No one decision affects anyone's livelihood. If you are in the position to let one decision have a material effect you will get what you deserve sooner or later. You have to be better than that Clubs at the bottom are there for a reason What the rules were designed to do was stop what forest did with money to stay up and what Ipswich are trying now. Spend wildly and gamble on making it then take the small.points deduction is the lesson learned it seems Those owners are gambling the futures of their staff as a result. No ref making one bad call is going to relegate a side and if we make it that way then refs will be too afraid to ref with any common sense.
I get that viewpoint but there has to be a line It’s almost like the goal line to me If you are having a rule it has to be clear tbph the simplest solution is to remove the offside rule if people can’t agree on a line But if a line is agreed and it’s the rule it needs to be adhered to - to the mm - surely ? otherwise you negate the need for the line its like saying if it looked like the ball was over the line but a bit of it wasn’t so we will give the goal or the stuff with corners and crosses - where there is a line are all white lines exactly the same width cause a 3mm difference could be the difference between 1st and 2nd in a tight season
I know I am in the minority But I couldn’t disagree with you more many things contribute to a teams performance Not talking about spending - as too much emphasis on the business side of the game but it does highlight the business emphasis in the game now. confidence is massive in the game of football I can’t prove it but neither can you Fact is (i think ) Sheff Utd went down by a point and a poor decision cost them 2 but as Saint said unless you analyse every decision you can’t know And even then you can’t know because look at games like Istanbul where they defy logic all I am saying is I have no problem with VAR making us wait on a decision at the expense of the excitement of a goal Matters not a jot to me - in fact o think it is hilarious (later on lol) when what happened to Trent at OT happens Obvs if it happens in our favour it’s even funnier Would rather they got more decisions correct
think the main issue is it’s not getting 100% right. Football isn’t a black and white game. Things like goal line tech work because it’s black and white. Even offside, in theory it should be black and white but we do not have tech to know the moment the ball is touched. We stop it with a camera frame but that camera might be fraction out and then you’re asking people to draw 3d lines through multiple players and determine if someone’s boot is offside. In theory I agree you need a line to measure from, now Shoukd it be you have to have something behind that line, anything in front, or even daylight is a diff matter. But that comes down to my annoyance that offside was brought in to stop someone gaining an advantage. I go back to this example, example 1 - You have back to goal and your foot is a yard offside 40 yards from goal. Ball is played long to you from CB, you control it and 5 players run past you. You then turn, beat 5 men on a mazy run and finish it. example 2 - you make a run and are clearly 5/6 yards ahead of the Cb as the ball is played through. You run after it but realise you’re off so you leave it for a team mate who the ball wasn’t intended for hut has run onto it, you’re now in the box 7 yards ahead of the defence and the guy crosses for you to tap in. Which is gaining an advantage out of those 2?
I agree on the agree to disagree here. But, I want to point out that the highlighted bit is where I disagree. I think that a few mms is too picky and is out of keeping with the reason for offside in the first place (we've discussed goal-hanging often enough in the past so no point in going over it again). As for negating the need for a line, well exactly - I'd rather we had no lines drawn and leave it to the lino. As I said, if the gap isn't obvious then it isn't important imo. It's arbitrary anyway - a right winger can be played a yard onside by his opposing RB 35 yards away on the other side of the pitch with no chance of getting to him before he's in on goal, so fairness doesn't really enter into it there. The big problem for me here was the introduction of trial by television in the past - where refereeing decisions were analysed to death by pundits. And the fact that the game has become a pawn to money-makers is not an argument in its favour imo. As you're a singer, think of it in terms of auto-tune and pitch correction - do you prefer a perfectly accurate robotic vocal done in the processing chain, or a natural performance with the inevitable sharps and flats that give it character?
Just my opinion but if you are relying on a ref you are in a bad place. If we make reffing impossible then there's no room.for common sense and imo teams down the bottom need refs to apply common sense for more than being prevented from making one gaffe Imagine these teams screaming about every card thst gets awarded as refs are not too afraid to apply common sense. It's been arsenal.done for kicking the able away twice. Stupidity but imagine that's wolves and the outcry. It'd be the same stupidity but just maybe some refs apply the common sense as they are not yet brow beaten into being totally pedantic. **** sides need refs to allow them foul and stop play. Forest were let away with murder for 40mins against us for example. If the first foul Yates made was a yellow what impact does thst have? Sorry but **** teams don't deserve confidence from a var call any more than anyone else. Thry get loads of small calls thst would also be stopped.
For me it’s not a case of relying on the ref it’s a case of the ref has had a major negative impact and because the game is no longer a game it needs to be as correct as possible. we won’t agree and that’s no drama - I get what you are saying just don’t share that viewpoint
Yeah, I just think having the argument if half the fun and the faux pundit anger over var is tiresome. Just argue the odds for the laugh
You know you asked me a question so it would be rude not to answer as I do see your and everyone’s else’s point - I just don’t agree but on the Autotune question it’s not quite the correct analogy imho Ftr I like any singing or music so I am not fussed either way - think everything has its place where music is - but music is like art to me Football is more similar to Maths to me Maths has rules and yet people still argue over those rules (like divide or multiplication first lmao) and mathematicians argue massively over long equations That’s where I think football is I am not saying I agree with the rules either I am just saying they are there so need to be adhered to IBWT is hitting a nail for me - the inconsistency is what drives me potty but I am getting way too deep here just a casual poster since the ban
For me there is an advantage gained in example two Example one falls under - according to the rule for me But the rule is the rule As I said before not saying I agree with the rule but once you have it you have to implement it. in my work environment I try not to bring in something if it cannot be applied maybe just get rid of offside altogether and put up with goalhanging ? The rule about obstructing a GKs view I fall into the line of thought that if you are on the pitch you are effecting (affecting - **** ?????) play and if you aren’t you shouldn’t be on the pitch I don’t think you have to be in front of the GK to effect (affect ffs !!!!????) the shot If you are in field of vision the presence alone is enough to give the mind something else to process can’t ask someone to just ignore someone in a high pressure situation imho
Without going into big grammar lesson - In very general terms the best way to know when to use effect or affect is to remember that 'affect' is usually used as a verb and 'effect' as a noun. You will never say effecting or effected. It will always be affecting and affected. If you're unsure always use affect, you're less likely to be wrong. Effect is generally used with 'an' in front of it ( not always but this is where it gets complicated).
You're right, but it's complicated by the fact that "effect" also be a verb under some circumstances - as in "to effect a change". "A particular effect can effect a change and affect the outcome." English, eh?
I find this a lot in scientific reports where people talk about the affect of something. It's the one I at least am sure of.
Again, in as simple a way as possible, you will usually only see effect used as 'an effect' or 'the effect/s'. The most often used way we see it or say it is in, for example, 'affecting the situation' or 'only one team was affected by ....'. You will never see or say effecting or effected. If in doubt use affect.
