And BS - When you put the other day about emulating 90s Newcastle in style, from this performance we need more of that. We looked terrified of conceding whereas to that team it looked like more of an inconvenience.
comment by dublin fox optimistically pessimistic, (now a Cambridge fox)(still can not spell fox) (U1131)
posted 6 hours, 21 minutes ago
Think I agree with your player ratings from a TV view
Except Ricardo who made 4 major errors defending that I counted,,, I'd score him 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’d counter that by adding that Ricardo at least made some attacking runs into the final third of the pitch. Chilwell hardly got past the half way line. Really bad game for him.
Thought Wolves looked a yard slower than us first half, but came out of the blocks quicker second half.
Agree is was like ground hog day, watching the ball go from defender to defender, tons of possession but no end product or cutting edge to break down a well drilled Wolves defense. Our build up needs to be a lot quicker against these teams that park the bus.
Let’s all see if we improve / develop after 10 games. I sure hope so.
If we play 4-3-3 I just don’t see how Choudhury fits in without making us too negative. I like his as a player and I look forward to watching him develop more, but I don’t like him in that role on the left side of midfield due to him limitations going forward.
Or if you’re going to play Choudhury, it has to be because you take risks and push your wing backs right up so he and Ndidi can cover in behind when they do.
That didn’t happen yesterday.
On Chilwell, he’s much better when he gets the ball to feet and plays quick, I Vicodin’s passing. I can’t beleive I’m about to say this but his interplay with Gray gets more out of him.
We were too narrow and unbalanced for me yesterday. We need to either commit to 4-3-3 (or 4-1-4-1 as it seems to be under Rodgers) or we go back to 4-2-3-2 and let our full backs get right up. I think we’re all wary of 4-2-3-1 after Puel so let’s make the other way work.
“he’s much better when he gets the ball to feet and plays quick, I Vicodin’s passing.”
—///—-
Not sure what you’re saying here Mersey.
Is it that Chilwell plays better once the Vicodin has passed through his system?
If so, do you know why he’s taking the drug in the 1st place?
Morning all.
I wasn't quite as disappointed with the performance yesterday as the general view on here. I thought we played some nice stuff and knocked it around well but just didn't have the guile to open a very well organised Wolves team. Let's not write off the system or the team after one game.
On the subject of VAR. I really don't like it and never have. I actually felt sorry for the Wolves team / fans yesterday. No-one claimed handball during the incident and we were all ready to kick off when suddenly VAR intervenes. I haven't seen it on TV but whether it was the correct decision or not VAR could potentially ruin the fluidity and spontaneity of the game.
The joy of celebrating a goal (which let's be honest is a moment of true elation almost unparalleled in our lives) will be lost because there is always the dreaded few minutes of VAR review.
I don't care whether VAR benefits us or the opposition, I hate it. Yes, Refs and linesmen make mistakes but so do players. It's a human game with margins of error. It's not a computer game to be ruled by technology - keep it simple.
comment by Jobyfox (U4183)
posted 32 minutes ago
“he’s much better when he gets the ball to feet and plays quick, I Vicodin’s passing.”
—///—-
Not sure what you’re saying here Mersey.
Is it that Chilwell plays better once the Vicodin has passed through his system?
If so, do you know why he’s taking the drug in the 1st place?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m basically saying we need more performance enhancing drugs in our team. That or I meant “incisive passing”. I also meant 4-2-3-1 rather than the cheats formation of 4-2-3-2.
Maybe performance enhancing drugs AND playing with 12 men is the way to cheat ourselves in to Europe!
Mersey,
Incisive - that was the word. I probably should have been able to work that out.
FFS,
I respectfully disagree about VAR. To me it’s all about getting more decisions correct.
I hear people arguing that you shouldn’t give offside if it’s only just offside. I’d counter that: if you’re a millimetre offside and the technology can tell you - then you’re offside. If we’re saying that there should be more leeway then the rules need changing not the technology.
It’s similar with this handball incident. If the rule is that handball rules out the goal - even if it’s accidental - then it’s not a goal. Again, if we don’t want that then change the rule.
I do agree that it can take too long and I also would make some immediate tweaks. VAR should only be used when the error is clear and obvious. There should never be any need to get the referee to come and have another look as we’ve seen in competitions elsewhere. If they need to do that - then it’s not clear and obvious. It’s more like “umpires call” in cricket where they stay with the on field decision. If VAR aren’t confident to overturn then just get on with the game.
There should never be an expectation that VAR will stop the debate around refereeing decisions, but it should be able to stop errors being made that critically effect the outcome. Where these need debate they should just stay with the on-field call. If you have to debate it then the chances are it’s not clear. For me handballs and offsides don’t come into that category - unless the rule allows for ambiguity - which apparently it doesn’t.
Nuno, spirit of the Santo, said that VAR is killing the spirit of the game. Looking at yesterday's decision, he's absolutely right. Wolves' goal was ruled out because, in slow motion, the ball could be seen briefly and accidentally rolling up Boly's arm. It was the tiniest of infractions and as FFS says, nobody on our side felt cheated by it. Forget about the fact it went in our favour against Wolves; is that good for the game? Does that make entertainment? Not to me. If the rules say that's not a goal, the rules are wrong.
“Not to me. If the rules say that's not a goal, the rules are wrong.“
—-///—
Agreed. Where I might differ is that I believe that is an argument against an interpretation of the rules and not VAR.
In my opinion VAR should be used for clear and obvious errors. Anything else should be left with the on pitch referee. That way it intervenes far less frequently.
If VAR can see an accidental handball then it should give it. If the law allows for some leeway or flexibility then it shouldn’t. It’s as simple as that.
It might well be that the rules have to now catch up with the technology and evolve accordingly.
"It might well be that the rules have to now catch up with the technology and evolve accordingly."
--------
But that statement itself is a massive problem as far as I'm concerned. The rules should be made to fit the game, not to shoehorn VAR into it. In turn, VAR should only be used to enhance to application of the rules, not to define them - like in cricket and tennis. If it can't then it shouldn't be used.
Joby - good debate on VAR and I obviously agree with you.
However I’m firmly in the camp of VAR is right and the rules are now wrong. The rules need changing to reflect VAR. for me, a player is not offside unless there is clear distance between them and the defender. I refuse to accept 1mm offside is the right and fair way to judge it.
I also think Wolves goal should be a goal. I agree an accidental handball to score a goal should be rules out but not in the build up. The rule is wrong.
I hope we see good debate on decisions and how VAR is changing the game, and then rules adapted to make the technology work better.
Ps. Can’t believe you couldn’t work out I meant incisive. Moron.
“But that statement itself is a massive problem as far as I'm concerned. The rules should be made to fit the game, not to shoehorn VAR into it.”
----------------------------------------------------
I disagree. Rules have been changed multiple times over the years on offside, handballs and numerous other things and this hasn’t been down to VAR. It’s because the decision making around them can be ambiguous. We now have the technology to see in millimetres: whether a player is offside in football, whether a ball is going to hit the stumps in cricket or whether a tennis ball has hit the line.
Cricket has evolved to accommodate something called the “umpires call”. The accuracy of the technology would probably mean that the ball would hit the stumps in a “leg before wicket” situation but, if it’s very close, and the umpire has given: “not out” – his decision stands. We now have to decide whether we’re going to allow similar in football (e.g. do we intervene when it’s less than a certain distance offside?). My current view is that I don’t care whether a player’s left foot is offside. Offside is offside – do you want the rule to be applied correctly or not?
The big “but” is that I also believe that we will need to evolve, with technology, to a point where football accommodates its own version of the umpires call. The “referees call” where as many decisions as possible stay on the pitch, but the match is refereed correctly and accurately.
I actually think the handball decision in the Wolves match is a different argument. I don’t like the way the handball rule is going and don’t want to see penalties given when a ball is blasted against a defender from 3 feet away. The handball rule has changed and that’s the issue – not VAR. All VAR does is give us the ability to see it.
"Ps. Can’t believe you couldn’t work out I meant incisive. Moron. "
--------------------
Clearly you've been conversing with BS for too long.
wish we had var at Stamford bridge in the replay on 119 mins play all them years ago.we might have gone on to win the f a cup.
“However I’m firmly in the camp of VAR is right and the rules are now wrong. The rules need changing to reflect VAR. for me, a player is not offside unless there is clear distance between them and the defender. I refuse to accept 1mm offside is the right and fair way to judge it.”
---------------------------------
I knew you’d get it Mersey.
Right now I’d have to say that the player who’s a millimetre offside is offside – that’s the rule. In future we might say that the decision stays on the pitch unless there is clear daylight between the players. The technology allows us to rule, with accuracy, on decisions that we could never rule on before. That’s how the laws evolve to accommodate the technology and that’s how you ensure you only intervene when it’s necessary.
“wish we had var at Stamford bridge in the replay on 119 mins play all them years ago.we might have gone on to win the f a cup.”
-------------------------------------
Langley,
And there in a nutshell is another reason why I believe we should have VAR. We’ll debate these marginal decisions for a while and then forget about them, whether they’ve been made by VAR or not.
But I remember those really bad decisions for a lifetime and they still irritate me now: that FA Cup match, when Morgan was sent off at Anfield for being hit in the face by the ball, Maradona’s handball. It’s these injustices that have spoilt my enjoyment of the game far more than anything else and that’s what VAR is really for. A fair result is what people ultimately want.
comment by Jobyfox (U4183)
posted 17 minutes ago
“However I’m firmly in the camp of VAR is right and the rules are now wrong. The rules need changing to reflect VAR. for me, a player is not offside unless there is clear distance between them and the defender. I refuse to accept 1mm offside is the right and fair way to judge it.”
---------------------------------
I knew you’d get it Mersey.
Right now I’d have to say that the player who’s a millimetre offside is offside – that’s the rule. In future we might say that the decision stays on the pitch unless there is clear daylight between the players. The technology allows us to rule, with accuracy, on decisions that we could never rule on before. That’s how the laws evolve to accommodate the technology and that’s how you ensure you only intervene when it’s necessary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course I do Joby 💙. I guess what I don’t agree with is the way the rules are being applied with VAR.
Previously the approach was that the advantage should be given to the attacker in an offside decision. Now, what I don’t agree with is that a sterling was offside for either goal. He was in line with the defender. The fact that 1mm of his shoulder was poking out does not make him offside. He’s in line.
A few people have challenged me on what the new rule should be and I’m not entirely sure. But I know I don’t agree with the current one.
The rule for goalkeeper’s on penalties has gone wrong now as well. I get the rule was brought in to stop goalkeepers stepping way off their line, and that worked when a human was judging it. But to now prevent even 1mm of their foot not being on the line is absurd. It basically says they can move to try and save a pen. Stupid.
However, VAR is new and I think we will have some good debates like this one, and the rules will adapt with it. Just like they have this year with numerous changes, they will do again when a perfectly good goal like the Wolves one yesterday gets ruled out.
^ and I know that wasn’t why the Man City pen was re-taken, but it was a huge issue in the Women’s World Cup for me.
Offside: You want "Clear daylight". Define clear daylight. When you have human officials doing their job as it is, it means that the linesman has to be sure that you're offside in order to give it. i.e. benefit of the doubt goes to the attacker. As soon as you implement VAR, you have to give this a number. Even an "umpire's call" has a numerical value to it. Maybe this type of thing would be a better application of VAR with the offside law, particularly since we're talking fractions of a second.
This is before we get to whether or not the linesman sticks their flag up - i.e. the linesman still has to decide whether the offside decision is close enough to put their flag up or not. If they do and they're wrong, they could end up preventing a goal that would have stood. A team would feel that a linesman is being more lenient to their opponent than to them. The issues with the officiating of the rule still remain because of subjectivity.
But offside is the better use for it. Joby, you talk about rules being changed over the years and you're right - but this has been to improve the game as a spectacle, to provide better entertainment, to prevent things that would be out of the spirit of the game, like goalhanging, or this season's rules of allowing defenders to receive a goal kick inside the box and attacking players not interfering with a wall. But VAR is a different matter - the rule that prevented the Wolves goal is not one that has been introduced for that reason but instead so that it makes VAR easier to use. By definition, the game ends up either unchanged or worse as a result of these rules, not better. Do you really believe that you see the reason why the Wolves goal was chalked off and think it's for the better of the game?
“Do you really believe that you see the reason why the Wolves goal was chalked off and think it's for the better of the game?“
—-/—-
No, the rule is wrong.
However, if we’re saying that all accidental handballs are ‘no goal’ then VAR has to intervene - or change the rule.
The point about the offside rule is that the linesman should officiate as normal and not try and judge ‘clear daylight’ or any other criteria, but implement the rule. The rule, however, might be more nuanced worth the VAR intervention. Something like:
1. Clear daylight VAR overrule
2. Arm or leg offside, but body onside - stay with refs decision
3. Whole body onside - don’t even waste time looking at it
If it evolves in that way, or something similar, it will only catch the really poor decisions and I think everyone will accept it.
The other issue is speed of decision making, which will also improve. I actually think the technology is probably there now to track players in a computerised environment where offside calls are immediate.
VAR is here to stay. That’s because nobody will accept the really poor decisions it could have overruled now it’s here. We need to live with it and evolve it until it becomes just another part of the game.
I like the fact we can have offside is offside. Even if it is just 1mm.
The question I have about the process is not the gap between defender and attacker, but when the ball is released.
We can definitively say if the player is offside or not, but can we say that in every decision the moment of impact/movement/release of the ball is consistent.
At what point of foot to ball determines the point the offside is registered, because for me that is open to more ambiguity than the distance. Speed of the player playing the ball, the weight of the pass and the distortion the ball takes on after every kick
Not to mention angles and trajectories too..lol
Cheesynacho,
Yes, I really don’t know how accurate those things are, but we are told they are pretty accurate.
It may be that that’s why we need some margin of error territory in terms of a referees call. The whole crux of this debate is that the rules are absolute, but there is a natural ambiguity to them built in. That’s because they’ve always been interpreted by referees with an element of human error. Without the human error do we make absolute decisions or do we keep some of the ambiguity of the decision made on the field of play?
I suppose I’m advocating that we do retain some of the ambiguity and I think everybody would accept that if the really horrible decisions were still overturned. It might be too strong to suggest that we change the rules. It’s more ensuring that there are guidelines to their interpretation when using VAR.
Sign in if you want to comment
Player ratings vs. Wolves
Page 2 of 3
posted on 11/8/19
And BS - When you put the other day about emulating 90s Newcastle in style, from this performance we need more of that. We looked terrified of conceding whereas to that team it looked like more of an inconvenience.
posted on 12/8/19
comment by dublin fox optimistically pessimistic, (now a Cambridge fox)(still can not spell fox) (U1131)
posted 6 hours, 21 minutes ago
Think I agree with your player ratings from a TV view
Except Ricardo who made 4 major errors defending that I counted,,, I'd score him 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’d counter that by adding that Ricardo at least made some attacking runs into the final third of the pitch. Chilwell hardly got past the half way line. Really bad game for him.
Thought Wolves looked a yard slower than us first half, but came out of the blocks quicker second half.
Agree is was like ground hog day, watching the ball go from defender to defender, tons of possession but no end product or cutting edge to break down a well drilled Wolves defense. Our build up needs to be a lot quicker against these teams that park the bus.
Let’s all see if we improve / develop after 10 games. I sure hope so.
posted on 12/8/19
If we play 4-3-3 I just don’t see how Choudhury fits in without making us too negative. I like his as a player and I look forward to watching him develop more, but I don’t like him in that role on the left side of midfield due to him limitations going forward.
posted on 12/8/19
Or if you’re going to play Choudhury, it has to be because you take risks and push your wing backs right up so he and Ndidi can cover in behind when they do.
That didn’t happen yesterday.
On Chilwell, he’s much better when he gets the ball to feet and plays quick, I Vicodin’s passing. I can’t beleive I’m about to say this but his interplay with Gray gets more out of him.
We were too narrow and unbalanced for me yesterday. We need to either commit to 4-3-3 (or 4-1-4-1 as it seems to be under Rodgers) or we go back to 4-2-3-2 and let our full backs get right up. I think we’re all wary of 4-2-3-1 after Puel so let’s make the other way work.
posted on 12/8/19
“he’s much better when he gets the ball to feet and plays quick, I Vicodin’s passing.”
—///—-
Not sure what you’re saying here Mersey.
Is it that Chilwell plays better once the Vicodin has passed through his system?
If so, do you know why he’s taking the drug in the 1st place?
posted on 12/8/19
Morning all.
I wasn't quite as disappointed with the performance yesterday as the general view on here. I thought we played some nice stuff and knocked it around well but just didn't have the guile to open a very well organised Wolves team. Let's not write off the system or the team after one game.
On the subject of VAR. I really don't like it and never have. I actually felt sorry for the Wolves team / fans yesterday. No-one claimed handball during the incident and we were all ready to kick off when suddenly VAR intervenes. I haven't seen it on TV but whether it was the correct decision or not VAR could potentially ruin the fluidity and spontaneity of the game.
The joy of celebrating a goal (which let's be honest is a moment of true elation almost unparalleled in our lives) will be lost because there is always the dreaded few minutes of VAR review.
I don't care whether VAR benefits us or the opposition, I hate it. Yes, Refs and linesmen make mistakes but so do players. It's a human game with margins of error. It's not a computer game to be ruled by technology - keep it simple.
posted on 12/8/19
comment by Jobyfox (U4183)
posted 32 minutes ago
“he’s much better when he gets the ball to feet and plays quick, I Vicodin’s passing.”
—///—-
Not sure what you’re saying here Mersey.
Is it that Chilwell plays better once the Vicodin has passed through his system?
If so, do you know why he’s taking the drug in the 1st place?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m basically saying we need more performance enhancing drugs in our team. That or I meant “incisive passing”. I also meant 4-2-3-1 rather than the cheats formation of 4-2-3-2.
Maybe performance enhancing drugs AND playing with 12 men is the way to cheat ourselves in to Europe!
posted on 12/8/19
Mersey,
Incisive - that was the word. I probably should have been able to work that out.
FFS,
I respectfully disagree about VAR. To me it’s all about getting more decisions correct.
I hear people arguing that you shouldn’t give offside if it’s only just offside. I’d counter that: if you’re a millimetre offside and the technology can tell you - then you’re offside. If we’re saying that there should be more leeway then the rules need changing not the technology.
It’s similar with this handball incident. If the rule is that handball rules out the goal - even if it’s accidental - then it’s not a goal. Again, if we don’t want that then change the rule.
I do agree that it can take too long and I also would make some immediate tweaks. VAR should only be used when the error is clear and obvious. There should never be any need to get the referee to come and have another look as we’ve seen in competitions elsewhere. If they need to do that - then it’s not clear and obvious. It’s more like “umpires call” in cricket where they stay with the on field decision. If VAR aren’t confident to overturn then just get on with the game.
There should never be an expectation that VAR will stop the debate around refereeing decisions, but it should be able to stop errors being made that critically effect the outcome. Where these need debate they should just stay with the on-field call. If you have to debate it then the chances are it’s not clear. For me handballs and offsides don’t come into that category - unless the rule allows for ambiguity - which apparently it doesn’t.
posted on 12/8/19
Nuno, spirit of the Santo, said that VAR is killing the spirit of the game. Looking at yesterday's decision, he's absolutely right. Wolves' goal was ruled out because, in slow motion, the ball could be seen briefly and accidentally rolling up Boly's arm. It was the tiniest of infractions and as FFS says, nobody on our side felt cheated by it. Forget about the fact it went in our favour against Wolves; is that good for the game? Does that make entertainment? Not to me. If the rules say that's not a goal, the rules are wrong.
posted on 12/8/19
“Not to me. If the rules say that's not a goal, the rules are wrong.“
—-///—
Agreed. Where I might differ is that I believe that is an argument against an interpretation of the rules and not VAR.
In my opinion VAR should be used for clear and obvious errors. Anything else should be left with the on pitch referee. That way it intervenes far less frequently.
If VAR can see an accidental handball then it should give it. If the law allows for some leeway or flexibility then it shouldn’t. It’s as simple as that.
It might well be that the rules have to now catch up with the technology and evolve accordingly.
posted on 12/8/19
"It might well be that the rules have to now catch up with the technology and evolve accordingly."
--------
But that statement itself is a massive problem as far as I'm concerned. The rules should be made to fit the game, not to shoehorn VAR into it. In turn, VAR should only be used to enhance to application of the rules, not to define them - like in cricket and tennis. If it can't then it shouldn't be used.
posted on 12/8/19
Joby - good debate on VAR and I obviously agree with you.
However I’m firmly in the camp of VAR is right and the rules are now wrong. The rules need changing to reflect VAR. for me, a player is not offside unless there is clear distance between them and the defender. I refuse to accept 1mm offside is the right and fair way to judge it.
I also think Wolves goal should be a goal. I agree an accidental handball to score a goal should be rules out but not in the build up. The rule is wrong.
I hope we see good debate on decisions and how VAR is changing the game, and then rules adapted to make the technology work better.
posted on 12/8/19
Ps. Can’t believe you couldn’t work out I meant incisive. Moron.
posted on 12/8/19
“But that statement itself is a massive problem as far as I'm concerned. The rules should be made to fit the game, not to shoehorn VAR into it.”
----------------------------------------------------
I disagree. Rules have been changed multiple times over the years on offside, handballs and numerous other things and this hasn’t been down to VAR. It’s because the decision making around them can be ambiguous. We now have the technology to see in millimetres: whether a player is offside in football, whether a ball is going to hit the stumps in cricket or whether a tennis ball has hit the line.
Cricket has evolved to accommodate something called the “umpires call”. The accuracy of the technology would probably mean that the ball would hit the stumps in a “leg before wicket” situation but, if it’s very close, and the umpire has given: “not out” – his decision stands. We now have to decide whether we’re going to allow similar in football (e.g. do we intervene when it’s less than a certain distance offside?). My current view is that I don’t care whether a player’s left foot is offside. Offside is offside – do you want the rule to be applied correctly or not?
The big “but” is that I also believe that we will need to evolve, with technology, to a point where football accommodates its own version of the umpires call. The “referees call” where as many decisions as possible stay on the pitch, but the match is refereed correctly and accurately.
I actually think the handball decision in the Wolves match is a different argument. I don’t like the way the handball rule is going and don’t want to see penalties given when a ball is blasted against a defender from 3 feet away. The handball rule has changed and that’s the issue – not VAR. All VAR does is give us the ability to see it.
posted on 12/8/19
"Ps. Can’t believe you couldn’t work out I meant incisive. Moron. "
--------------------
Clearly you've been conversing with BS for too long.
posted on 12/8/19
wish we had var at Stamford bridge in the replay on 119 mins play all them years ago.we might have gone on to win the f a cup.
posted on 12/8/19
“However I’m firmly in the camp of VAR is right and the rules are now wrong. The rules need changing to reflect VAR. for me, a player is not offside unless there is clear distance between them and the defender. I refuse to accept 1mm offside is the right and fair way to judge it.”
---------------------------------
I knew you’d get it Mersey.
Right now I’d have to say that the player who’s a millimetre offside is offside – that’s the rule. In future we might say that the decision stays on the pitch unless there is clear daylight between the players. The technology allows us to rule, with accuracy, on decisions that we could never rule on before. That’s how the laws evolve to accommodate the technology and that’s how you ensure you only intervene when it’s necessary.
posted on 12/8/19
“wish we had var at Stamford bridge in the replay on 119 mins play all them years ago.we might have gone on to win the f a cup.”
-------------------------------------
Langley,
And there in a nutshell is another reason why I believe we should have VAR. We’ll debate these marginal decisions for a while and then forget about them, whether they’ve been made by VAR or not.
But I remember those really bad decisions for a lifetime and they still irritate me now: that FA Cup match, when Morgan was sent off at Anfield for being hit in the face by the ball, Maradona’s handball. It’s these injustices that have spoilt my enjoyment of the game far more than anything else and that’s what VAR is really for. A fair result is what people ultimately want.
posted on 12/8/19
comment by Jobyfox (U4183)
posted 17 minutes ago
“However I’m firmly in the camp of VAR is right and the rules are now wrong. The rules need changing to reflect VAR. for me, a player is not offside unless there is clear distance between them and the defender. I refuse to accept 1mm offside is the right and fair way to judge it.”
---------------------------------
I knew you’d get it Mersey.
Right now I’d have to say that the player who’s a millimetre offside is offside – that’s the rule. In future we might say that the decision stays on the pitch unless there is clear daylight between the players. The technology allows us to rule, with accuracy, on decisions that we could never rule on before. That’s how the laws evolve to accommodate the technology and that’s how you ensure you only intervene when it’s necessary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course I do Joby 💙. I guess what I don’t agree with is the way the rules are being applied with VAR.
Previously the approach was that the advantage should be given to the attacker in an offside decision. Now, what I don’t agree with is that a sterling was offside for either goal. He was in line with the defender. The fact that 1mm of his shoulder was poking out does not make him offside. He’s in line.
A few people have challenged me on what the new rule should be and I’m not entirely sure. But I know I don’t agree with the current one.
The rule for goalkeeper’s on penalties has gone wrong now as well. I get the rule was brought in to stop goalkeepers stepping way off their line, and that worked when a human was judging it. But to now prevent even 1mm of their foot not being on the line is absurd. It basically says they can move to try and save a pen. Stupid.
However, VAR is new and I think we will have some good debates like this one, and the rules will adapt with it. Just like they have this year with numerous changes, they will do again when a perfectly good goal like the Wolves one yesterday gets ruled out.
posted on 12/8/19
^ and I know that wasn’t why the Man City pen was re-taken, but it was a huge issue in the Women’s World Cup for me.
posted on 12/8/19
Offside: You want "Clear daylight". Define clear daylight. When you have human officials doing their job as it is, it means that the linesman has to be sure that you're offside in order to give it. i.e. benefit of the doubt goes to the attacker. As soon as you implement VAR, you have to give this a number. Even an "umpire's call" has a numerical value to it. Maybe this type of thing would be a better application of VAR with the offside law, particularly since we're talking fractions of a second.
This is before we get to whether or not the linesman sticks their flag up - i.e. the linesman still has to decide whether the offside decision is close enough to put their flag up or not. If they do and they're wrong, they could end up preventing a goal that would have stood. A team would feel that a linesman is being more lenient to their opponent than to them. The issues with the officiating of the rule still remain because of subjectivity.
But offside is the better use for it. Joby, you talk about rules being changed over the years and you're right - but this has been to improve the game as a spectacle, to provide better entertainment, to prevent things that would be out of the spirit of the game, like goalhanging, or this season's rules of allowing defenders to receive a goal kick inside the box and attacking players not interfering with a wall. But VAR is a different matter - the rule that prevented the Wolves goal is not one that has been introduced for that reason but instead so that it makes VAR easier to use. By definition, the game ends up either unchanged or worse as a result of these rules, not better. Do you really believe that you see the reason why the Wolves goal was chalked off and think it's for the better of the game?
posted on 12/8/19
“Do you really believe that you see the reason why the Wolves goal was chalked off and think it's for the better of the game?“
—-/—-
No, the rule is wrong.
However, if we’re saying that all accidental handballs are ‘no goal’ then VAR has to intervene - or change the rule.
The point about the offside rule is that the linesman should officiate as normal and not try and judge ‘clear daylight’ or any other criteria, but implement the rule. The rule, however, might be more nuanced worth the VAR intervention. Something like:
1. Clear daylight VAR overrule
2. Arm or leg offside, but body onside - stay with refs decision
3. Whole body onside - don’t even waste time looking at it
If it evolves in that way, or something similar, it will only catch the really poor decisions and I think everyone will accept it.
The other issue is speed of decision making, which will also improve. I actually think the technology is probably there now to track players in a computerised environment where offside calls are immediate.
VAR is here to stay. That’s because nobody will accept the really poor decisions it could have overruled now it’s here. We need to live with it and evolve it until it becomes just another part of the game.
posted on 12/8/19
I like the fact we can have offside is offside. Even if it is just 1mm.
The question I have about the process is not the gap between defender and attacker, but when the ball is released.
We can definitively say if the player is offside or not, but can we say that in every decision the moment of impact/movement/release of the ball is consistent.
At what point of foot to ball determines the point the offside is registered, because for me that is open to more ambiguity than the distance. Speed of the player playing the ball, the weight of the pass and the distortion the ball takes on after every kick
posted on 12/8/19
Not to mention angles and trajectories too..lol
posted on 12/8/19
Cheesynacho,
Yes, I really don’t know how accurate those things are, but we are told they are pretty accurate.
It may be that that’s why we need some margin of error territory in terms of a referees call. The whole crux of this debate is that the rules are absolute, but there is a natural ambiguity to them built in. That’s because they’ve always been interpreted by referees with an element of human error. Without the human error do we make absolute decisions or do we keep some of the ambiguity of the decision made on the field of play?
I suppose I’m advocating that we do retain some of the ambiguity and I think everybody would accept that if the really horrible decisions were still overturned. It might be too strong to suggest that we change the rules. It’s more ensuring that there are guidelines to their interpretation when using VAR.
Page 2 of 3