Oh well. I tried.

“For me it is not a natural position to have you arm out, have enough time to bring it back in but keep it there”

Classic TOOR, inventing his own criteria for forming an opinion and thinking people will take him seriously.

comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
Oh well. I tried.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You tried what? Communicating an entrenched view that has very little logic? Yes, you’re good at that.

Natural position will be me in the morning on a toilet seat wishing I didn't ask for more chilis in my Indian takeaway.

comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 8 seconds ago
Natural position will be me in the morning on a toilet seat wishing I didn't ask for more chilis in my Indian takeaway.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Won't be such a natural position when you find out you dropped the last bog roll in the toilet.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
PGMOL didn't mention Silva's handball because they deemed TAA's handball legal/fair. Maybe it should have been a free kick due to Silva's handball. New rule says intent is irrelevant once you gain an attacking advantage in build up. No way it's a pen. Not in a million years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You’ve posted the rule yourself though and it clearly doesn’t say that! It says you have to gain possession or control from a handball and then either score or create a goal scoring opportunity.

I’ll give another example. If a defender kicks it out and it accidentally hits an attackers hand, then the defender goes in for a tackle and fouls that attacker, then that would still be a penalty.

You’re focusing on the wrong thing, it is only a question of whether TAA had enough time to react.

😂 that has happened before as well

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 35 seconds ago

----------------------------------------------------------------------
PGMOL didn't mention Silva's handball because they deemed TAA's handball legal/fair. Maybe it should have been a free kick due to Silva's handball. New rule says intent is irrelevant once you gain an attacking advantage in build up. No way it's a pen. Not in a million years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You’ve posted the rule yourself though and it clearly doesn’t say that! It says you have to gain possession or control from a handball and then either score or create a goal scoring opportunity.

I’ll give another example. If a defender kicks it out and it accidentally hits an attackers hand, then the defender goes in for a tackle and fouls that attacker, then that would still be a penalty.

You’re focusing on the wrong thing, it is only a question of whether TAA had enough time to react.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which he didn't due to the deflection.

Good luck with those two, Melts!

comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 35 seconds ago

----------------------------------------------------------------------
PGMOL didn't mention Silva's handball because they deemed TAA's handball legal/fair. Maybe it should have been a free kick due to Silva's handball. New rule says intent is irrelevant once you gain an attacking advantage in build up. No way it's a pen. Not in a million years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You’ve posted the rule yourself though and it clearly doesn’t say that! It says you have to gain possession or control from a handball and then either score or create a goal scoring opportunity.

I’ll give another example. If a defender kicks it out and it accidentally hits an attackers hand, then the defender goes in for a tackle and fouls that attacker, then that would still be a penalty.

You’re focusing on the wrong thing, it is only a question of whether TAA had enough time to react.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which he didn't due to the deflection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve already said I didn’t think it was a penalty.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 46 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 51 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 35 seconds ago

----------------------------------------------------------------------
PGMOL didn't mention Silva's handball because they deemed TAA's handball legal/fair. Maybe it should have been a free kick due to Silva's handball. New rule says intent is irrelevant once you gain an attacking advantage in build up. No way it's a pen. Not in a million years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You’ve posted the rule yourself though and it clearly doesn’t say that! It says you have to gain possession or control from a handball and then either score or create a goal scoring opportunity.

I’ll give another example. If a defender kicks it out and it accidentally hits an attackers hand, then the defender goes in for a tackle and fouls that attacker, then that would still be a penalty.

You’re focusing on the wrong thing, it is only a question of whether TAA had enough time to react.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Which he didn't due to the deflection.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’ve already said I didn’t think it was a penalty.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes. I'm just stating why I thought it wasn't.

On a slightly different but also slightly related point. Does any one feel that the rules are becoming more and more designed in a fashion that is against goals being scored?

Despite the fact that the objective of football is, to, well, score goals?

comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 0 seconds ago
On a slightly different but also slightly related point. Does any one feel that the rules are becoming more and more designed in a fashion that is against goals being scored?

Despite the fact that the objective of football is, to, well, score goals?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Completely. The Sheffield United one yesterday as an example, I think they’ve gone too far and forgotten the intent behind some of the rules. If it takes that long to work out whether someone is offside or not, then there clearly wasn’t an obvious advantage to the attacker, particularly when there was still a fair amount of football before a goal scoring chance was created.

comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 32 seconds ago
On a slightly different but also slightly related point. Does any one feel that the rules are becoming more and more designed in a fashion that is against goals being scored?

Despite the fact that the objective of football is, to, well, score goals?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah...I think that is due to the introduction of VAR and simply the benefit of doubt doesnt have to go to the attacker any more.

Although I think we can all agree the introduction of VAR so far hasn't worked overall in the PL. With that in mind it is difficult to accept the mentioned trade off, ie the attackers not getting the benefit of doubt.

Exactly melts.

Agreed Winston.

the benefit of the doubt should be immaterial. Now it seems that if their is doubt, just give it to the defender.

There is doubt, not their is doubt. Grammar was appalling in my last post.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by RipleysCat (U1862)
posted 0 seconds ago
On a slightly different but also slightly related point. Does any one feel that the rules are becoming more and more designed in a fashion that is against goals being scored?

Despite the fact that the objective of football is, to, well, score goals?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Completely. The Sheffield United one yesterday as an example, I think they’ve gone too far and forgotten the intent behind some of the rules. If it takes that long to work out whether someone is offside or not, then there clearly wasn’t an obvious advantage to the attacker, particularly when there was still a fair amount of football before a goal scoring chance was created.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it shouldn't take that long. It was seconds when they put the lines up and you could see it was offside. They just kept repeating it.

On this occasion I can accept an obvious advantage wasn't gained but they are the laws, VAR just confirms them, it doesn't set them.

Decision like yesterday is what VAR is all about. The game is so much better for it.

Yes, but I think they've forgotten the intent of the laws in the push to get to absolute certainty and they see the main benefit of technology of getting to that point. I don't, I see the main benefit of being correcting obvious howlers. If no one on the pitch is even questioning it, then I don't think it's worth the impact on the match going fan of overruling goals like that.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
Yes, but I think they've forgotten the intent of the laws in the push to get to absolute certainty and they see the main benefit of technology of getting to that point. I don't, I see the main benefit of being correcting obvious howlers. If no one on the pitch is even questioning it, then I don't think it's worth the impact on the match going fan of overruling goals like that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then the opportunity, with VAR now able to be accurate down to a toe, needs to be taken to adjust the law. Seems to me there is too much messing about with offsides, too many variables, phases of play, active, interfering etc. It's a simple one for me, you're either offside or you're not. Done.

“It's a simple one for me, you're either offside or you're not. Done.”

This simplistic view is part of the problem.

comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
Yes, but I think they've forgotten the intent of the laws in the push to get to absolute certainty and they see the main benefit of technology of getting to that point. I don't, I see the main benefit of being correcting obvious howlers. If no one on the pitch is even questioning it, then I don't think it's worth the impact on the match going fan of overruling goals like that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then the opportunity, with VAR now able to be accurate down to a toe, needs to be taken to adjust the law. Seems to me there is too much messing about with offsides, too many variables, phases of play, active, interfering etc. It's a simple one for me, you're either offside or you're not. Done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It isn't able to be that accurate though, due to both the amount of frames and also at what point they draw the line at (as in, when the ball is kicked vs when it leaves the foot).

Even so though, if it's that close then to me there's no clear advantage and it doesn't need looking at that closely.

comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 minute ago
“It's a simple one for me, you're either offside or you're not. Done.”

This simplistic view is part of the problem.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you see it as a problem. I don't.

Although if they decided to change the law, to fix this problem that some people have, I'd be willing to get behind it whilst it was tried out. I just firstly don't see what they would change the law to and secondly can see as many people if not more having a problem with an offside player having played a part in a goal.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 4 seconds ago
comment by Winston is always right and he has nice balls (U1721)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 1 minute ago
Yes, but I think they've forgotten the intent of the laws in the push to get to absolute certainty and they see the main benefit of technology of getting to that point. I don't, I see the main benefit of being correcting obvious howlers. If no one on the pitch is even questioning it, then I don't think it's worth the impact on the match going fan of overruling goals like that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then the opportunity, with VAR now able to be accurate down to a toe, needs to be taken to adjust the law. Seems to me there is too much messing about with offsides, too many variables, phases of play, active, interfering etc. It's a simple one for me, you're either offside or you're not. Done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

It isn't able to be that accurate though, due to both the amount of frames and also at what point they draw the line at (as in, when the ball is kicked vs when it leaves the foot).

Even so though, if it's that close then to me there's no clear advantage and it doesn't need looking at that closely.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's not the law though. How do you implement this change you want in the law? A 2cm grace distance? Then you have the same issue, you're just moving the lines.