|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Jul 7, 2019 18:19:00 GMT
As an aside I hear more harping on about equality and equal pay from that Rapinoe character. The English WPL sides are actually *making a loss* and being funded by their male equivalents. Women’s football is desperately in search of Johnson, Hunt and Corbyn’s magic money tree. I wish them every success in finding it. LOL. The USWNT is more profitable than the men’s, the men get bigger pay from the US Federation. That’s her point. You ok mate? Yeah, no one's saying women footballers should be paid the same as men, they're saying the national teams should pay their representatives doing the same national duty the same.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2019 18:39:09 GMT
I was referring specifically to the comment about “fighting their way back comfortably in the pre-VAR era”, which does suggest you are saying “if illegal goals were allowed then England would have won”. I know there have been some debatable points but that incident yesterday was blatantly handball no matter what speed you run the tape at. The fact the England player had the cheek to give verbals to the ref about it afterward was yet more indication that women have just as little respect for rules as men do. I wasn't talking about the VAR I was talking about England being unlucky, and my reason that they were unlucky is that they were at a world cup where the VAR probably worked against them. That's nothing to do with whether I think they should have VAR, coz I have said a million times they shouldn't.
If it was blatant, why did they need to run it through 50 times? And a similar thing happened today before the US penalty (the ball glanced off her elbow before she was fouled), and yet they didn't call the handball. I'm trying to parse that statement with my programmer's hat on and it doesn't make sense because you are saying it worked against them. Fifa's stats say that VAR has ben 98.*something*% correct, even if you don't believe that to my own eyes the games that I have seen have resulted in the right call being made *eventually* (and eventually might be downplaying the time taken!) so to say 'VAR worked against them' is to say that they would have done better if they had got away with something they shouldn't have if the ref was on point in applying the laws. I have a suspicion why they ran it through 50 times when it was obvious on the VT. I watched two replays, saw it come off her arm and it appeared to be as blatant a hand ball as you can get. I think (and there is enough evidence for this) that the one drawback with rugby is happening in football. VAR is excellent in rugby apart from the refs use it as a crutch and it is becoming the same in football: too scared to rule out a goal without 100% certainty which means endless replays just to be sure even though we know it's blatant. Same with the penalty today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2019 18:47:27 GMT
As an aside I hear more harping on about equality and equal pay from that Rapinoe character. The English WPL sides are actually *making a loss* and being funded by their male equivalents. Women’s football is desperately in search of Johnson, Hunt and Corbyn’s magic money tree. I wish them every success in finding it. LOL. The USWNT is more profitable than the men’s, the men get bigger pay from the US Federation. That’s her point. You ok mate? If they are more profitable on paper than they should earn more. But the issue is still a genderless one- in the sense that (suspend your disbelief) imagine the US men's netball team wins the world cup and is more profitable yet the women perennially reach the quarter-final of the women's world cup which carries far more prestige, earns more sponsorship and prize money and has a far bigger participation, level of competition and higher standard (all adding up to a huge barrier to entry). Should the men earn more under those conditions? That's the conundrum.
|
|
|
Post by Gassy on Jul 7, 2019 19:03:12 GMT
I actually think the women’s USA team should be paid more than the men’s...
|
|
|
Post by chewbacca on Jul 7, 2019 19:18:58 GMT
LOL. The USWNT is more profitable than the men’s, the men get bigger pay from the US Federation. That’s her point. You ok mate? If they are more profitable on paper than they should earn more. But the issue is still a genderless one- in the sense that (suspend your disbelief) imagine the US men's netball team wins the world cup and is more profitable yet the women perennially reach the quarter-final of the women's world cup which carries far more prestige, earns more sponsorship and prize money and has a far bigger participation, level of competition and higher standard (all adding up to a huge barrier to entry). Should the men earn more under those conditions? That's the conundrum. Yes. Which, is why the USWNT should earn more on Association contracts than their male colleagues. No one has ever said female players should earn the same, they should earn what they deserve. As for clubs going to the wall in the WSL, that’s due to the FA coming out with the ridiculous ruling that every top flight club should be pro. Many clubs have had great success with semi professionals working in jobs that work around the club commitments. As an example that can be in universities be that as a student or academic, teaching, fitness related jobs etc. By making the league “pro”, I know two full internationals in their twenties that walked away from the elite game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2019 19:28:35 GMT
If they are more profitable on paper than they should earn more. But the issue is still a genderless one- in the sense that (suspend your disbelief) imagine the US men's netball team wins the world cup and is more profitable yet the women perennially reach the quarter-final of the women's world cup which carries far more prestige, earns more sponsorship and prize money and has a far bigger participation, level of competition and higher standard (all adding up to a huge barrier to entry). Should the men earn more under those conditions? That's the conundrum. Yes. Which, is why the USWNT should earn more on Association contracts than their male colleagues. No one has ever said female players should earn the same, they should earn what they deserve. As for clubs going to the wall in the WSL, that’s due to the FA coming out with the ridiculous ruling that every top flight club should be pro. Many clubs have had great success with semi professionals working in jobs that work around the club commitments. As an example that can be in universities be that as a student or academic, teaching, fitness related jobs etc. By making the league “pro”, I know two full internationals in their twenties that walked away from the elite game. Interesting...but isn’t the inference from that that the women’s game has gone pro too soon? An argument I see bandied a lot once you step away from the proselytising of the BBC...No doubt the professionalising of the game was not helped by the constant lobbying for pay. Whatever the rights and wrongs it is a finely nuanced argument and (it seems to me at least) the women’s game is fast losing it’s sense and morals in a bid to grab at the cash that falls down the back of the men’s game sofa. Football really is an ugly business inside and out because eventually it becomes all about money (as with this World Cup) and everyone wants to earn as much as they can while playing as little as they can. Male or female the intent is the same.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Jul 7, 2019 19:34:31 GMT
I wasn't talking about the VAR I was talking about England being unlucky, and my reason that they were unlucky is that they were at a world cup where the VAR probably worked against them. That's nothing to do with whether I think they should have VAR, coz I have said a million times they shouldn't.
If it was blatant, why did they need to run it through 50 times? And a similar thing happened today before the US penalty (the ball glanced off her elbow before she was fouled), and yet they didn't call the handball. I'm trying to parse that statement with my programmer's hat on and it doesn't make sense because you are saying it worked against them. Fifa's stats say that VAR has ben 98.*something*% correct, even if you don't believe that to my own eyes the games that I have seen have resulted in the right call being made *eventually* (and eventually might be downplaying the time taken!) so to say 'VAR worked against them' is to say that they would have done better if they had got away with something they shouldn't have if the ref was on point in applying the laws. I have a suspicion why they ran it through 50 times when it was obvious on the VT. I watched two replays, saw it come off her arm and it appeared to be as blatant a hand ball as you can get. I think (and there is enough evidence for this) that the one drawback with rugby is happening in football. VAR is excellent in rugby apart from the refs use it as a crutch and it is becoming the same in football: too scared to rule out a goal without 100% certainty which means endless replays just to be sure even though we know it's blatant. Same with the penalty today. Not sure why you don't get this. I'm saying they were unlucky coz they played in a WC where VAR uncovered their technical infringements which probably wouldn't have been uncovered without VAR. It's pretty simple. You're just choosing to not define this as luck and to define it as justice or something. The reason I don't like VAR is unrelated to this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2019 20:36:39 GMT
I'm trying to parse that statement with my programmer's hat on and it doesn't make sense because you are saying it worked against them. Fifa's stats say that VAR has ben 98.*something*% correct, even if you don't believe that to my own eyes the games that I have seen have resulted in the right call being made *eventually* (and eventually might be downplaying the time taken!) so to say 'VAR worked against them' is to say that they would have done better if they had got away with something they shouldn't have if the ref was on point in applying the laws. I have a suspicion why they ran it through 50 times when it was obvious on the VT. I watched two replays, saw it come off her arm and it appeared to be as blatant a hand ball as you can get. I think (and there is enough evidence for this) that the one drawback with rugby is happening in football. VAR is excellent in rugby apart from the refs use it as a crutch and it is becoming the same in football: too scared to rule out a goal without 100% certainty which means endless replays just to be sure even though we know it's blatant. Same with the penalty today. Not sure why you don't get this. I'm saying they were unlucky coz they played in a WC where VAR uncovered their technical infringements which probably wouldn't have been uncovered without VAR. It's pretty simple. You're just choosing to not define this as luck and to define it as justice or something. The reason I don't like VAR is unrelated to this. Well quite, and if Maradona was around today he wouldn’t have won a World Cup- and quite right too. We have reached an era where skill is more likely to triumph because clandestine play will be called out and that is great in my view, but I feel like I’m in a minority. As Johnathan Pearce basically said: “if it wasn’t for rules Ellen White could have had 8 and won the golden boot!”. Yeah, damn those rules...
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Jul 7, 2019 20:47:52 GMT
Not sure why you don't get this. I'm saying they were unlucky coz they played in a WC where VAR uncovered their technical infringements which probably wouldn't have been uncovered without VAR. It's pretty simple. You're just choosing to not define this as luck and to define it as justice or something. The reason I don't like VAR is unrelated to this. Well quite, and if Maradona was around today he wouldn’t have won a World Cup- and quite right too. We have reached an era where skill is more likely to triumph because clandestine play will be called out and that is great in my view, but I feel like I’m in a minority. As Johnathan Pearce basically said: “if it wasn’t for rules Ellen White could have had 8 and won the golden boot!”. Yeah, damn those rules... Well, I don't think that it's that people don't want skill and justice to triumph, it's about the steps the game has to go through to try and get there, and actually how close are they getting to it, in any case. Personally, the idea that more or less half the time the balls goes in the net, you have to stand there for three minutes waiting to know whether you have anything to celebrate, decided on criteria not necessarily visible to the naked eye, is not really a price worth paying. Especially when we're talking about three inches of ankle being offside.
|
|