Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2019 20:06:26 GMT
I blame lee archer! Archie! Archie! Archie!
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Dec 31, 2019 20:19:00 GMT
I blame lee archer! Archie! Archie! Archie! Are you on a sponsored name drop?
|
|
|
Post by Congas on Jan 1, 2020 8:24:16 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. Yeah, it will take time, offside especially, but I think they'll get there. Penalties are different though, VAR decisions have generally been correct and show that officials only have one pair of eyes each. There will probably be less diving, shirt-pulling, stamping and shoulder pull-backs in the box because intent is easier to detect on a screen. That has to be positive.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Jan 1, 2020 9:04:23 GMT
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. Yeah, it will take time, offside especially, but I think they'll get there. Penalties are different though, VAR decisions have generally been correct and show that officials only have one pair of eyes each. There will probably be less diving, shirt-pulling, stamping and shoulder pull-backs in the box because intent is easier to detect on a screen. That has to be positive. Well, we've seen all those happen and not be punished under VAR. In any case I don't see why we should examine those things closely in the box or in the lead-up to a goal, but ignore them elsewhere on the pitch. Why triple check an incident that leads to a goal but don't bother checking it when it leads to a corner, that then leads to a goal. Why re-examine an incident in midfield that could lead to team A having a legit, decent free kick and a goal chance if Team B scores a few seconds later, but not give them the free kick if team B misses a sitter. Why interconnect some, essentially unrelated, events in regards to closely examining the rules, and not other more closely connected events? Also, it's pretty clear refs are letting play go on (generously) because they know they will get a second chance to look at stuff if a goal is scored, but they won't get a second look if other decisions are made like free kicks and corners (which will then lead to a goal). Why would they ignore 60-40 free kicks or marginal offsides to later give 70-30 free kicks which won't be re-examined, so they can ignore 60-40 free kicks and marginal offsides which do lead to goals? Part of the reason it's a mess is that they are using different criteria for different times and places on the pitch, which is fundamentally against the spirit of the game in my view and cannot be cleared up through improved interpretation because that is the explicit desired basis for VAR. Part of the reason is because it is affecting how and when decisions are made (eg late offsides) Part of the reason is that close examination is seen to be no more accurate in some cases than real time, or TV coverage replays. Part of the reason is that super-close-up, super-slo-mo and pixel-bitching armpits distort perceptions of the game beyond what feels natural to a football fan. Part of the reason is that it's debatable, even if you get the accuracy and the consistency (which you can't coz they're explicitly trying for inconsistency) whether that's even worth it for the delays and buzzkills and the detriment to the live experience. It's a whole bigger sh** show than offside interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by pirate49 on Jan 1, 2020 9:42:45 GMT
Brian Clough on offside “If any one of my players isn’t interfering with play, they’re not getting paid"
|
|
|
Post by warehamgas on Jan 1, 2020 9:49:06 GMT
Who was the dickhead on Quest who said the goal should have stood? Clearly interfering with play whether he touched it or not! Trust Barton to make up sh** about the official apologising to him, what a load of old bollocks why would he apologise for the correct decision? Yep. If Barton told me today was New Years Day I’d check a calendar first. Bloke wouldn’t know the truth if it came up and kicked him up the ****. Happy New Year! UTG!
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Jan 1, 2020 10:08:27 GMT
Who was the dickhead on Quest who said the goal should have stood? Clearly interfering with play whether he touched it or not! Trust Barton to make up sh** about the official apologising to him, what a load of old bollocks why would he apologise for the correct decision? Yep. If Barton told me today was New Years Day I’d check a calendar first. Bloke wouldn’t know the truth if it came up and kicked him up the ****. Happy New Year! UTG! To be fair, he'd probably kick it first.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jan 1, 2020 10:12:41 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. The corner thing is just stupid. Players trying to pinch every millimetre for what exactly? Plonk it on the line and take it.
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Jan 1, 2020 10:16:51 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. Its not the problem of VAR are it is the implementation of it from the users. IFAB are saying again, like they have previously. Clear and obvious error. If its that close and they are drawing lines and measuring as exact as, then it aint clear and obvious The EPL and the referees have implemented the system incorrectly
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Jan 1, 2020 10:34:09 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. Its not the problem of VAR are it is the implementation of it from the users. IFAB are saying again, like they have previously. Clear and obvious error. If its that close and they are drawing lines and measuring as exact as, then it aint clear and obvious The EPL and the referees have implemented the system incorrectly You will still have the boundary between clear and obvious and not so clear and obvious, or very clear and obvious and quite clear and obvious which won't be clear and obvious.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2020 10:59:35 GMT
Keep the super slow motion and digital lines etc. Just go back to there needing to be daylight between the defender and attacker for the game to be stopped due to an offside and include any part of the body, regardless of whether it a part you can legally score with or otherwise.
Everyone needs to remember what offside is there for - surely it is to prevent an attacker gaining an unfair advantage? In which case having a daylight gap, no matter how big or small, represents an unfair advantage being gained.
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Jan 1, 2020 11:06:41 GMT
Keep the super slow motion and digital lines etc. Just go back to there needing to be daylight between the defender and attacker for the game to be stopped due to an offside and include any part of the body, regardless of whether it a part you can legally score with or otherwise. Everyone needs to remember what offside is there for - surely it is to prevent an attacker gaining an unfair advantage? In which case having a daylight gap, no matter how big or small, represents an unfair advantage being gained. Then, instead of checking for a millimetre of overlap you'll be checking for a millimetre of daylight. It will all be exactly the same, except a foot further downfield.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2020 16:28:54 GMT
Keep the super slow motion and digital lines etc. Just go back to there needing to be daylight between the defender and attacker for the game to be stopped due to an offside and include any part of the body, regardless of whether it a part you can legally score with or otherwise. Everyone needs to remember what offside is there for - surely it is to prevent an attacker gaining an unfair advantage? In which case having a daylight gap, no matter how big or small, represents an unfair advantage being gained. Then, instead of checking for a millimetre of overlap you'll be checking for a millimetre of daylight. It will all be exactly the same, except a foot further downfield. Surely daylight is a far better indicator of a player genuinely stealing an unfair advantage instead of the current version?
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Jan 1, 2020 16:33:08 GMT
Then, instead of checking for a millimetre of overlap you'll be checking for a millimetre of daylight. It will all be exactly the same, except a foot further downfield. Surely daylight is a far better indicator of a player genuinely stealing an unfair advantage instead of the current version? Yep, I agree with that, but you would need lino-cams to see it. The VAR cams are from above and at an angle so probably even more difficult to detect with them.'
|
|