comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Cosmic Refugee (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
I like these rules.
But football will be a victim of its own greatness. We will never be able to change the game because of fear of the unknown and general pseudo-nostalgic resistance to new ways of doing things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you been sitting near Barry...
Don't like 2 & 3 at all but 1 is at least interesting. If there was a rule change I'd probably make it so that it's feet that count for offside. If we're talking VAR though I'd just suggest making the lines thicker so that the minute differences due to frame speed don't have as much effect. There will still be tight calls but it should make the decision quicker.
keep it simple. none of this phase 1 phase 2 or not interfering with play bollox. if the player is on the field, he is, by definition, interfering with play. the other teams players still have to account for them, and adjust their own positions, even if that players is currently 'offside'.
therefore. offside occurs if any attacking player is ahead of the ball, or ahead of the last outfield player when any pass or shot is attempted.
as for other rules to the game.
1. the clock stops whenever the ball leaves the field of play, or the ref blows the whistle to stop play.
2. play cannot resume after any interruption until the ref blows the whistle.
3. the clock restarts at the point the player kicks the ball or takes a throw in.
those simple rules stop ALL timewasting, and we actually get to see a full 90 minutes of football.
downside: may lead to crappy american football style ad breaks everywhere.
1. football is a contact sport. just because there is contact that does not mean a foul occurred. it is the players responsibility to do everything they can to remain on their feet and continue with play.
2. any attempt to throw yourself to the ground like a fairy is an automatic card offence.
3. players play with long sleeved tops and gloves. material is pressure reactive, causing colour change where opposition clothing is in contact. colour change increases with increased pressure. any arm/shirt pulling, dragging players down now provides evidence and can be suitably punished. colour returns to normal over next couple of minutes.
that should stop the most of the playacting.
if a player is fouled and requires extensive treatment, a 'blood substitute' is allowed. allowed to prevent opposition gaining a numerical advantage via foul play. the blood substitute for each starting player must be nominated before play starts to prevent it being used as a tactical change. does not count as one of the 3 allowed subs.
injured player must be checked by independent doctor to confirm injury prevents player safely continuing to enable allowance of blood substitute.
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Cosmic Refugee (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
I like these rules.
But football will be a victim of its own greatness. We will never be able to change the game because of fear of the unknown and general pseudo-nostalgic resistance to new ways of doing things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you been sitting near Barry...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was wearing a mask.
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 1 minute ago
So what happens if the ball gets played out to the right flank where a player is 2 yards offside, the linesman on that side puts his flag up so the defenders stop but the linesman on the far side has his flag down because he is unsighted and the opposition then go and score because he's got 5 yards of the defence as they've stopped.
I get human error is a part of the game, but VAR is there to eradicate that. Unfortunately, just because it's a part of it doesn't make it an excuse for incompetency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My suggestion for 4 linesmen is for this type of reason. It would always mean one official is closer to the action. So raise a flag and it's offside. The other can communicate that he was unsighted
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they only have one chance to look at it. So what happens when 1 linesman is unsighted but the other who raised his flag gets the decision wrong? We just end up where we were before VAR, with frustrated managers, players and fans alike because of competence issues.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Cosmic Refugee (U1282)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Cosmic Refugee (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
I like these rules.
But football will be a victim of its own greatness. We will never be able to change the game because of fear of the unknown and general pseudo-nostalgic resistance to new ways of doing things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you been sitting near Barry...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was wearing a mask.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
fair enough
comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 6 hours, 33 minutes ago
2 & 3 sound like someone who has never played the game trying to come up with ideas for it!
If the ball swerves OUT, it is OUT? That's why we have line marking the area where the pitch ends, so that if the ball crosses that line it is OUT.
Throw-ins are part of the game, if they were to be replaced by kick-ins, that would delay the game every time the ball goes to throw.
The more meddling is going on with the game, the worst it is getting and it is becoming a mockery!
Leave the game alone!
About the offside, the advantage should be given to the attacker, and in my view, I don't like these reviews with multiple angles and lines drawn, but if we to continue with that, then only the attacker's boots have to checked - because the feet mark the attackers position, not his arms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Love it when people complain about the game but then say leave the game alone.
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 1 minute ago
So what happens if the ball gets played out to the right flank where a player is 2 yards offside, the linesman on that side puts his flag up so the defenders stop but the linesman on the far side has his flag down because he is unsighted and the opposition then go and score because he's got 5 yards of the defence as they've stopped.
I get human error is a part of the game, but VAR is there to eradicate that. Unfortunately, just because it's a part of it doesn't make it an excuse for incompetency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My suggestion for 4 linesmen is for this type of reason. It would always mean one official is closer to the action. So raise a flag and it's offside. The other can communicate that he was unsighted
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they only have one chance to look at it. So what happens when 1 linesman is unsighted but the other who raised his flag gets the decision wrong? We just end up where we were before VAR, with frustrated managers, players and fans alike because of competence issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mate I wasn't suggesting a 100% perfect system. In fact I've said some wrong decisions are part n parcel of the game, for me anyway.
What is important, for me is how we deal with those decisions. So my suggestion of a table for refs/linesmen as a sort of "punishment/comeuppance" would be enough to satisfy me.a sort of yeah it was human error but he lost a point or whatever which may see him relegated to championship
The one thing, again for me, it would improve is the whole VAR and mm thing. The human eye would see things differently and that is fair enough for me. Of the link didn't give an offside and it was a little pinky that was the difference for me that's fair enough
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 1 minute ago
So what happens if the ball gets played out to the right flank where a player is 2 yards offside, the linesman on that side puts his flag up so the defenders stop but the linesman on the far side has his flag down because he is unsighted and the opposition then go and score because he's got 5 yards of the defence as they've stopped.
I get human error is a part of the game, but VAR is there to eradicate that. Unfortunately, just because it's a part of it doesn't make it an excuse for incompetency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My suggestion for 4 linesmen is for this type of reason. It would always mean one official is closer to the action. So raise a flag and it's offside. The other can communicate that he was unsighted
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they only have one chance to look at it. So what happens when 1 linesman is unsighted but the other who raised his flag gets the decision wrong? We just end up where we were before VAR, with frustrated managers, players and fans alike because of competence issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mate I wasn't suggesting a 100% perfect system. In fact I've said some wrong decisions are part n parcel of the game, for me anyway.
What is important, for me is how we deal with those decisions. So my suggestion of a table for refs/linesmen as a sort of "punishment/comeuppance" would be enough to satisfy me.a sort of yeah it was human error but he lost a point or whatever which may see him relegated to championship
The one thing, again for me, it would improve is the whole VAR and mm thing. The human eye would see things differently and that is fair enough for me. Of the link didn't give an offside and it was a little pinky that was the difference for me that's fair enough
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what you're saying, but just because human error is a thing doesn't mean we can't try to nullify how much it affects a game, that was the point in VAR.
The referee's points system could work, but to get the best of both worlds then you keep VAR in place and you decide if a referee is docked a point over the basis of a decision. So if the referee gives a penalty which VAR then overturns for example, the referee can be docked a point because that's a wrong decision. If VAR checks a decision and agrees with the referee, then that's a point gained.
I see little point in going back to a system that we wanted to and now have improved imo.
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what you're saying, but just because human error is a thing doesn't mean we can't try to nullify how much it affects a game, that was the point in VAR.
The referee's points system could work, but to get the best of both worlds then you keep VAR in place and you decide if a referee is docked a point over the basis of a decision. So if the referee gives a penalty which VAR then overturns for example, the referee can be docked a point because that's a wrong decision. If VAR checks a decision and agrees with the referee, then that's a point gained.
I see little point in going back to a system that we wanted to and now have improved imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think VAR has improved the game, that's just my view so fair enough if you disagree.
I especially don't like the breaks in play.
Ref/lino performance after a game is fair enough. I know on he face of it that doesn't help the team the decision goes against, however you'd hope and think the extra linos and the fact that that would mean someone closer to play at all times would eradicate some of the ridiculous offsides we saw in the past that were not given.
I don't mind the right decisions personally. It's the really bad ones we need to eradicate
As an example of both linos could raise a flag and the ref gives it. Ultimately they could be wrong but am not sure percentages wise that would happen a lot.
none of thsoe rules are required.
none.
its just tinkering.
anything wenger suggests clearly should be immediately ignored as he's always at it.
*I don't mind the wrong decisions
When I say that I mean the mm stuff
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what you're saying, but just because human error is a thing doesn't mean we can't try to nullify how much it affects a game, that was the point in VAR.
The referee's points system could work, but to get the best of both worlds then you keep VAR in place and you decide if a referee is docked a point over the basis of a decision. So if the referee gives a penalty which VAR then overturns for example, the referee can be docked a point because that's a wrong decision. If VAR checks a decision and agrees with the referee, then that's a point gained.
I see little point in going back to a system that we wanted to and now have improved imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think VAR has improved the game, that's just my view so fair enough if you disagree.
I especially don't like the breaks in play.
Ref/lino performance after a game is fair enough. I know on he face of it that doesn't help the team the decision goes against, however you'd hope and think the extra linos and the fact that that would mean someone closer to play at all times would eradicate some of the ridiculous offsides we saw in the past that were not given.
I don't mind the right decisions personally. It's the really bad ones we need to eradicate
As an example of both linos could raise a flag and the ref gives it. Ultimately they could be wrong but am not sure percentages wise that would happen a lot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it has in terms of getting to the correct decisions, the biggest complaint surrounding VAR is the technicalities of getting to the decision, particularly the time taken. I feel like if they can improve on this, then VAR would be an even more effective tool within the game.
I don't see how having extra linos would help the game in getting to the correct decisions because you'd just have disputes on who is right/wrong and without VAR you would never know until it is too late like the first time. Imagine having 2 referee's on the pitch, that would never work practically.
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what you're saying, but just because human error is a thing doesn't mean we can't try to nullify how much it affects a game, that was the point in VAR.
The referee's points system could work, but to get the best of both worlds then you keep VAR in place and you decide if a referee is docked a point over the basis of a decision. So if the referee gives a penalty which VAR then overturns for example, the referee can be docked a point because that's a wrong decision. If VAR checks a decision and agrees with the referee, then that's a point gained.
I see little point in going back to a system that we wanted to and now have improved imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think VAR has improved the game, that's just my view so fair enough if you disagree.
I especially don't like the breaks in play.
Ref/lino performance after a game is fair enough. I know on he face of it that doesn't help the team the decision goes against, however you'd hope and think the extra linos and the fact that that would mean someone closer to play at all times would eradicate some of the ridiculous offsides we saw in the past that were not given.
I don't mind the right decisions personally. It's the really bad ones we need to eradicate
As an example of both linos could raise a flag and the ref gives it. Ultimately they could be wrong but am not sure percentages wise that would happen a lot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm of the opposite view and I think that VAR has improved the game overall. I think that the delays aren't ideal but the complaints about them seem to be largely exaggerated. The recent report of VAR stated that the average review was 1 minute long and there was a review every 3 games on average. 1 minuted every three games seems tiny compared to the ball being out of play for 30+ minutes a match.
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what you're saying, but just because human error is a thing doesn't mean we can't try to nullify how much it affects a game, that was the point in VAR.
The referee's points system could work, but to get the best of both worlds then you keep VAR in place and you decide if a referee is docked a point over the basis of a decision. So if the referee gives a penalty which VAR then overturns for example, the referee can be docked a point because that's a wrong decision. If VAR checks a decision and agrees with the referee, then that's a point gained.
I see little point in going back to a system that we wanted to and now have improved imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think VAR has improved the game, that's just my view so fair enough if you disagree.
I especially don't like the breaks in play.
Ref/lino performance after a game is fair enough. I know on he face of it that doesn't help the team the decision goes against, however you'd hope and think the extra linos and the fact that that would mean someone closer to play at all times would eradicate some of the ridiculous offsides we saw in the past that were not given.
I don't mind the right decisions personally. It's the really bad ones we need to eradicate
As an example of both linos could raise a flag and the ref gives it. Ultimately they could be wrong but am not sure percentages wise that would happen a lot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it has in terms of getting to the correct decisions, the biggest complaint surrounding VAR is the technicalities of getting to the decision, particularly the time taken. I feel like if they can improve on this, then VAR would be an even more effective tool within the game.
I don't see how having extra linos would help the game in getting to the correct decisions because you'd just have disputes on who is right/wrong and without VAR you would never know until it is too late like the first time. Imagine having 2 referee's on the pitch, that would never work practically.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the two refs idea was floated once but purely due to the speed of the game and unfitness of the refs iirc.
I think the officiating is fine now that VAR is involved. It's not about slowing the game down, showing the referee up or undermining any officials, but it's coming to the uniformly correct decision as often as possible in accordance with the laws of the game. I say it has done that well since it's introduction.
*******************************************
1. An attacking player is only offside if absolutely no goalscoring part of his body is in line with the defending player. If the head is offside but the foot is in line with the defender's foot the player is onside.
*******************************************
Probably already noted, but just in case, I believe that a player's HEAD is a "goalscoring" part of the body.
The offside rule needs to be overhauled, not nit-picked!
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 23 minutes ago
I think the officiating is fine now that VAR is involved. It's not about slowing the game down, showing the referee up or undermining any officials, but it's coming to the uniformly correct decision as often as possible in accordance with the laws of the game. I say it has done that well since it's introduction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I say it hasn't done it well since it's introduction. And It has slowed the game down, whether you care to acknowledge the fact or not.
Also, re: offsides, 2 linos etc. They were already extremely accurate. It was around 98% of offsides were correct before VAR IIRC. Context is important when you're talking about facking with the game for marginal percentage points of accuracy.
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Cosmic Refugee (U1282)
posted 2 hours, 49 minutes ago
I like these rules.
But football will be a victim of its own greatness. We will never be able to change the game because of fear of the unknown and general pseudo-nostalgic resistance to new ways of doing things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very true. Football is the most conservative of all competitive sports, lacks dynamism and is always trailing behind other sports from general rule changes to use of technology.
comment by Grand Cannon (U18697)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Cosmic Refugee (U1282)
posted 2 hours, 49 minutes ago
I like these rules.
But football will be a victim of its own greatness. We will never be able to change the game because of fear of the unknown and general pseudo-nostalgic resistance to new ways of doing things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very true. Football is the most conservative of all competitive sports, lacks dynamism and is always trailing behind other sports from general rule changes to use of technology.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not true. See goal line technology.
In terms of adopting new technologies it should only be done for two reasons: improving fan enjoyment or improving the sport itself. Simply because we can doesn't mean we should.
Only one I vaguely like is the offside one. Though I still say that rule should be as straightforward as where the player's feet are. This crap about someone's head being offside is ridiculous. Fact is if the attacking player's feet are behind the defenders but his head is leaning in advance. Then it's because said attacking just got the drop on his marker and is about to blow past him.
Get beat like that as the defender and it's ya own damn fault, should have watched your man closer and positioned yourself so he couldn't breeze past you. The rules as they are erase the mistake of a defender and rob untold teams of goals which should have stood. Defenders shouldn't get their defensive errors erased, their teams should pay the price for them.
One rule change I advocate 4 is that after a team score a gol, they get 2 kick off from center circle instead of the other team.
as it stands, there is little reason 2 score a gol becuse all u do is hand over posession 2 ur oponants after being in a very good, promising position near their gol.
comment by WB2 (Emery'll Get Me Killed) (U8276)
posted 10 minutes ago
Only one I vaguely like is the offside one. Though I still say that rule should be as straightforward as where the player's feet are. This crap about someone's head being offside is ridiculous. Fact is if the attacking player's feet are behind the defenders but his head is leaning in advance. Then it's because said attacking just got the drop on his marker and is about to blow past him.
Get beat like that as the defender and it's ya own damn fault, should have watched your man closer and positioned yourself so he couldn't breeze past you. The rules as they are erase the mistake of a defender and rob untold teams of goals which should have stood. Defenders shouldn't get their defensive errors erased, their teams should pay the price for them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean this argument works equally both ways. If your head is offside as an attacker then you have clearly not been able to time your run properly and so shouldn't have the rules there to erase you mistake, no?
Italy had a gol disaloud in world cup finale 2006 purely becuse Luca Toni was facing toward the gol n the French defender was facing away from the gol.
Sign in if you want to comment
Proposed Rule changes
Page 4 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 8/10/20
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Cosmic Refugee (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
I like these rules.
But football will be a victim of its own greatness. We will never be able to change the game because of fear of the unknown and general pseudo-nostalgic resistance to new ways of doing things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you been sitting near Barry...
posted on 8/10/20
Don't like 2 & 3 at all but 1 is at least interesting. If there was a rule change I'd probably make it so that it's feet that count for offside. If we're talking VAR though I'd just suggest making the lines thicker so that the minute differences due to frame speed don't have as much effect. There will still be tight calls but it should make the decision quicker.
posted on 8/10/20
keep it simple. none of this phase 1 phase 2 or not interfering with play bollox. if the player is on the field, he is, by definition, interfering with play. the other teams players still have to account for them, and adjust their own positions, even if that players is currently 'offside'.
therefore. offside occurs if any attacking player is ahead of the ball, or ahead of the last outfield player when any pass or shot is attempted.
as for other rules to the game.
1. the clock stops whenever the ball leaves the field of play, or the ref blows the whistle to stop play.
2. play cannot resume after any interruption until the ref blows the whistle.
3. the clock restarts at the point the player kicks the ball or takes a throw in.
those simple rules stop ALL timewasting, and we actually get to see a full 90 minutes of football.
downside: may lead to crappy american football style ad breaks everywhere.
1. football is a contact sport. just because there is contact that does not mean a foul occurred. it is the players responsibility to do everything they can to remain on their feet and continue with play.
2. any attempt to throw yourself to the ground like a fairy is an automatic card offence.
3. players play with long sleeved tops and gloves. material is pressure reactive, causing colour change where opposition clothing is in contact. colour change increases with increased pressure. any arm/shirt pulling, dragging players down now provides evidence and can be suitably punished. colour returns to normal over next couple of minutes.
that should stop the most of the playacting.
if a player is fouled and requires extensive treatment, a 'blood substitute' is allowed. allowed to prevent opposition gaining a numerical advantage via foul play. the blood substitute for each starting player must be nominated before play starts to prevent it being used as a tactical change. does not count as one of the 3 allowed subs.
injured player must be checked by independent doctor to confirm injury prevents player safely continuing to enable allowance of blood substitute.
posted on 8/10/20
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Cosmic Refugee (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
I like these rules.
But football will be a victim of its own greatness. We will never be able to change the game because of fear of the unknown and general pseudo-nostalgic resistance to new ways of doing things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you been sitting near Barry...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was wearing a mask.
posted on 8/10/20
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 1 minute ago
So what happens if the ball gets played out to the right flank where a player is 2 yards offside, the linesman on that side puts his flag up so the defenders stop but the linesman on the far side has his flag down because he is unsighted and the opposition then go and score because he's got 5 yards of the defence as they've stopped.
I get human error is a part of the game, but VAR is there to eradicate that. Unfortunately, just because it's a part of it doesn't make it an excuse for incompetency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My suggestion for 4 linesmen is for this type of reason. It would always mean one official is closer to the action. So raise a flag and it's offside. The other can communicate that he was unsighted
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they only have one chance to look at it. So what happens when 1 linesman is unsighted but the other who raised his flag gets the decision wrong? We just end up where we were before VAR, with frustrated managers, players and fans alike because of competence issues.
posted on 8/10/20
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Cosmic Refugee (U1282)
posted 22 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Cosmic Refugee (U1282)
posted 1 minute ago
I like these rules.
But football will be a victim of its own greatness. We will never be able to change the game because of fear of the unknown and general pseudo-nostalgic resistance to new ways of doing things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you been sitting near Barry...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was wearing a mask.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
fair enough
posted on 8/10/20
comment by morespurs (U15748)
posted 6 hours, 33 minutes ago
2 & 3 sound like someone who has never played the game trying to come up with ideas for it!
If the ball swerves OUT, it is OUT? That's why we have line marking the area where the pitch ends, so that if the ball crosses that line it is OUT.
Throw-ins are part of the game, if they were to be replaced by kick-ins, that would delay the game every time the ball goes to throw.
The more meddling is going on with the game, the worst it is getting and it is becoming a mockery!
Leave the game alone!
About the offside, the advantage should be given to the attacker, and in my view, I don't like these reviews with multiple angles and lines drawn, but if we to continue with that, then only the attacker's boots have to checked - because the feet mark the attackers position, not his arms.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Love it when people complain about the game but then say leave the game alone.
posted on 8/10/20
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 1 minute ago
So what happens if the ball gets played out to the right flank where a player is 2 yards offside, the linesman on that side puts his flag up so the defenders stop but the linesman on the far side has his flag down because he is unsighted and the opposition then go and score because he's got 5 yards of the defence as they've stopped.
I get human error is a part of the game, but VAR is there to eradicate that. Unfortunately, just because it's a part of it doesn't make it an excuse for incompetency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My suggestion for 4 linesmen is for this type of reason. It would always mean one official is closer to the action. So raise a flag and it's offside. The other can communicate that he was unsighted
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they only have one chance to look at it. So what happens when 1 linesman is unsighted but the other who raised his flag gets the decision wrong? We just end up where we were before VAR, with frustrated managers, players and fans alike because of competence issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mate I wasn't suggesting a 100% perfect system. In fact I've said some wrong decisions are part n parcel of the game, for me anyway.
What is important, for me is how we deal with those decisions. So my suggestion of a table for refs/linesmen as a sort of "punishment/comeuppance" would be enough to satisfy me.a sort of yeah it was human error but he lost a point or whatever which may see him relegated to championship
The one thing, again for me, it would improve is the whole VAR and mm thing. The human eye would see things differently and that is fair enough for me. Of the link didn't give an offside and it was a little pinky that was the difference for me that's fair enough
posted on 8/10/20
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 42 minutes ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 19 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 1 minute ago
So what happens if the ball gets played out to the right flank where a player is 2 yards offside, the linesman on that side puts his flag up so the defenders stop but the linesman on the far side has his flag down because he is unsighted and the opposition then go and score because he's got 5 yards of the defence as they've stopped.
I get human error is a part of the game, but VAR is there to eradicate that. Unfortunately, just because it's a part of it doesn't make it an excuse for incompetency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My suggestion for 4 linesmen is for this type of reason. It would always mean one official is closer to the action. So raise a flag and it's offside. The other can communicate that he was unsighted
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But they only have one chance to look at it. So what happens when 1 linesman is unsighted but the other who raised his flag gets the decision wrong? We just end up where we were before VAR, with frustrated managers, players and fans alike because of competence issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mate I wasn't suggesting a 100% perfect system. In fact I've said some wrong decisions are part n parcel of the game, for me anyway.
What is important, for me is how we deal with those decisions. So my suggestion of a table for refs/linesmen as a sort of "punishment/comeuppance" would be enough to satisfy me.a sort of yeah it was human error but he lost a point or whatever which may see him relegated to championship
The one thing, again for me, it would improve is the whole VAR and mm thing. The human eye would see things differently and that is fair enough for me. Of the link didn't give an offside and it was a little pinky that was the difference for me that's fair enough
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what you're saying, but just because human error is a thing doesn't mean we can't try to nullify how much it affects a game, that was the point in VAR.
The referee's points system could work, but to get the best of both worlds then you keep VAR in place and you decide if a referee is docked a point over the basis of a decision. So if the referee gives a penalty which VAR then overturns for example, the referee can be docked a point because that's a wrong decision. If VAR checks a decision and agrees with the referee, then that's a point gained.
I see little point in going back to a system that we wanted to and now have improved imo.
posted on 8/10/20
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what you're saying, but just because human error is a thing doesn't mean we can't try to nullify how much it affects a game, that was the point in VAR.
The referee's points system could work, but to get the best of both worlds then you keep VAR in place and you decide if a referee is docked a point over the basis of a decision. So if the referee gives a penalty which VAR then overturns for example, the referee can be docked a point because that's a wrong decision. If VAR checks a decision and agrees with the referee, then that's a point gained.
I see little point in going back to a system that we wanted to and now have improved imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think VAR has improved the game, that's just my view so fair enough if you disagree.
I especially don't like the breaks in play.
Ref/lino performance after a game is fair enough. I know on he face of it that doesn't help the team the decision goes against, however you'd hope and think the extra linos and the fact that that would mean someone closer to play at all times would eradicate some of the ridiculous offsides we saw in the past that were not given.
I don't mind the right decisions personally. It's the really bad ones we need to eradicate
As an example of both linos could raise a flag and the ref gives it. Ultimately they could be wrong but am not sure percentages wise that would happen a lot.
posted on 8/10/20
none of thsoe rules are required.
none.
its just tinkering.
anything wenger suggests clearly should be immediately ignored as he's always at it.
posted on 8/10/20
*I don't mind the wrong decisions
When I say that I mean the mm stuff
posted on 8/10/20
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what you're saying, but just because human error is a thing doesn't mean we can't try to nullify how much it affects a game, that was the point in VAR.
The referee's points system could work, but to get the best of both worlds then you keep VAR in place and you decide if a referee is docked a point over the basis of a decision. So if the referee gives a penalty which VAR then overturns for example, the referee can be docked a point because that's a wrong decision. If VAR checks a decision and agrees with the referee, then that's a point gained.
I see little point in going back to a system that we wanted to and now have improved imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think VAR has improved the game, that's just my view so fair enough if you disagree.
I especially don't like the breaks in play.
Ref/lino performance after a game is fair enough. I know on he face of it that doesn't help the team the decision goes against, however you'd hope and think the extra linos and the fact that that would mean someone closer to play at all times would eradicate some of the ridiculous offsides we saw in the past that were not given.
I don't mind the right decisions personally. It's the really bad ones we need to eradicate
As an example of both linos could raise a flag and the ref gives it. Ultimately they could be wrong but am not sure percentages wise that would happen a lot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it has in terms of getting to the correct decisions, the biggest complaint surrounding VAR is the technicalities of getting to the decision, particularly the time taken. I feel like if they can improve on this, then VAR would be an even more effective tool within the game.
I don't see how having extra linos would help the game in getting to the correct decisions because you'd just have disputes on who is right/wrong and without VAR you would never know until it is too late like the first time. Imagine having 2 referee's on the pitch, that would never work practically.
posted on 8/10/20
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what you're saying, but just because human error is a thing doesn't mean we can't try to nullify how much it affects a game, that was the point in VAR.
The referee's points system could work, but to get the best of both worlds then you keep VAR in place and you decide if a referee is docked a point over the basis of a decision. So if the referee gives a penalty which VAR then overturns for example, the referee can be docked a point because that's a wrong decision. If VAR checks a decision and agrees with the referee, then that's a point gained.
I see little point in going back to a system that we wanted to and now have improved imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think VAR has improved the game, that's just my view so fair enough if you disagree.
I especially don't like the breaks in play.
Ref/lino performance after a game is fair enough. I know on he face of it that doesn't help the team the decision goes against, however you'd hope and think the extra linos and the fact that that would mean someone closer to play at all times would eradicate some of the ridiculous offsides we saw in the past that were not given.
I don't mind the right decisions personally. It's the really bad ones we need to eradicate
As an example of both linos could raise a flag and the ref gives it. Ultimately they could be wrong but am not sure percentages wise that would happen a lot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm of the opposite view and I think that VAR has improved the game overall. I think that the delays aren't ideal but the complaints about them seem to be largely exaggerated. The recent report of VAR stated that the average review was 1 minute long and there was a review every 3 games on average. 1 minuted every three games seems tiny compared to the ball being out of play for 30+ minutes a match.
posted on 8/10/20
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
posted 15 minutes ago
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Jinja Ninja (U19849)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know what you're saying, but just because human error is a thing doesn't mean we can't try to nullify how much it affects a game, that was the point in VAR.
The referee's points system could work, but to get the best of both worlds then you keep VAR in place and you decide if a referee is docked a point over the basis of a decision. So if the referee gives a penalty which VAR then overturns for example, the referee can be docked a point because that's a wrong decision. If VAR checks a decision and agrees with the referee, then that's a point gained.
I see little point in going back to a system that we wanted to and now have improved imo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think VAR has improved the game, that's just my view so fair enough if you disagree.
I especially don't like the breaks in play.
Ref/lino performance after a game is fair enough. I know on he face of it that doesn't help the team the decision goes against, however you'd hope and think the extra linos and the fact that that would mean someone closer to play at all times would eradicate some of the ridiculous offsides we saw in the past that were not given.
I don't mind the right decisions personally. It's the really bad ones we need to eradicate
As an example of both linos could raise a flag and the ref gives it. Ultimately they could be wrong but am not sure percentages wise that would happen a lot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it has in terms of getting to the correct decisions, the biggest complaint surrounding VAR is the technicalities of getting to the decision, particularly the time taken. I feel like if they can improve on this, then VAR would be an even more effective tool within the game.
I don't see how having extra linos would help the game in getting to the correct decisions because you'd just have disputes on who is right/wrong and without VAR you would never know until it is too late like the first time. Imagine having 2 referee's on the pitch, that would never work practically.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the two refs idea was floated once but purely due to the speed of the game and unfitness of the refs iirc.
posted on 8/10/20
I think the officiating is fine now that VAR is involved. It's not about slowing the game down, showing the referee up or undermining any officials, but it's coming to the uniformly correct decision as often as possible in accordance with the laws of the game. I say it has done that well since it's introduction.
posted on 8/10/20
*******************************************
1. An attacking player is only offside if absolutely no goalscoring part of his body is in line with the defending player. If the head is offside but the foot is in line with the defender's foot the player is onside.
*******************************************
Probably already noted, but just in case, I believe that a player's HEAD is a "goalscoring" part of the body.
The offside rule needs to be overhauled, not nit-picked!
posted on 8/10/20
comment by JustYourAverageFan (U21016)
posted 23 minutes ago
I think the officiating is fine now that VAR is involved. It's not about slowing the game down, showing the referee up or undermining any officials, but it's coming to the uniformly correct decision as often as possible in accordance with the laws of the game. I say it has done that well since it's introduction.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I say it hasn't done it well since it's introduction. And It has slowed the game down, whether you care to acknowledge the fact or not.
Also, re: offsides, 2 linos etc. They were already extremely accurate. It was around 98% of offsides were correct before VAR IIRC. Context is important when you're talking about facking with the game for marginal percentage points of accuracy.
posted on 8/10/20
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Cosmic Refugee (U1282)
posted 2 hours, 49 minutes ago
I like these rules.
But football will be a victim of its own greatness. We will never be able to change the game because of fear of the unknown and general pseudo-nostalgic resistance to new ways of doing things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very true. Football is the most conservative of all competitive sports, lacks dynamism and is always trailing behind other sports from general rule changes to use of technology.
posted on 8/10/20
comment by Grand Cannon (U18697)
posted 13 seconds ago
comment by Thorgen Kloppinson - Cosmic Refugee (U1282)
posted 2 hours, 49 minutes ago
I like these rules.
But football will be a victim of its own greatness. We will never be able to change the game because of fear of the unknown and general pseudo-nostalgic resistance to new ways of doing things.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Very true. Football is the most conservative of all competitive sports, lacks dynamism and is always trailing behind other sports from general rule changes to use of technology.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not true. See goal line technology.
In terms of adopting new technologies it should only be done for two reasons: improving fan enjoyment or improving the sport itself. Simply because we can doesn't mean we should.
posted on 8/10/20
Only one I vaguely like is the offside one. Though I still say that rule should be as straightforward as where the player's feet are. This crap about someone's head being offside is ridiculous. Fact is if the attacking player's feet are behind the defenders but his head is leaning in advance. Then it's because said attacking just got the drop on his marker and is about to blow past him.
Get beat like that as the defender and it's ya own damn fault, should have watched your man closer and positioned yourself so he couldn't breeze past you. The rules as they are erase the mistake of a defender and rob untold teams of goals which should have stood. Defenders shouldn't get their defensive errors erased, their teams should pay the price for them.
posted on 8/10/20
One rule change I advocate 4 is that after a team score a gol, they get 2 kick off from center circle instead of the other team.
as it stands, there is little reason 2 score a gol becuse all u do is hand over posession 2 ur oponants after being in a very good, promising position near their gol.
posted on 8/10/20
comment by WB2 (Emery'll Get Me Killed) (U8276)
posted 10 minutes ago
Only one I vaguely like is the offside one. Though I still say that rule should be as straightforward as where the player's feet are. This crap about someone's head being offside is ridiculous. Fact is if the attacking player's feet are behind the defenders but his head is leaning in advance. Then it's because said attacking just got the drop on his marker and is about to blow past him.
Get beat like that as the defender and it's ya own damn fault, should have watched your man closer and positioned yourself so he couldn't breeze past you. The rules as they are erase the mistake of a defender and rob untold teams of goals which should have stood. Defenders shouldn't get their defensive errors erased, their teams should pay the price for them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean this argument works equally both ways. If your head is offside as an attacker then you have clearly not been able to time your run properly and so shouldn't have the rules there to erase you mistake, no?
posted on 8/10/20
99
posted on 8/10/20
Italy had a gol disaloud in world cup finale 2006 purely becuse Luca Toni was facing toward the gol n the French defender was facing away from the gol.
Page 4 of 7
6 | 7