Rival watch

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
KingHotspur said:
Var will always be an issue because humans are involved. Even with the benefit of multiple camera angles, they can’t get basic things right.
Click to expand...
I enjoyed football much more when i was a youth on the terraces.
With no 40 different camera angles, ultra slow mo or pixel thin lines we used to cheer a goal then look and say "ref says no" and accept it. Same for all teams, always been subject to human error but played by humans and officiated by same so ok.
 
  • Like
Reactions: maggie blanchflower, "Thanks for that Brian" and crackerman jack
Diego said:
I enjoyed football much more when i was a youth on the terraces.
With no 40 different camera angles, ultra slow mo or pixel thin lines we used to cheer a goal then look and say "ref says no" and accept it. Same for all teams, always been subject to human error but played by humans and officiated by same so ok.
Click to expand...

I understand why they brought it in and agree with having video technology but like Alan Shearer said on motd, it’s not supposed to be used like it is. There was absolutely no reason for the var to get involved for the West Ham goal, but then to get involved and then make a decision that baffling is crazy. Whoever was the var official needs to be sent on some training or taken off it until they improve.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crackerman jack and Diego
Diego said:
I enjoyed football much more when i was a youth on the terraces.
With no 40 different camera angles, ultra slow mo or pixel thin lines we used to cheer a goal then look and say "ref says no" and accept it. Same for all teams, always been subject to human error but played by humans and officiated by same so ok.
Click to expand...
Yes, but then people got pissed off at your hero cheating the system all the time.
There's only so much Fergie Time and Old Trafford Decisions that people can take.
Now we've got this ****ing mess and your lot are still getting away with it.
 
"It's not VAR - let me get this correct. VAR just records the TV footage, it's the people who are running VAR.
"It's those human beings who are making the decisions. It's the referees stuck in that office, wherever they are, making the decisions."
Tony Pulis.

He's right, of course.
Crowding the ref is back, too. Both sides did it in our game.
Mitrovic should've gone for the amount of **** he gave the ref after being booked for it already.
 
PleaseNotPoll said:
"It's not VAR - let me get this correct. VAR just records the TV footage, it's the people who are running VAR.
"It's those human beings who are making the decisions. It's the referees stuck in that office, wherever they are, making the decisions."
Tony Pulis.

He's right, of course.
Crowding the ref is back, too. Both sides did it in our game.
Mitrovic should've gone for the amount of **** he gave the ref after being booked for it already.
Click to expand...
And he's right of course. Now people are being asked to make decisions on absolute minimal things that millions of people who see the same footage can't agree on.
Human game played and officiated by humans at human speed ruined.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spurf and KingHotspur
It’s laughable that Blueman and Ginger in the general match day thread actually think it was a foul on Mendy. They were the first to bitch and whine at all the supposed terrible decisions and refereeing in the game against us. Funny how blinkered they are when decisions go in favour of their team not against.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vimhawk
PleaseNotPoll said:
The time on the board is the rough amount that the ref feels should be added at that point.
He somehow found another 3 minutes in the five that was "right" when the 90 ended.

I'd have no issue with it if this was a common thing that happened in every game.
It doesn't. It's rather selective.
That's why they brought the board in in the first place. ****ing Fergie time.
Click to expand...
3 mins extra after 5 is the equivalent of adding 27 mins at the end of the half.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spurlock, Left on the Shelf, vimhawk and 1 other person
Diego said:
I really like that idea for the way the game is played now <ok>

It would be better if offside was used for it's original intent though which was stopping a player gaining "unfair advantage".

A player is not seeking to gain unfair advantage by being faster of foot or reaction than his opponent, neither is a striker seeking unfair advantage at a free kick or corner when defenders run away from goal and leave them in space, that is just a cowardly way of defending invented by Big Sam for Bolton and abusing the offside rule.
Click to expand...

IMHO offside for an attacking player P should be
(at the point the ball is played by anyone) :

P is in motion beforehand such that they have
gained a physical advantage over the defence
in being closer to the goal (a foot race, opportunity
for a header etc)

So for me :

- there is no 'offside by a hair's breadth' .

- I do not care where on the pitch P starts their
movement from, whether on the opposition goal line or
their own. All that matters is that at the moment the ball
is played, P is not closer to the goal than aforementioned
defenders.
 
remembercolinlee said:
That is funny cos it's West ham but also shockingly bad <laugh>
Click to expand...

The "steel man" view of this IMHO is the officials have
to decide whether the :

1. contact between player and GK really has incapacitated the latter

2. GK is indulging in "amateur dramatics" (could be
bad if they call this and the player really is injured) .


I contend that the fear within #2 is why VAR said "no" .
 
If the offside rule has to exist (and I just about accept why it does), then it needs to favour the attacking side more - and be interpreted in such a way. It’s 11 v 11; every opponent can be marked. If teams choose to set up to play an offside trap, then they take a risk. They shouldn’t have an insurance policy in the officials. Football is principally about scoring goals; the default position shouldn’t be to protect the defenders. Assume onside unless there is clear evidence the player is offside (daylight)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alfie Conn, The RDBD, Left on the Shelf and 1 other person
littleDinosaurLuke said:
If the offside rule has to exist (and I just about accept why it does), then it needs to favour the attacking side more - and be interpreted in such a way. It’s 11 v 11; every opponent can be marked. If teams choose to set up to play an offside trap, then they take a risk. They shouldn’t have an insurance policy in the officials. Football is principally about scoring goals; the default position shouldn’t be to protect the defenders. Assume onside unless there is clear evidence the player is offside (daylight)
Click to expand...

Playing the offside trap is a risk, which is why teams try and play on the finest lines to get attackers offside. If a defence is superbly coached and plays the offside trap perfectly, why should they be penalised when the officials get it wrong? Offside is a binary decision and while the marginal calls are frustrating, it ultimately rewards good defending, and a little luck as exists in all sports.

Where VAR falls down is that it obviously cannot remove human error from the non-binary calls, and that’s frustrating for everyone. Handball is also ever more complex. The laws of the game are overly complicated. But offside isn’t a problem IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobbyD
The Huddlefro said:
Playing the offside trap is a risk, which is why teams try and play on the finest lines to get attackers offside. If a defence is superbly coached and plays the offside trap perfectly, why should they be penalised when the officials get it wrong? Offside is a binary decision and while the marginal calls are frustrating, it ultimately rewards good defending, and a little luck as exists in all sports.

Where VAR falls down is that it obviously cannot remove human error from the non-binary calls, and that’s frustrating for everyone. Handball is also ever more complex. The laws of the game are overly complicated. But offside isn’t a problem IMO.
Click to expand...
It is a binary decision but like the lbw law in cricket, it is far from straightforward in applying and interpreting it. If the officials are told to assume onside unless clear evidence it is offside, the the hair’s breadth decisions should be decided in favour of the attacking side.
I don’t accept that playing for offside is a legitimate tactic which merits the support of officials It is in the interests of the game that a team who adopts such tactics bears the risk.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobbyD and Spurf
littleDinosaurLuke said:
If the offside rule has to exist (and I just about accept why it does), then it needs to favour the attacking side more - and be interpreted in such a way. It’s 11 v 11; every opponent can be marked. If teams choose to set up to play an offside trap, then they take a risk. They shouldn’t have an insurance policy in the officials.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

Attack vs defence is a chess game.
The skill is how to play both well, and just as
importantly, how you transition between them.

The key is in the term : offside TRAP.

As in life, traps that are set can be bypassed or not triggered.
We don;t punish the targets because they may
have managed to do so by a matter of millimetres.

So it should be in football.
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
It is a binary decision but like the lbw law in cricket, it is far from straightforward in applying and interpreting it. If the officials are told to assume onside unless clear evidence it is offside, the the hair’s breadth decisions should be decided in favour of the attacking side.
I don’t accept that playing for offside is a legitimate tactic which merits the support of officials It is in the interests of the game that a team who adopts such tactics bears the risk.
Click to expand...

They already do bear the risk. What officiating should do is ensure that the success or failure of the tactic is decided accurately.
 
Leicester take the lead in the first minute and they're behind after 15. Rodgers must be fuming.
 
Brighton have a goal disallowed for an offside that had no bearing on the goal and caused Leicester no disadvantage. Should the rules of the game operate to deny a player scoring a 25 yard screamer into the top corner?
 
littleDinosaurLuke said:
Brighton have a goal disallowed for an offside that had no bearing on the goal and caused Leicester no disadvantage. Should the rules of the game operate to deny a player scoring a 25 yard screamer into the top corner?
Click to expand...
No

That decision further brings the game into disrepute. Farsical that it took nearly 5 minutes to review and incident that had no influence over the goal.

In any rate, maybe introduce a 30sec rule for reviews. If not clear in that time then the original decision stands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back