[Football] I don't like football any more.

[Albumen]

This was against the Germany U21 keeper last night. Penalty. I don't agree.

https://twitter.com/davidpreece12/status/1142907062063644678

[tweet]1142907062063644678[/tweet]

 

[mikeyjh]

Imho, it was offside.

View attachment 111903

Problem is, when did the ball leave the boot? I assume a human is clicking a button at the precise moment that they 'think' the ball is played. That split second is plenty enough time for the above picture to change. For that reason, those claiming that offside is black and white are quite wrong.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Problem is, when did the ball leave the boot? I assume a human is clicking a button at the precise moment that they 'think' the ball is played. That split second is plenty enough time for the above picture to change. For that reason, those claiming that offside is black and white are quite wrong.

But it was offside.

 

[Brovion]

Problem is, when did the ball leave the boot? I assume a human is clicking a button at the precise moment that they 'think' the ball is played. That split second is plenty enough time for the above picture to change. For that reason, those claiming that offside is black and white are quite wrong.

Under the modern interpretation of the offside Law the Cameroon player isn't offside in that picture. She is clearly running away from the goal and therefore is clearly not seeking an advantage.

(This is Cameroon attacking, right?)

 

[GT49er]

In cricket, if the decision is so marginal (ball tracker showing the ball maybe just skimming the top of leg stump, for example) the umpire's decision stands - deemed not clear enough (dare one say, not clear and obvious enough?) evidence to overturn it.
In the case of an eyelash or a toenail being a couple of millimetres offside, football should do the same; if to the naked eye and in real time it appeared to be onside, then let it stand, ffs!

 

[Kosh]

Imho, it was offside.

View attachment 111903

You see, I'd argue the trailing leg of the England player nearest to the offending Cameroon attacker is hidden by the angle she's stood at and the lines - making them virtually level... as another poster quite rightly observed if that goal had stood barely anyone would have complained.

VAR is too precise, and by proxy too time consuming and for teams like us (Albion) a nightmare waiting to happen. It will favour attacking sides and if you look at a typically average team vs Man City for example, I can foresee some double figure scorelines this season. Pen, pen, pen, pen, retake, pen, goal, pen etc.

It's going to be horrific, as that game was yesterday.

Ruined the rhythm, and in serious danger of making football feel like an athletics meet.

 

[Albumen]

I hope the coaches will leave later next year from the Amex. There'll be 10 minutes added time every match.

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

My biggest concern isn’t the technology, but rather the people using it. Used ONLY for clear and obvious mistakes it makes sense, even if the game becomes slightly slower. However, in big tournaments it has been totally misused. It will only ever be as good as the officials and we’ve all complained about them since the game first started


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You've hit the nail on the head.

I'd also add that a lot of people seem quite unhappy about the laws. A prime example being the (correctly) ruled out goal for Cameroon yesterday at the WWC. I think we could well see a few law changes over the coming couple of years to help VAR become more fluid.

 

[GT49er]

You've hit the nail on the head.

I'd also add that a lot of people seem quite unhappy about the laws. A prime example being the (correctly) ruled out goal for Cameroon yesterday at the WWC. I think we could well see a few law changes over the coming couple of years to help VAR become more fluid.

We'll have to see a few changes - and they'll need to be the right ones - otherwise the game will be dying.

I will still follow the Albion - as I have for over 60 years - but from afar (as, tbf, for various reasons, it has been for a while now anyway). As far as watching live football is concerned though, I'll stick to matches below the level at which VAR is used. Forest Green here I come...................?

 

[Acker79]

In that case, they've got it wrong then, not me and all the other posters who think it's shit as it is.

Yes and no.

The idea of VAR brought the tantalising ideal that every decision would be right, dealt with quickly (see how quickly tv gets their replays up!), all those decisions I disagree with the ref on will be reversed!

It was never going to be that. The footballing authorities had to implement it and they had to do it in a way that falls in line with their philosophy.

The footballing authorities have an approach that the referee is the ultimate authority for any given game. It's why so many laws are 'in the opinion of the referee'. They are loathe to overturn what a referee has decided (hence the reluctance to take retrospective action). They want to reduce mistakes, but they don't want to undermine the referee's authority. The legal definition of 'clear and obvious' - essentially 'factual' errors comes from that. In law, there is a reluctance to overturn Judges' opinions, errors tend to need to be factual for a judge's decision to be overturned. They are protecting that basic tenet, by sticking only to factual errors. One problem that arises from that is where to draw the line? If you want to eliminate errors and you have the technology how can you allow for any error to stand? If you want to protect the integrity of your competition and you can spot an error with VAR why let that error stand? I think while it is played and reffed by humans, there will always be errors and eliminating all of them is an unrealistic ideal and there needs to be a line, but, I can't personally put a clear cut definition of where that line is for me? And I doubt you could either. I'm sure there are simplistic 'x number of replays' or 'y time'. But then you get into the question of inconsistency, where the same incident can be cleared up with VAR by one official, but another wants more time, more angles. By saying 'you can take as long as you need, view replays as often as you need' as they seemingly have, it eliminates that inconsistency.

You, me and a lot of pundits, aren't generally concerned with refs or their authority - are we enjoying the game or the experience of watching the game? Can we accept that error? Can we even tell quickly that it is an error? For that we can absolutely say we feel they've taken it to an unnecessary, and wrong, extreme.

Where you're wrong, going back to the start of this discussion, is here:
4). Any VAR ref. who is too thick to understand the difference between a 'clear and obvious error' and, "Hang on, let me view that half a dozen times in slow motion just in case there's an error" should be removed from the referees panel with immediate effect.
The problem isn't the VAR ref not knowing how you (and most laymen - including me!) define 'clear and obvious'. They are duty-bound to implement VAR the way football authorities have decided they want it implemented. The problem lay with the way footballing authorities want it implemented.

Why does this nuance/pedantry matter? Well, if you criticise the refs, footballing authorities will dismiss your (and more importantly, pundits' etc) concerns. Just typical referee-bashing. Another person who doesn't understand the laws of the game. If we criticise the footballing authorities, criticise their policies etc, on their terms, it has a greater chance of getting through. Doesn't guarantee it will, but it's harder to dismiss if we argue against the right things.

 

[spence]

Yes and no.

The idea of VAR brought the tantalising ideal that every decision would be right, dealt with quickly (see how quickly tv gets their replays up!), all those decisions I disagree with the ref on will be reversed!

It was never going to be that. The footballing authorities had to implement it and they had to do it in a way that falls in line with their philosophy.

The footballing authorities (as in the men in suits, not the referees) have decided on a process for VAR. They have an approach that the referee is the ultimate authority for any given game. It's why so many laws are 'in the opinion of the referee'. They are loathe to overturn what a referee has decided (hence the reluctance to take retrospective action). They want to reduce mistakes, but they don't want to undermine the referee's authority. The legal definition of 'clear and obvious' - essential 'factual' errors comes from that. In law, there is a reluctance to overturn Judges' opinions, errors tend to need to be factual for a judge's decision to be overturned. They are protecting that basic tenet, by sticking only to factual errors. One problem that arises from that is where to draw the line? If you want to eliminate errors and you have the technology how can you allow for any error to stand? If you want to protect the integrity of your competition and you can spot an error with VAR why let that error stand? I think while it is played and reffed by humans, there will always be errors and eliminating all of them is an unrealistic ideal and there needs to be a line, but, I can't personally put a clear cut definition of where that line is for me? And I doubt you could either. I'm sure there are simplistic 'x number of replays' or 'y time'. But then you get into the question of inconsistency, where the same incident can be cleared up with VAR by one official, but another wants more time, more angles. By saying 'you can take as long as you need, view replays as often as you need' as they seemingly have, it eliminates that inconsistency.

You, me and a lot of pundits, aren't generally concerned with refs or their authority - are we enjoying the game or the experience of watching the game? Can we accept that error? Can we even tell quickly that it is an error? For that we can absolutely say we feel they've taken it to an unnecessary, and wrong, extreme.

Where you're wrong, going back to the start of this discussion, is here:
4). Any VAR ref. who is too thick to understand the difference between a 'clear and obvious error' and, "Hang on, let me view that half a dozen times in slow motion just in case there's an error" should be removed from the referees panel with immediate effect.
The problem isn't the VAR ref not knowing how you (and most laymen - including me!) define 'clear and obvious'. They are duty-bound to implement VAR the way football authorities have decided they want it implemented. The problem lay with the way footballing authorities want it implemented.

Why does this nuance/pedantry matter? Well, if you criticise the refs, footballing authorities will dismiss your (and more importantly, pundits' etc) concerns. Just typical referee-bashing. Another person who doesn't understand the laws of the game. If we criticise the footballing authorities, criticise their policies etc, on their terms, it has a greater chance of getting through. Doesn't guarantee it will, but it's harder to dismiss if we argue against the right things.

You need to start another longest serving manager thread for Potter

 

[Acker79]

You need to start another longest serving manager thread for Potter

I didn't start Hughton's, You did. The last one I started was Hyypia's. Do you really want to risk me cursing Potter?! [cue magic jokes]

 

[spence]

I didn't start Hughton's, You did. The last one I started was Hyypia's. Do you really want to risk me cursing Potter?! [cue magic jokes]

It's your pride. I won't do it again. Please start another one. Rafa has gone

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Have to say it's quite nice to have following Lewes FC or Old Vardeanians FC tucked in the back pocket as an alternative to me NS ST. Wouldn't be over-arsed to giving that ST up to some random JCL in the ST Waiting List. Would issue a friendly word of warning to the club tho: those adult JCLs on the ST waiting list? They don't give a shit about the Albion, they're only there for the placard with the begging social media wankfest for the away player shirt. Quite vile lack of self-respect really.

 

[GT49er]

The footballing authorities had to implement it and they had to do it in a way that falls in line with their philosophy.

The footballing authorities have an approach that the referee is the ultimate authority for any given game.

In that case they have failed totally. Referee the ultimate authority? - my foot! We've seen referees refer decisions to VAR (shouldn't be allowed at all), and more worrying, we have seen that VAR, not the ref, has the final say. What we haven't seen - and should have seen if the system was being properly implemented - is a situation where the ref says, 'Thanks for your opinion, VAR, but I am happy with my original decision. Play on.'

Anyway, regardless of who's right or wrong, VAR as it stands is the death knell of the game .

 

[Easy 10]

I was dead against VAR, as my historical posts will attest.

Then last years World Cup semi-persuaded me that actually, it might be ok

Now, having seen the utter SHITSTORM in this tournament, its made my blood run cold. It has been complete and utter chaos. All my worse fears (massive delays, aborted goal celebrations, baffling decisions) have been realised. And bear in mind, we're in the "privileged" position of viewing it all from an armchair, so you perhaps at least have half a clue whats going on with all these reviews. Actually being in the stadium though with all this carry on ?

'kin ell.

 

[Wozza]

Telegraph claiming that the ref over-ruled VAR advice twice late in game because she was worried about Cameroon's reaction - and FIFA have backed her!

WTF?!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-c...-twice-overruled-var-advice-prevent-cameroon/

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

I was dead against VAR, as my historical posts will attest.

Then last years World Cup semi-persuaded me that actually, it might be ok

Now, having seen the utter SHITSTORM in this tournament, its made my blood run cold. It has been complete and utter chaos. All my worse fears (massive delays, aborted goal celebrations, baffling decisions) have been realised. And bear in mind, we're in the "privileged" position of viewing it all from an armchair, so you perhaps at least have half a clue whats going on with all these reviews. Actually being in the stadium though with all this carry on ?

'kin ell.

I get this. But the reverse is also true. I went to Cardiff away last year and they scored a winning goal which surely would've been ruled out by a half competent VAR and refereeing team. So yes, if VAR had been a tad slow in that situation the Cardiff fans would've had an almighty comedown, but I'd have also come out much happier and not felt like I'd wasted a ton of money to go and watch an awful game where our team spent about 65 minutes defending after Stephen's sending off. I tell you what, the excitement of having that (rightly) overturned would've been just as high for me as the comedown would've been for Cardiff fans, whatever the waiting time.