The "Mighty Juggernaut" thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hoddle is a god
  • Start date Start date
  • 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!
Libby said:
Have no idea what you're talking about on your first paragraph, var can spot one mm but not a clear gap?
Click to expand...

What would be the point of having linesmen?

Every pass forward would go to var?

That’s where the game is headed.
 
PowerSpurs said:
I don't know how the offside law can be fixed other than removing it altogether. However it is worded it will come down to a few millimetres in practice. As for handball, I think the new law is an improvement as it removes the judgement call of whether the offence is intentional when scoring a goal is involved and it also makes it reasonably clear as to what intentional means in other situations.
I'd be interested in what your fixes would be though.
Click to expand...

On the offside I'd go for clear daylight on head and body ... ignore limbs ... benefit to the attacker... that should lend itself to a quick assessment

In handball I'd go 'hand to bal' ... still open to interpretation but better than the current situation whereby an attacker can be penalised but a defender excused for any contact however unintentional
 
Hoddle Is A God said:
The trouble with the “daylight” rule is that the official has to be at the correct angle to see the daylight properly. If he’s behind the play, he may well see daylight, but it may not be that the attacker is ahead of the defender.

This is why the current rule exists - to eradicate the errors that abounded with the previous rule.

As regards the new hand ball rule, it has been introduced to bring about certainty. If you touch the ball, accidentally or not, it’s hand ball.

Is it a perfect rule? No. But it provides certainty.

These rule changes, and VAR, have been introduced because refs have grown tired of being continually slated. Fans and pundits have inherited a modern game as a result of their whining.

Everyone should put up with the rules, and shut up moaning.
Click to expand...

Daylight rule is now completely feasible as all Prem grounds have capability for horizon5al VAR freeze and line ... I'd restrict it to trunk and head ... limbs irrelevant
 
FosseFilberto said:
Daylight rule is now completely feasible as all Prem grounds have capability for horizon5al VAR freeze and line ... I'd restrict it to trunk and head ... limbs irrelevant
Click to expand...

See!

You’re already introducing an element of subjectivity.

How much daylight will be enough?
 
FosseFilberto said:
On the offside I'd go for clear daylight on head and body ... ignore limbs ... benefit to the attacker... that should lend itself to a quick assessment

In handball I'd go 'hand to bal' ... still open to interpretation but better than the current situation whereby an attacker can be penalised but a defender excused for any contact however unintentional
Click to expand...

****ing hell we agree <yikes>

Hoddle Is A God said:
See!

You’re already introducing an element of subjectivity.

How much daylight will be enough?
Click to expand...

You will never eliminate subjectivity mate and this ruling hasn't for defending teams.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FosseFilberto
Libby said:
Not wishing to answer for Fosse but in my opinion:

- If you're going to use VAR for offside then you could go back to clear daylight between the players, benefit of doubt goes to the attacker.
Click to expand...

Definitely agree with you on that, if the offside is barely visible then give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker, there'll be times where that'll work for and against you but there really isn't an advantage if the difference is millimetres.

Libby said:
- For handball then I think it needs to work both ways or none at all in terms of accidental, it's baffling that players challenging for the same aerial ball (for example) are judged by different standards. Even if they scale it back and say only arms directly into the goal/directly blocking goal bound shot are punished without the accidental consideration.
Click to expand...

I'd say either none at all or keep it as it is, I don't think opening it up to work both ways would be a good idea because that could then persuade attacking players who don't have a sight on goal to simply chip the ball onto an opponent's arm and therefore get a pen. I get that by only having it one-way gives an advantage to the defending team and personally I do think from a general view that City's goal should've stood the other day but if accidental handballs are to be punished in the box it should - in my opinion - only be towards the attacking team, as harsh at that may be.
 
Libby said:
Not wishing to answer for Fosse but in my opinion:

- If you're going to use VAR for offside then you could go back to clear daylight between the players, benefit of doubt goes to the attacker.

- For handball then I think it needs to work both ways or none at all in terms of accidental, it's baffling that players challenging for the same aerial ball (for example) are judged by different standards. Even if they scale it back and say only arms directly into the goal/directly blocking goal bound shot are punished without the accidental consideration.
Click to expand...
What do you mean 'go back to clear daylight'? That has never been the rule.
 
VAR's here to stay ... it just needs practical refinement ...

In rugby the fans don't celebrate any less when a try is scored because the ref might want to check the grounding ..

Lot of carp being sounded about fans not celebrating ... no different to having a goal disallowed because you didn't notice a linesman flagging ... at least with VAR it should be because the rules have been enforced scientifically <cheers>
 
Dier Hard said:
I'd say either none at all or keep it as it is, I don't think opening it up to work both ways would be a good idea because that could then persuade attacking players who don't have a sight on goal to simply chip the ball onto an opponent's arm and therefore get a pen. I get that by only having it one-way gives an advantage to the defending team and personally I do think from a general view that City's goal should've stood the other day but if accidental handballs are to be punished in the box it should - in my opinion - only be towards the attacking team, as harsh at that may be.
Click to expand...

I disagree mate, a defender trying to kick it against an attackers arm is exactly the same as the situation you describe. I think it has to be one way or the other not half and half personally.
 
Libby said:
I disagree mate, a defender trying to kick it against an attackers arm is exactly the same as the situation you describe. I think it has to be one way or the other not half and half personally.
Click to expand...

A defender wouldn't risk that in the box though, the first instinct is to blast it up the pitch. It's far too risky if you're a defender trying to play a crafty chip onto an attacker's arm because if it doesn't pay off you've gifted possession in your own box.

Whereas if an attacker is anywhere in the box with nowhere really to go or not sight on goal, there's literally nothing to lose from their point of view because they're likely to lose possession regardless, so if they can gain a penalty out of nothing it's a right touch for them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BobbyD
FosseFilberto said:
VAR's here to stay ... it just needs practical refinement ...

In rugby the fans don't celebrate any less when a try is scored because the ref might want to check the grounding ..

Lot of carp being sounded about fans not celebrating ... no different to having a goal disallowed because you didn't notice a linesman flagging ... at least with VAR it should be because the rules have been enforced scientifically <cheers>
Click to expand...

The wolves fans appear to think differently but then I always thought that they were most knowledgeable bunch in the Midlands <whistle>
 
FosseFilberto said:
Daylight rule is now completely feasible as all Prem grounds have capability for horizon5al VAR freeze and line ... I'd restrict it to trunk and head ... limbs irrelevant
Click to expand...
And in the next match someone will be full stretch on the ground with his foot 2m offside and will be given onside because his head ovelaps the body of the last defender.
 
Fwiw I ball to hand and hand to ball is definitely subjective and watching it back loads of times won't clear it up.

I wouldn't pick any particular part of the body for clear daylight either, if you can see the space between the too when looking across the pitch then it's offside, if there's no space between then it's on.
 
Libby said:
I thought that was the early purpose and method of the rule? Apologies if incorrect but my point stands.
Click to expand...

'daylight' was never an official rule .. rather a 'guidance to help linesman ... but it would be perfect now using same technology as in horse racing for photo finish... could be done in seconds ... <cheers>
 
  • Like
Reactions: Libby
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back