Live football thread.

[Bris Vegas]

Huddersfield look dreadful. Playoff Hangover.

[Sparkle]

2 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

Huddersfield look dreadful. Playoff Hangover.

Yes and they lost a few loan players plus the two who have gone to the Red dogs for a season 

[angieram]

Welcome to Scotland, Tom!

Rangers playing Livingston. Pitch is awful. Tom playing loads of first time passes but not getting ball back. 

Some industrial defending from Rangers. They are currently losing 1-0.

[Srg]

4 minutes ago, angieram said:

Welcome to Scotland, Tom!

Rangers playing Livingston. Pitch is awful. Tom playing loads of first time passes but not getting ball back. 

Some industrial defending from Rangers. They are currently losing 1-0.

Pitch isn’t awful, it’s just not real grass. Looks like they’re playing him centrally and unsurprisingly he’s not getting in the ball. 

[angieram]

32 minutes ago, Srg said:

Pitch isn’t awful, it’s just not real grass. Looks like they’re playing him centrally and unsurprisingly he’s not getting in the ball. 

What is it then? Looks dreadful! 

[Srg]

Just now, angieram said:

What is it then? Looks dreadful! 

It’s 4g. 

[RadioactiveWaste]

But to be fair to Livingston, the Toni Macaroni is the best named stadium in Scotland.

[angieram]

1 hour ago, Srg said:

It’s 4g. 

? Mobile network?

[Wolfie20]

Seen it all now - referee in the Sunderland  v Coventry game wearing an alice band  ?

[Anag Ram]

6 hours ago, Wolfie20 said:

Seen it all now - referee in the Sunderland  v Coventry game wearing an alice band  ?

Are you sure you can call it an Alice band?

 

[bimmerman]

10 hours ago, Wolfie20 said:

Seen it all now - referee in the Sunderland  v Coventry game wearing an alice band  ?

You were listening to talksport and I claim my £5...

Word for word what the commentators said ?

Edited July 31, 2022 by bimmerman

[Bris Vegas]

Just saw highlights of the Harry Kane last minute goal against Sporting.

I don’t understand the uproar. It’s offside.

Harry Kane is ahead of the ball when it is headed across. It hits a defender on the way but the defender isn’t in control of the ball, so it’s offside.

VAR ‘sucks the life’ out of the game.

But scrap VAR and the goal is given. Then everyone complains it was offside.

[TigerTedd]

5 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

Just saw highlights of the Harry Kane last minute goal against Sporting.

I don’t understand the uproar. It’s offside.

Harry Kane is ahead of the ball when it is headed across. It hits a defender on the way but the defender isn’t in control of the ball, so it’s offside.

VAR ‘sucks the life’ out of the game.

But scrap VAR and the goal is given. Then everyone complains it was offside.

But if it takes 3 minutes to make the decision, it’s surely not clear and obvious. And on marginal decisions, the attacker is meant to be given the benefit of the doubt, a rule introduced to ensure the goals (the reason we all tune in to watch these games) are more likely to happen. 

mid the goal had been confirmed after a 1 minute car check, I’m pretty sure most pundits would say ‘well after half an hours analysis, we’ve concluded that it was actually offside, but we can also see how it wasn’t clear and obvious, and we can all agree we don’t want var taking ages to make decisions, so the original decision stands, that’s fair enough.’

i really don’t think many people would have an issue with it, for the good of the game. 

they really need to clarify this clear and obvious. No one ever had an issue with a toe nail offside before var. that wasn’t why referees got criticised. They had issues with obvious off the ball incidents that the red missed, or other obvious issues that the red just didn’t have a good view of. These things didn’t happen that often. Var shouldn’t be used every 5 mins, we should really only see it overturning obvious mistakes every now and then. For the rest, just let the game flow. If no one’s protesting, there isn’t an obvious error to check. 

Alternatively, I’ve always been a fan of the idea of a cricket / tennis appeals system. That’s a major overhaul, but would allow players to decide what’s fair and obvious. If they want to appeal to the ref, rather than just crowding around him and trying intimaste him, they can put their money where their mouth is, and use one of their official appeals. 

i worry that it’s just such an expensive system, that they feel they have to justify it by using it all the time. If it’s invisible, then people would wonder what they’re paying for. But really it should be invisible and very unobtrusive. Just the occasional word in the refs ese ‘yeah, he just obviously punched him while you weren’t looking, red card all day long.’ That’s all it takes. I can’t believe how badly they’ve screwed it up. 

[RoyMac5]

7 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

...

VAR ‘sucks the life’ out of the game.

But scrap VAR and the goal is given. Then everyone complains it was offside.

But without VAR you only have to 'deal' with one refereeing error, with VAR it just compounds the opportunity for 'poor interpretation'.

Still, the Big  Clubs wanted it, so we all have to live with it. 

Oh and the use of VAR leads to a poorer overall standard of refereeing imho as they are happy to wait for their mistakes to be picked up. But lots of errors that change the course of a game don't get to be subject to VAR - say like when the ball goes out for a corner, but it's not, and a goal comes from the corner.

Edited October 27, 2022 by RoyMac5

[RadioactiveWaste]

13 hours ago, Bris Vegas said:

VAR ‘sucks the life’ out of the game.

But scrap VAR and the goal is given. Then everyone complains it was offside.

Yeah, ok, I think the sport can cope with the occasional offside goal standing and people getting huffy about it.

I think it's a fair enough (wink) price to pay to be rid of VAR.

[Bris Vegas]

7 hours ago, TigerTedd said:

But if it takes 3 minutes to make the decision, it’s surely not clear and obvious. And on marginal decisions, the attacker is meant to be given the benefit of the doubt, a rule introduced to ensure the goals (the reason we all tune in to watch these games) are more likely to happen. 

mid the goal had been confirmed after a 1 minute car check, I’m pretty sure most pundits would say ‘well after half an hours analysis, we’ve concluded that it was actually offside, but we can also see how it wasn’t clear and obvious, and we can all agree we don’t want var taking ages to make decisions, so the original decision stands, that’s fair enough.’

i really don’t think many people would have an issue with it, for the good of the game. 

they really need to clarify this clear and obvious. No one ever had an issue with a toe nail offside before var. that wasn’t why referees got criticised. They had issues with obvious off the ball incidents that the red missed, or other obvious issues that the red just didn’t have a good view of. These things didn’t happen that often. Var shouldn’t be used every 5 mins, we should really only see it overturning obvious mistakes every now and then. For the rest, just let the game flow. If no one’s protesting, there isn’t an obvious error to check. 

Alternatively, I’ve always been a fan of the idea of a cricket / tennis appeals system. That’s a major overhaul, but would allow players to decide what’s fair and obvious. If they want to appeal to the ref, rather than just crowding around him and trying intimaste him, they can put their money where their mouth is, and use one of their official appeals. 

i worry that it’s just such an expensive system, that they feel they have to justify it by using it all the time. If it’s invisible, then people would wonder what they’re paying for. But really it should be invisible and very unobtrusive. Just the occasional word in the refs ese ‘yeah, he just obviously punched him while you weren’t looking, red card all day long.’ That’s all it takes. I can’t believe how badly they’ve screwed it up. 

 

5 hours ago, RoyMac5 said:

But without VAR you only have to 'deal' with one refereeing error, with VAR it just compounds the opportunity for 'poor interpretation'.

Still, the Big  Clubs wanted it, so we all have to live with it. 

Oh and the use of VAR leads to a poorer overall standard of refereeing imho as they are happy to wait for their mistakes to be picked up. But lots of errors that change the course of a game don't get to be subject to VAR - say like when the ball goes out for a corner, but it's not, and a goal comes from the corner.

 

14 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Yeah, ok, I think the sport can cope with the occasional offside goal standing and people getting huffy about it.

I think it's a fair enough (wink) price to pay to be rid of VAR.

Sorry just tagging you all in here.

I think they have already done studies proving that with VAR there have been fewer refereeing errors. 

VAR came about because so many people were complaining about the number of officiating mistakes. Especially at high level. Theoretically it should also remove any potential bias.

But the major flaw with VAR is it’s still humans making the decision. And it’s still subjective.

With offsides, it doesn’t matter if it’s a centimeter or a few yards. Offside is offside. Just like the ball crossing the line or not. There should be no ‘advantage’ either way. 

But things like handballs, penalties for fouls etc. Is ultimately interpretation. 

And yes they take far too long.

You can’t compare VAR in other sports though. Half the other sports like tennis and cricket aren’t contact sports. So it’s far more straightforward. 

[TigerTedd]

12 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

 

 

Sorry just tagging you all in here.

I think they have already done studies proving that with VAR there have been fewer refereeing errors. 

VAR came about because so many people were complaining about the number of officiating mistakes. Especially at high level. Theoretically it should also remove any potential bias.

But the major flaw with VAR is it’s still humans making the decision. And it’s still subjective.

With offsides, it doesn’t matter if it’s a centimeter or a few yards. Offside is offside. Just like the ball crossing the line or not. There should be no ‘advantage’ either way. 

But things like handballs, penalties for fouls etc. Is ultimately interpretation. 

And yes they take far too long.

You can’t compare VAR in other sports though. Half the other sports like tennis and cricket aren’t contact sports. So it’s far more straightforward. 

So if offside is black and white, then by isn’t it an instant decision. It should even be possible to fully automate offside, like goal line technology, theoretically. Then there’s no controversy or delay, a player knows when they’re stood offside because a big light flashes in his head or something. Probably ultimately cheaper than employing another ref in stockley park. 

by comparing to cricket and tennis, I mean they players (or captains or managers) have a right to appeal, if they genuinely feel that an injustice has been missed. Then the refs can analyse it from all angles. If it’s upheld, they keep their appeal, if not, they loose their right to appeal, say one life each half. But I appreciate that would be quite a big change.

it’d be interesting to see a situation like last night, where the team concedes a last minute goal, but still have an appeal remaining, so they just roll the dice and say check it again, for anything (they’d have to specify what they’re claiming for though). You’d at least know it’s coming, cos they’ve hit the one appeal left, might as well use it.

var wasn’t brought in cos people were sick of the mistakes that refs made. I think everyone accepted that mistakes are made, and it’s easy when you’re sat in a studio with half an hour to analyse it, but the ones they wanted to eradicate were the unforgivably obvious mistakes. Like someone being 2 yards offside, or punching the oppositions when the refs not looking etc.

It seems weird to me how much they’ve veered away from the ‘clear and obvious’ vision. I honestly think there’s an anterior motive to justify the investment as much as possible.

 

Edited October 27, 2022 by TigerTedd

[AndyinLiverpool]

It just gives managers and players another thing to bitch about. They will always find something. They are just overgrown children that never grew up because they never had to. 

It's just tantrums because they don't get their own way.

It'll never end. It's one of the things that puts me off football. 

[RadioactiveWaste]

31 minutes ago, Bris Vegas said:

 

 

Sorry just tagging you all in here.

I think they have already done studies proving that with VAR there have been fewer refereeing errors. 

VAR came about because so many people were complaining about the number of officiating mistakes. Especially at high level. Theoretically it should also remove any potential bias.

But the major flaw with VAR is it’s still humans making the decision. And it’s still subjective.

With offsides, it doesn’t matter if it’s a centimeter or a few yards. Offside is offside. Just like the ball crossing the line or not. There should be no ‘advantage’ either way. 

But things like handballs, penalties for fouls etc. Is ultimately interpretation. 

And yes they take far too long.

You can’t compare VAR in other sports though. Half the other sports like tennis and cricket aren’t contact sports. So it’s far more straightforward. 

I think you miss my point - I'd rather live with the errors than stop all the time to try to get decisions right. Now, that's just me.

Whether VAR gets more things right or wrong isn't the issue, the issue is it's very intervention ruins the experience far more than the ref getting one wrong ever did.

But that's just me, and I'm clearly a wrong minority. Seeing as we'll never be rid of it now,I can only hope it gets less invasive and better implemented.

 

[RoyMac5]

1 hour ago, Bris Vegas said:

I think they have already done studies proving that with VAR there have been fewer refereeing errors. 

Really, I've not seen them. Do you have a link?