decision. (penalty retake I can live with)
4. Arsenal v Leeds Penalty Not given. My view wrong decision. This was identical to the Man Utd pen v west Brom!!

Stairs, I agree with you over the use of VAR for line calls, except that I still struggle with the 'toenail/elbow' offside. I think I'm right in saying that the assistant refs get a good 90+ per cent of the calls correct. Where the offside is so miniscule - toenail/elbow/ nose etc - I don't think these provide any advantage to the attacker so I think ruling offside on that basis is a bit ludicrous. Are we saying that if the centre-forward's left bollock hadn't been in front of the centre-half's right bollock, he would never have reached that cross? The fact that they often spend a few minutes going over the film footage before they can make a decision makes me think that this is so marginal that it's irrelevant. I appreciate that the counter argument is "what's acceptable and what isn't then? Is an arm offside but not an elbow and, if so, why?". VAR makes it a clear binary decision, I get that but, for me, it's just taken the joy out of the game.