|
Post by peterparker on Dec 31, 2019 12:53:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ilfracombegas on Dec 31, 2019 13:01:54 GMT
To me all the latest rule changes and VAR are destroying the game by taking positive emotions away from players and fans. Matters have been over complicated by these idiots in charge.
Whats wrong with the old rules - for example corners - a bit of the ball should physically touch the white line, there should be no gaps as are allowed now - this then is clear cut, same as if a ball goes out for a throw in, if any bit touches the line its in play, if theres a gap its out.
With regard the offside rule, the powers that be seem to forget the game is called FOOTBALL - therefore why can the rule not solely be concerned with where a players feet are in relation to a defenders. If any part of the back foot is level with a defenders it is onside, if there is a gap between the attackers back foot and the defenders then it is offside. Not the situation now where somebodys nose might just be offside, or another part of the lower anatomy !!!
If a player is blocking the keepers direct line of vision he is interfering with play even if he does not touch the ball, otherwise he should be onside
|
|
|
Post by socrates on Dec 31, 2019 13:11:17 GMT
To me all the latest rule changes and VAR are destroying the game by taking positive emotions away from players and fans. Matters have been over complicated by these idiots in charge. Whats wrong with the old rules - for example corners - a bit of the ball should physically touch the white line, there should be no gaps as are allowed now - this then is clear cut, same as if a ball goes out for a throw in, if any bit touches the line its in play, if theres a gap its out. With regard the offside rule, the powers that be seem to forget the game is called FOOTBALL - therefore why can the rule not solely be concerned with where a players feet are in relation to a defenders. If any part of the back foot is level with a defenders it is onside, if there is a gap between the attackers back foot and the defenders then it is offside. Not the situation now where somebodys nose might just be offside, or another part of the lower anatomy !!! If a player is blocking the keepers direct line of vision he is interfering with play even if he does not touch the ball, otherwise he should be onside In actual fact the ball is out of play when all of the ball is over all of the line, it doesn’t have to be touching the line. Obviously the ball is round so the bottom of the ball can be past the white line and the ball can be in play. It’s one of those rules that many fans don’t realise. AlwYs makes me laugh when half the thatchers end scream and shout at an opposing player is about to take a corner with the ball not touching the line but it is in the correct position.
|
|
|
Post by Congas on Dec 31, 2019 13:15:13 GMT
Laws get that way because we people are always trying to find ways around them, so it's our own silly fault :-). Once they tweak VAR this February it should function better and will probably be used further down the leagues. What it does do is eradicate the verbal abuse of officials when they get it wrong and with it the use of psychological pressure on them, not to get them to change their minds because, as Keith Brookman rightly points out every time, they won't, but it might get them to compensate later on in the game. Barton wouldn't have got in such a fit if VAR had been used in the game because he would have had to accept the obvious. Conclusion: VAR is very therapeutic for headcases like him.
|
|
|
Post by ineedgas on Dec 31, 2019 13:21:23 GMT
Nonsense Barton should have just accepted the decision, there were still 10 mins to go and Fleetwood were all over us, one day he'll end up seriously injuring somebody at a football ground. I don't understand how the Fleetwood owner puts up with Barton. It's not nonsense. If the officials are admitting that they have made a mistake, then he's every right to be furious. If you were involved in an accident. The insurers say it is your fault, so you have to pay but then say it is not your fault, but you are still the one having to pay, how would you feel? I think the right decision was made, but it was a fairly subjective one. Doesn't your insurer tell you not to admit liability if it's your fault or not can't see the linesman saying he made a mistake without seeing a replay of the incident first and even then saying he was w w w wrong
|
|
|
Post by Congas on Dec 31, 2019 13:51:00 GMT
It's not nonsense. If the officials are admitting that they have made a mistake, then he's every right to be furious. If you were involved in an accident. The insurers say it is your fault, so you have to pay but then say it is not your fault, but you are still the one having to pay, how would you feel? I think the right decision was made, but it was a fairly subjective one. Doesn't your insurer tell you not to admit liability if it's your fault or not can't see the linesman saying he made a mistake without seeing a replay of the incident first and even then saying he was w w w wrong He could well be on Barton's flagellation list...
|
|
|
Post by Gas Go Marching In on Dec 31, 2019 13:51:20 GMT
It's not nonsense. If the officials are admitting that they have made a mistake, then he's every right to be furious. If you were involved in an accident. The insurers say it is your fault, so you have to pay but then say it is not your fault, but you are still the one having to pay, how would you feel? I think the right decision was made, but it was a fairly subjective one. I guess that's why Barton gets away with acting like he does if you feel he was right to carry on ranting like a nutcase until he got a red card. Although do you serioulsy think any ref is going to admit making a mistake anyway. Both Barton and one of our lads (Garner, Upson or Leahy can't remember) confirmed it. So yes I do. I think it was the linesman who disallowed it not the ref. As for Barton, we all know the bloke is a cock, and I thought he was at the time. However, on this occasion I can understand his frustration a little.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Dec 31, 2019 14:02:20 GMT
I guess that's why Barton gets away with acting like he does if you feel he was right to carry on ranting like a nutcase until he got a red card. Although do you serioulsy think any ref is going to admit making a mistake anyway. Both Barton and one of our lads (Garner, Upson or Leahy can't remember) confirmed it. So yes I do. I think it was the linesman who disallowed it not the ref. As for Barton, we all know the bloke is a cock, and I thought he was at the time. However, on this occasion I can understand his frustration a little. You must be the only person who thinks it's OK for Barton to totally lose control and get yet another red card. Particularly when it was clear to most of us that Madden was stood a yard offside.
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 31, 2019 14:12:43 GMT
That disallowed goal on Saturday divided two people on the Quest programme and really showed what a farce the authorities have made when changing the rule. I wont even bother with VAR which thank god doesn't get used at our level and I hope it never will. The only thing that was needed was goal line technology and leave the rest to the referee and linesmen. Opinions? Lot of myths on this thread.
There has been no change in the laws around offside - just a minor rewording to the definition of interfering with play, which has been in place for over 20 years. they used to say 'plays or attempts to play the ball', now they are just clearer on what 'plays or attempts to play' actually means. The decision on Saturday was correct - there was an attempt to play the ball.
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 31, 2019 14:15:58 GMT
I like the Souness rule. Souness on sky sports came up with the idea that it should be based on the players defender and attackers feet only. So no armpit hair for example. When you have a striker bending his run and his feet is onside but then he is leaning into an offside position with his arm and shoulder, he should be classed as onside as his feet is still onside and his body leaning forward is a natural position. Shouldn't get penalised for bending his run timed perfectly. As for Saturday, I think the right decision was made. He made a clear impact on Jaakkola's decision to wait. I agree in principle with that change, but it won't solve the problem of VAR trying to be more accurate than it's natural tolerances should allow. It would also make the job of a linesman without VAR harder. It's easier for a linesman using his eyes only to see if someone is offside when looking at their whole body, rather than just looking at their feet, especially as the opposing players may be wearing the same colour boots.
|
|
|
Post by Gas Go Marching In on Dec 31, 2019 14:17:43 GMT
Both Barton and one of our lads (Garner, Upson or Leahy can't remember) confirmed it. So yes I do. I think it was the linesman who disallowed it not the ref. As for Barton, we all know the bloke is a cock, and I thought he was at the time. However, on this occasion I can understand his frustration a little. You must be the only person who thinks it's OK for Barton to totally lose control and get yet another red card. Particularly when it was clear to most of us that Madden was stood a yard offside. But then we are bias. I think it was the right decision because Madden played it. But it is not a clear cut decision. And like I said if the linesman is admitting he f**ked up, then it is only natural he was frustrated. One of our coaches got a booking as well you know, because we were worried it would get overruled when the lino admitted he had made a mistake.
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 31, 2019 14:20:20 GMT
To me all the latest rule changes and VAR are destroying the game by taking positive emotions away from players and fans. Matters have been over complicated by these idiots in charge. Whats wrong with the old rules - for example corners - a bit of the ball should physically touch the white line, there should be no gaps as are allowed now - this then is clear cut, same as if a ball goes out for a throw in, if any bit touches the line its in play, if theres a gap its out. With regard the offside rule, the powers that be seem to forget the game is called FOOTBALL - therefore why can the rule not solely be concerned with where a players feet are in relation to a defenders. If any part of the back foot is level with a defenders it is onside, if there is a gap between the attackers back foot and the defenders then it is offside. Not the situation now where somebodys nose might just be offside, or another part of the lower anatomy !!! If a player is blocking the keepers direct line of vision he is interfering with play even if he does not touch the ball, otherwise he should be onside Blimey
1. You are making up old rules. It's always been the whole ball in/out, never based on touching the line. What you are proposing would actually be slightly harder for linesmen to judge.
2. Yes it's called football, but are you aware that you are allowed to touch the ball with other parts of the body, not just the feet?
You're complaining about the powers changing the rules, but that's exactly what you are suggesting!
|
|
|
Post by ilfracombegas on Dec 31, 2019 14:32:05 GMT
To me all the latest rule changes and VAR are destroying the game by taking positive emotions away from players and fans. Matters have been over complicated by these idiots in charge. Whats wrong with the old rules - for example corners - a bit of the ball should physically touch the white line, there should be no gaps as are allowed now - this then is clear cut, same as if a ball goes out for a throw in, if any bit touches the line its in play, if theres a gap its out. With regard the offside rule, the powers that be seem to forget the game is called FOOTBALL - therefore why can the rule not solely be concerned with where a players feet are in relation to a defenders. If any part of the back foot is level with a defenders it is onside, if there is a gap between the attackers back foot and the defenders then it is offside. Not the situation now where somebodys nose might just be offside, or another part of the lower anatomy !!! If a player is blocking the keepers direct line of vision he is interfering with play even if he does not touch the ball, otherwise he should be onside In actual fact the ball is out of play when all of the ball is over all of the line, it doesn’t have to be touching the line. Obviously the ball is round so the bottom of the ball can be past the white line and the ball can be in play. It’s one of those rules that many fans don’t realise. AlwYs makes me laugh when half the thatchers end scream and shout at an opposing player is about to take a corner with the ball not touching the line but it is in the correct position. But this is the point I am making - the curve of the ball is not always obvious down to the white line including for officials, there are still inconsistencies - thus this overcomplicates matters - before VAR a gap showing was enough to be judged out of play - what was wrong with this rule ? - much simpler and easier for all to see and accept
|
|
|
Post by ilfracombegas on Dec 31, 2019 14:40:02 GMT
To me all the latest rule changes and VAR are destroying the game by taking positive emotions away from players and fans. Matters have been over complicated by these idiots in charge. Whats wrong with the old rules - for example corners - a bit of the ball should physically touch the white line, there should be no gaps as are allowed now - this then is clear cut, same as if a ball goes out for a throw in, if any bit touches the line its in play, if theres a gap its out. With regard the offside rule, the powers that be seem to forget the game is called FOOTBALL - therefore why can the rule not solely be concerned with where a players feet are in relation to a defenders. If any part of the back foot is level with a defenders it is onside, if there is a gap between the attackers back foot and the defenders then it is offside. Not the situation now where somebodys nose might just be offside, or another part of the lower anatomy !!! If a player is blocking the keepers direct line of vision he is interfering with play even if he does not touch the ball, otherwise he should be onside Blimey
1. You are making up old rules. It's always been the whole ball in/out, never based on touching the line. What you are proposing would actually be slightly harder for linesmen to judge.
2. Yes it's called football, but are you aware that you are allowed to touch the ball with other parts of the body, not just the feet?
You're complaining about the powers changing the rules, but that's exactly what you are suggesting!
I disagree this has not always been the case in the rules - there are many instances which can be referenced from matches where commentators have argued if the ball was touching the line. It is easier to see if something is touching the line than if another part of it is not. And having been to well over 1500 Rovers games, I have seen too many instances of where linesman used to insist the ball was touching the line for corners to be taken - so perhaps all those officials going back over 50 years and more were wrong ?? Your comment about being allowed to touch other parts of the body, that is not relevant in trying to identify a means in which VAR and officials can be consistent - it is about what is and is not easy to view and manage - at the moment it is a farce, and technology is destroying the game as it currently stands.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2019 14:58:20 GMT
The problem with VAR and offside is that VAR freezes the game at one particular point, and then looks to see if any part of the strikers body is ahead of the last defender. It is trying to be precise. However, VAR cannot determine the exact moment the ball leaves the foot of the player passing it, it just can't, so it is frozen at the point when a VAR official decides it should be frozen. So one end of the play is precise down to centimetres but the other end is pure guesswork.
|
|
|
Post by Topper Gas on Dec 31, 2019 15:28:28 GMT
The problem with VAR and offside is that VAR freezes the game at one particular point, and then looks to see if any part of the strikers body is ahead of the last defender. It is trying to be precise. However, VAR cannot determine the exact moment the ball leaves the foot of the player passing it, it just can't, so it is frozen at the point when a VAR official decides it should be frozen. So one end of the play is precise down to centimetres but the other end is pure guesswork. But whenever was a linesman eyesight so accurate he could see if a players toes where just offside, VAR has rewritten the offside rules without anyone apparently wanting them to be changed. Although what's baffling is why this wasn't picked up during the trials of VAR and some thought then given to how offside laws were going to work with post VAR.
|
|
|
Post by faggotygas on Dec 31, 2019 16:39:28 GMT
Blimey
1. You are making up old rules. It's always been the whole ball in/out, never based on touching the line. What you are proposing would actually be slightly harder for linesmen to judge.
2. Yes it's called football, but are you aware that you are allowed to touch the ball with other parts of the body, not just the feet?
You're complaining about the powers changing the rules, but that's exactly what you are suggesting!
I disagree this has not always been the case in the rules - there are many instances which can be referenced from matches where commentators have argued if the ball was touching the line. It is easier to see if something is touching the line than if another part of it is not. And having been to well over 1500 Rovers games, I have seen too many instances of where linesman used to insist the ball was touching the line for corners to be taken - so perhaps all those officials going back over 50 years and more were wrong ?? Your comment about being allowed to touch other parts of the body, that is not relevant in trying to identify a means in which VAR and officials can be consistent - it is about what is and is not easy to view and manage - at the moment it is a farce, and technology is destroying the game as it currently stands. It's certainly been the whole of the ball and the whole of the line since I was a kid, and as far as I can find, the laws regarding pitch markings haven't changed in going on for 100 years. How far do you want to go back - until 1872 the ball was thrown in from the corner flag, I guess that would be easier to administer?
Having run the line in over a hundred grassroots games, I can tell you that in the real world, it's not easy to see if the bottom of the ball is touching the line, especially if the ball is very close (so looking down) or very far away from you. I can also tell you that it's easier to see if a torso is offside, rather than a foot amongst many feet.
Regarding corners - again, when a linesman is looking down at the ball from above, it's easier to see if the edge of the ball is over the edge of the line, rather than the bottom of the ball is touching the line. The lino would have to crouch down to see!
For me the issue isn't the 'armpit' problem, it's the attempt to force too much accuracy out of a system that naturally has tolerances. The change should not be to the laws, but to the use of VAR - if distance offside is within a certain margin, then the officials should go with the on-pitch decision.
|
|
|
Post by Big Jock on Dec 31, 2019 16:42:55 GMT
I disagree this has not always been the case in the rules - there are many instances which can be referenced from matches where commentators have argued if the ball was touching the line. It is easier to see if something is touching the line than if another part of it is not. And having been to well over 1500 Rovers games, I have seen too many instances of where linesman used to insist the ball was touching the line for corners to be taken - so perhaps all those officials going back over 50 years and more were wrong ?? Your comment about being allowed to touch other parts of the body, that is not relevant in trying to identify a means in which VAR and officials can be consistent - it is about what is and is not easy to view and manage - at the moment it is a farce, and technology is destroying the game as it currently stands. It's certainly been the whole of the ball and the whole of the line since I was a kid, and as far as I can find, the laws regarding pitch markings haven't changed in going on for 100 years. How far do you want to go back - until 1872 the ball was thrown in from the corner flag, I guess that would be easier to administer?
Having run the line in over a hundred grassroots games, I can tell you that in the real world, it's not easy to see if the bottom of the ball is touching the line, especially if the ball is very close (so looking down) or very far away from you. I can also tell you that it's easier to see if a torso is offside, rather than a foot amongst many feet.
Regarding corners - again, when a linesman is looking down at the ball from above, it's easier to see if the edge of the ball is over the edge of the line, rather than the bottom of the ball is touching the line. The lino would have to crouch down to see!
For me the issue isn't the 'armpit' problem, it's the attempt to force too much accuracy out of a system that naturally has tolerances. The change should not be to the laws, but to the use of VAR - if distance offside is within a certain margin, then the officials should go with the on-pitch decision.
Agree with you here pal. VAR should always have just one mandate - CLEAR AND OBVIOUS!
Anything other than that and th decision made by th officials on th pitch should stand.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Dec 31, 2019 16:51:45 GMT
Laws get that way because we people are always trying to find ways around them, so it's our own silly fault :-). Once they tweak VAR this February it should function better and will probably be used further down the leagues. What it does do is eradicate the verbal abuse of officials when they get it wrong and with it the use of psychological pressure on them, not to get them to change their minds because, as Keith Brookman rightly points out every time, they won't, but it might get them to compensate later on in the game. Barton wouldn't have got in such a fit if VAR had been used in the game because he would have had to accept the obvious. Conclusion: VAR is very therapeutic for headcases like him. No, it's still fundamentally flawed, even if they sort out the current interpretation ridiculousness. Anything that requires different interpretations of the rules depending on when and where on the pitch they take place is fundamentally anathema to the good of the game, imo.
|
|
|
Post by Squiffy on Dec 31, 2019 19:10:47 GMT
I think someone mentioned on a previous thread that it should be like tennis where there is a limited number of challenges throughout the match, say 3 per team each half. That way the number of stoppages are limited, it’s the manager’s call not a remote bunch of people in a call centre, it would then be for significant events only and the referee would be more in control of the game.
|
|