|
Post by toddy1953 on Feb 8, 2021 14:19:15 GMT
So the decision has been overturned - Mike Dean has received death threats, which is pathetic. Mirovitch should get a retrospective red and banned for 3 games for going down & rolling around like he’s been shot. Whilst players get away with this it will always be difficult even with VAR. Without crowds it’s easy to hear players screaming after a tackle only to get up seconds later, it makes the referee’s job a lot harder. Would be interested in Staffs view of today’s official’s/ rules, especially the offside one where the flag doesn’t go up straight away, a mate used to run the line at Conference ten years ago, & gave up after 2/3 seasons, fed up that most refs would brief before that he didn’t want them to make any decisions without consulting first, he would often have to reverse throw in decisions, even though he was closer to the action & was convinced his decision was correct. He found himself spending more time keeping an eye on the ref than the game, & would get dogs abuse from the players as result. I think VAR should be for goal line incidents only, during a game, the offside of millimetres should always be in favour on the attacking team, it ruins the game. By all means use technology retrospectively if someone has been cited for foul play that the officials might miss.
|
|
|
Post by A Source (aka Angry Badger) on Feb 8, 2021 15:13:34 GMT
VAR improvement number 1. Unless you can levitate you need your feet to move. Offside should be based on where the foot is. Pointing where you want the ball played and having your hand offside is a joke. Mr Tickle would be furious
|
|
|
Post by carlts2020 on Feb 8, 2021 21:06:32 GMT
Would it not be an idea for the 4th official to join the referee at the pitch side video?
The ref would then have someone to bounce his thoughts off, a second opinion and with the VAR officials a two against one position.
Pressure off the ref and a consensus verdict.
|
|
|
Post by singupgas on Feb 9, 2021 1:13:32 GMT
I personally think there should be a review system, each team has 3 time to call upon VAR each game. I would also like more decisions to be given in favour of the defenders, the game has become too easy for attackers to go down at slight touch or none at all to win Penalties.
|
|
|
Post by 1986gashead on Feb 9, 2021 5:06:42 GMT
View AttachmentI did 12 seasons on the FL as a lineman.No earpieces,no VAR,just common sense and we could always consult like me here at Anfield in '89.Liverpool claimed Arsenal's goal was indirect and had gone in directly without touching anyone else.Alan Smith in fact had glanced it in with his head but we didn't need VAR,Replays etc.The decision actually determined that Arsenal and not Liverpool won the title.Match played in late May due to the Hillsborough disaster. Bloody hell fair play! I’ve worked jobs where I’m hated most of my life but I do not envy you doing that haha bet you’ve broke a million hearts in your time!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2021 9:35:26 GMT
The problem is, every other sport isn't football. The game stands apart in terms of flow and subjective application of the laws. VAR is dreadful, let's be honest. It's horrendous for supporters, no genuine football fan has ever looked me in the eye and told me it's improved the game and the experience of watching. You've nailed the force behind this, which is financial and not about improving the game. Today's decision epitomises what a shambles the system is. It must never be allowed at L1 level. It hasn’t improved the match day experience at the moment because it’s being completely mismanaged. Whether we like it or not sport at the very highest level is big business and you can’t have situations where millions of tv viewers can see a foul has been committed or an offside missed that has directly influenced a wrong outcome but the officials cannot be given the opportunity of seeing the same footage. I don’t get this football snobbery that our sport should be seen as different to all others. Although VAR is unlikely to filter down to the lower levels of the game how would we have felt if Mansfield’s goal that sent us to the conference was handball or clearly offside and missed by officials? How would people feel if we lost to Germany to a last minute goal that was punched in by Thomas Muller? Quite rightly it’s here, it’s staying and hopefully the officials start getting their act together and make it work properly. Get back to what it was bought in for which was to overturn ‘clear and obvious errors’. Let the referee use their own judgement on whether a handball was deliberate and not based on some odd definition of what counts as an arm dependent on the length of your sleeve. Get back to offside being what it was created for, stopping goal hanging and stopping strikers gaining an unfair advantage - a start would be saying there must be daylight so you can’t be offside when you are facing the wrong direction but part of your foot may be 1mm beyond the last defender who might be out on the opposite touchline with no chance of influencing that passage of play anyway! That's your perspective Eric but I'd disagree with a lot of your points. You're of course right saying football is a big business - it's the biggest sport in the world. And it's the biggest sport for a reason. The flow of the game, the subjective application of many laws, the unique emotion of the goal and the atmosphere off the pitch are just some of the ingredients which set it apart. People often play the comparison to other sports card in this debate but the reality is football is quite significantly different in many aspects and doesn't allow for technology to be integrated into decision making in a subtle way. You've therefore got a very real trade of between the experience of watching a game and enjoying the beautiful chaos the game has to offer versus compromising this to ensure a slight perceived improvement in decision making. The game was thriving without utilising a significant amount of technology on a matchday - it wasn't broken yet VAR offers a radical and imposing solution. You say it's being mismanaged, but all the horrible scenarios we've seen play out since it's introduction are wholly consistent with its purpose. Officials have made blunders sure, but the damage runs a lot deeper than this. The whole notion of 'clear and obvious' was flawed from the offset - both are subjective terms in the context of football and will mean different things to different people. You highlight the offside law - and logically there is very little wrong with the law in its existing wording. It's rarely been an issue to date and makes generally makes a lot of sense. Prior to VAR, common sense prevailed and whilst there were occasional errors, the flow of the game was preserved. Since VAR, the forensic examination of passages of play have been farcical - and whatever cut off point you choose to use, the mm inspections will follow and of course they should - it's what VAR was introduced for after all. Whether it's 1mm or 3 metres, it's offside. In terms of Mansfield's goal or a last minute loss to Germany, it's worth highlighting the outcome of a game, season or competition doesn't come down to one incident. Advocates of VAR are more than happy to brush over missed chances, poor play, poor tactical decisions and even awful decisions which don't fit into the box of retrospective assessment. The emotional response will be to attribute the outcome to one moment but games and seasons are defined by more than a single incident. If we can improve decision making whilst preserving the flow and emotion of the game and ensuring decisions are arrived at very swiftly, I'm for it. VAR fails on all three counts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2021 15:51:15 GMT
It hasn’t improved the match day experience at the moment because it’s being completely mismanaged. Whether we like it or not sport at the very highest level is big business and you can’t have situations where millions of tv viewers can see a foul has been committed or an offside missed that has directly influenced a wrong outcome but the officials cannot be given the opportunity of seeing the same footage. I don’t get this football snobbery that our sport should be seen as different to all others. Although VAR is unlikely to filter down to the lower levels of the game how would we have felt if Mansfield’s goal that sent us to the conference was handball or clearly offside and missed by officials? How would people feel if we lost to Germany to a last minute goal that was punched in by Thomas Muller? Quite rightly it’s here, it’s staying and hopefully the officials start getting their act together and make it work properly. Get back to what it was bought in for which was to overturn ‘clear and obvious errors’. Let the referee use their own judgement on whether a handball was deliberate and not based on some odd definition of what counts as an arm dependent on the length of your sleeve. Get back to offside being what it was created for, stopping goal hanging and stopping strikers gaining an unfair advantage - a start would be saying there must be daylight so you can’t be offside when you are facing the wrong direction but part of your foot may be 1mm beyond the last defender who might be out on the opposite touchline with no chance of influencing that passage of play anyway! That's your perspective Eric but I'd disagree with a lot of your points. You're of course right saying football is a big business - it's the biggest sport in the world. And it's the biggest sport for a reason. The flow of the game, the subjective application of many laws, the unique emotion of the goal and the atmosphere off the pitch are just some of the ingredients which set it apart. People often play the comparison to other sports card in this debate but the reality is football is quite significantly different in many aspects and doesn't allow for technology to be integrated into decision making in a subtle way. You've therefore got a very real trade of between the experience of watching a game and enjoying the beautiful chaos the game has to offer versus compromising this to ensure a slight perceived improvement in decision making. The game was thriving without utilising a significant amount of technology on a matchday - it wasn't broken yet VAR offers a radical and imposing solution. You say it's being mismanaged, but all the horrible scenarios we've seen play out since it's introduction are wholly consistent with its purpose. Officials have made blunders sure, but the damage runs a lot deeper than this. The whole notion of 'clear and obvious' was flawed from the offset - both are subjective terms in the context of football and will mean different things to different people. You highlight the offside law - and logically there is very little wrong with the law in its existing wording. It's rarely been an issue to date and makes generally makes a lot of sense. Prior to VAR, common sense prevailed and whilst there were occasional errors, the flow of the game was preserved. Since VAR, the forensic examination of passages of play have been farcical - and whatever cut off point you choose to use, the mm inspections will follow and of course they should - it's what VAR was introduced for after all. Whether it's 1mm or 3 metres, it's offside. In terms of Mansfield's goal or a last minute loss to Germany, it's worth highlighting the outcome of a game, season or competition doesn't come down to one incident. Advocates of VAR are more than happy to brush over missed chances, poor play, poor tactical decisions and even awful decisions which don't fit into the box of retrospective assessment. The emotional response will be to attribute the outcome to one moment but games and seasons are defined by more than a single incident. If we can improve decision making whilst preserving the flow and emotion of the game and ensuring decisions are arrived at very swiftly, I'm for it. VAR fails on all three counts. Have to agree to disagree. VAR is right in principle as we can’t have miscarriages of justice and we can’t have the outcome of huge matches partly dependent on the eyesight or judgement of one man in the middle when the whole world watching on tv can see he has made a mistake or failed to notice something. That is a huge weight for one individual to carry. The officials don’t need to review and scrutinise (effectively re-referee) every incident. If it’s largely subject, for example was the degree of contact sufficient to have felled an attacker, then there is no need to re-referee the incident - just stick with the decision. If there is a clear dive which the referee failed to spot then surely it’s only right that it’s brought to his attention and the decision overturned. That is ‘clear and obvious’ and decision needs overturning. I get your point about offside. There will always be tiny margins and the technology means that will continue. My point is the rule needs to reflect the principle of why offside was introduced to the game in the first place - to stop an attacker gaining an unfair advantage. At the moment having only 1mm of your body beyond the last defender is of no real advantage whereas having clear daylight means there is an unfair advantage being gained. I also get what you say about a decision not influencing a competition. That’s fair enough where over the course of a season everything usually levels itself out in a league competition. Even then one team could have a few wrong decisions go their way in a number of tight games whereas another team could get their ‘lucky’ decisions go their way when they were four goals down with a few minutes to play where the refs actions will have had no bearing on the result. Likewise in a cup competition, an otherwise tight final can be determined by an incorrect decision late in the game - surely that can’t be right?
|
|