Recruitment Drive

[Anag Ram]

Tired of endless replays for VAR?

No longer enjoying goals for fear of them being ruled out seven minutes later?

Then come to Pride Park in good old League One!

Rediscover the joy of calling officials a cant, a nib jacky or a winker as they make good old-fashioned mistakes.

No sign of technology being used, except from the morons who forget they’re at a live event and live their life through their phones.

No place here for Lineker and his tired old chums trying to decide whether having your shorts flap slightly closer to the goal gives you an unfair advantage.

Gasp as the ball reaches some eighty feet in the air, revel in the expert time-wasting and become one of many fans more expert than the managers.

You’ll never go back to Premier League and its robots.

 

[Day]

I want us to be in the Premier League though 😭

[Srg]

One of those insults is homophobic… just warning you before someone is offended by it. 

[Old Spalding Ram]

Here’s some depressing news!

The International Football Association Board (IFAB), responsible for regulating the rules of football, will discuss on Tuesday, November 28, the need to extend the authority of Video Assistant Referees (VAR) to free kicks, corners, and second yellow cards. This information is reported by The Times.

The FIFA-created working group on VAR has concerns that expanding the authority of video assistants will lead to even more significant delays in matches.

 

https://footyroom.co/articles/the-times-ifab-the-regulator-of-football-rules-will-discuss-expanding-vars-powers-6564f7c7f6cd50482a721d62#google_vignette

 

 

 

[Ambitious]

2 minutes ago, Old Spalding Ram said:

Here’s some depressing news!

The International Football Association Board (IFAB), responsible for regulating the rules of football, will discuss on Tuesday, November 28, the need to extend the authority of Video Assistant Referees (VAR) to free kicks, corners, and second yellow cards. This information is reported by The Times.

The FIFA-created working group on VAR has concerns that expanding the authority of video assistants will lead to even more significant delays in matches.

 

https://footyroom.co/articles/the-times-ifab-the-regulator-of-football-rules-will-discuss-expanding-vars-powers-6564f7c7f6cd50482a721d62#google_vignette

 

If done correctly, it will be good as these often are key moments in games. If done correctly, is the concern though. 

I still don't understand why it takes so long or why there is an emphasis on supporting the on-field ref rather than just getting the decision right. A lot of it is subjective, but if you can watch something in a million different angles and slow it right down - why on earth can't they in some key instances still overrrule the guy who saw it once in real time - second yellow cards are a great example! 

One thing I have learned, however as frustrating as VAR can be at times - it's still a lot better than having games littered with terrible decisions - goals called offside when they're a foot onside and goals called onside when they're 5 yards beyond the last defender. Think back to the Plymouth game last season, that penalty is overturned and their player booked. Bolton game this season, Wildsmith is still allowed to carry on - two big games, two big decisions against us. I can't remember who it was against but there was a ludicrous penalty decision given against us, where there wasn't a player within a couple of feet of him by the time he went down. I think 3 of our last 4 red cards have been retrospectively overturned, haven't they? 

I think it will all start to click when they stop focusing on backing the on-field ref and just put emphasis on getting the decision correct. The NFL are a good example of efficient video refereeing and the margins are much, much, much tighter than they often are in football - and there is a lot more of them. 

[Srg]

11 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

If done correctly, it will be good as these often are key moments in games. If done correctly, is the concern though. 

I still don't understand why it takes so long or why there is an emphasis on supporting the on-field ref rather than just getting the decision right. A lot of it is subjective, but if you can watch something in a million different angles and slow it right down - why on earth can't they in some key instances still overrrule the guy who saw it once in real time - second yellow cards are a great example! 

One thing I have learned, however as frustrating as VAR can be at times - it's still a lot better than having games littered with terrible decisions - goals called offside when they're a foot onside and goals called onside when they're 5 yards beyond the last defender. Think back to the Plymouth game last season, that penalty is overturned and their player booked. Bolton game this season, Wildsmith is still allowed to carry on - two big games, two big decisions against us. I can't remember who it was against but there was a ludicrous penalty decision given against us, where there wasn't a player within a couple of feet of him by the time he went down. I think 3 of our last 4 red cards have been retrospectively overturned, haven't they? 

I think it will all start to click when they stop focusing on backing the on-field ref and just put emphasis on getting the decision correct. The NFL are a good example of efficient video refereeing and the margins are much, much, much tighter than they often are in football - and there is a lot more of them. 

Can’t disagree any more. Having a decision viewed once in real time being made incorrectly is annoying but human. We can all have a go at the ref, move on and hope to get the better end of the stick next time.

Having it viewed hundreds of times from multiple views and slowed down til all context is removed, meanwhile 5 minutes has passed and all joy of a goal has been sucked away, for a decision to still be made incorrectly is not good and never will be. 

[ram59]

It should be operated similar to cricket and American football whereby the manager on the sidelines has a couple of challenges per half, which are retained if successful.

[Ambitious]

25 minutes ago, Srg said:

Can’t disagree any more. Having a decision viewed once in real time being made incorrectly is annoying but human. We can all have a go at the ref, move on and hope to get the better end of the stick next time.

Having it viewed hundreds of times from multiple views and slowed down til all context is removed, meanwhile 5 minutes has passed and all joy of a goal has been sucked away, for a decision to still be made incorrectly is not good and never will be. 

These decisions directly responsible for costing people their jobs, tens, if not hundreds, of millions of pounds and potentially causing catastrophic financial implications for clubs and I've never bought in that 'it equals out at the end of the season' 

Bournemouth were relegated due to an error in goal line technology, where VAR wasn't able to interject and the ref got it wrong - 100s of millions of pounds all because of one error in a system. The emphasis needs to be on getting decisions correct. 

Especially when you have the technology to get it right now, no excuse for taking 5 minutes to come to a decision. The ref doesn't get 5 minutes to come to a decision, so not sure why VAR does - but it all goes to pandering to the on-field ref and that's what takes the time. 

[RoyMac5]

2 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

Especially when you have the technology to get it right now, no excuse for taking 5 minutes to come to a decision. The ref doesn't get 5 minutes to come to a decision, so not sure why VAR does - but it all goes to pandering to the on-field ref and that's what takes the time. 

How do you 'get right' a decision about whether a challenge was a foul and therefore a penalty or not? When decisions don't have a yes/no answer then it is down to interpretation and VAR is just another layer. I don't understand why the technology isn't used for 'line calls' though.

[Ambitious]

14 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said:

How do you 'get right' a decision about whether a challenge was a foul and therefore a penalty or not? When decisions don't have a yes/no answer then it is down to interpretation and VAR is just another layer. I don't understand why the technology isn't used for 'line calls' though.

A good example was the weekend, Martial was booked for diving despite a clear trip by Ashley Young. VAR interjected and gave a penalty. Without VAR Martial is on a yellow card for being tripped in the box. Despite it being very obvious on first viewing, they did the whole song and dance about the ref going over to the monitor - why can't the ref in his ear just go 'Young tripped Martial, contact made, penalty should be given' - why does the on-field ref have to 'have a look' makes no sense and prolongs the frustration. 

Obviously some cases are a little more subjective, but ultimately VAR has helped referees come to more right decisions than wrong. I think if they ever did away with VAR the amount of incorrect decisions on a weekly basis would be a bigger cause of concern and frustration. They do need to amend the rules with VAR in mind, though, that is the next step in order to achieve a more a seamless approach. 

I really don't buy that VAR is the problem though, the refs implementing the technology are the problem - it's not like taking it away from them is suddenly going to make them better. It just gives them more power to actually f*** things up and impact results. 

[Day]

1 hour ago, Srg said:

We can all have a go at the ref, move on and hope to get the better end of the stick next time.

You new to this forum? 😂

[Srg]

44 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

These decisions directly responsible for costing people their jobs, tens, if not hundreds, of millions of pounds and potentially causing catastrophic financial implications for clubs and I've never bought in that 'it equals out at the end of the season' 

Bournemouth were relegated due to an error in goal line technology, where VAR wasn't able to interject and the ref got it wrong - 100s of millions of pounds all because of one error in a system. The emphasis needs to be on getting decisions correct. 

Especially when you have the technology to get it right now, no excuse for taking 5 minutes to come to a decision. The ref doesn't get 5 minutes to come to a decision, so not sure why VAR does - but it all goes to pandering to the on-field ref and that's what takes the time. 

And in your plan, you want to actively make the game which generates all that money actively worse and less attractive to those spending the money to support it. So what’s the point?

[Alty_Ram]

1 hour ago, Srg said:

Can’t disagree any more. Having a decision viewed once in real time being made incorrectly is annoying but human. We can all have a go at the ref, move on and hope to get the better end of the stick next time.

Having it viewed hundreds of times from multiple views and slowed down til all context is removed, meanwhile 5 minutes has passed and all joy of a goal has been sucked away, for a decision to still be made incorrectly is not good and never will be. 

Likewise. I totally appreciate that it is a personal opinion Ambitious, but I personally don't feel that multiple interventions every game, (however long they are) and potential overturning of decisions after-the-fact where goals have been celebrated or whatever, do anything other than negatively impact the flow of the game and I think that is a huge element of the experience for me. The knowledge that you can just get on and enjoy your goal celebration after a glance at the officials is part of my enjoyment of a game and I'd prefer not to sacrifice that to attempt to forensically second guess the officials decisions.

Ultimately I just don't like the idea that say last season's game at Port Vale where there was so much going on in that move for the late winner would be pored over to look for an errant kneecap somewhere in the buildup. I think that fundamentally I just don't care enough that every decision is 100% correct if it negatively impacts the game for me to achieve it. As long as any error is an honest mistake then I can live with it. I bet that almost legendary playoff game between Leicester and Watford would fall foul of something if you went back over that whole bonkers passage for play from the Knockaert penalty to Deeney's winner. As I say, I totally appreciate that its a personal preference though. I'm not 'right', you're not 'wrong'.

For the record I was 100% behind goal line technology as it just does its thing (99.999999% of the time)

[Tombo]

42 minutes ago, Alty_Ram said:

Likewise. I totally appreciate that it is a personal opinion Ambitious, but I personally don't feel that multiple interventions every game, (however long they are) and potential overturning of decisions after-the-fact where goals have been celebrated or whatever, do anything other than negatively impact the flow of the game and I think that is a huge element of the experience for me. The knowledge that you can just get on and enjoy your goal celebration after a glance at the officials is part of my enjoyment of a game and I'd prefer not to sacrifice that to attempt to forensically second guess the officials decisions.

Ultimately I just don't like the idea that say last season's game at Port Vale where there was so much going on in that move for the late winner would be pored over to look for an errant kneecap somewhere in the buildup. I think that fundamentally I just don't care enough that every decision is 100% correct if it negatively impacts the game for me to achieve it. As long as any error is an honest mistake then I can live with it. I bet that almost legendary playoff game between Leicester and Watford would fall foul of something if you went back over that whole bonkers passage for play from the Knockaert penalty to Deeney's winner. As I say, I totally appreciate that its a personal preference though. I'm not 'right', you're not 'wrong'.

For the record I was 100% behind goal line technology as it just does its thing (99.999999% of the time)

I take your point about those big moments maybe having something in them to be disallowed if you look deep enough etc but the point is really that if a foul was committed then it shouldn't count, doesn't matter how legendary or iconic the moment.

If this technology had existed a handful of decades earlier, England would not have won the World Cup. Also, Maradona would have had a red card for a deliberate handball. Henry's handball would not have counted.

It depends if you think that is the right call or not. If you'd prefer to keep those moments as part of the game, then fine, but that isn't competitive sport. You might as well watch the Harlem Globetrotters

[RoyMac5]

1 hour ago, Tombo said:

I take your point about those big moments maybe having something in them to be disallowed if you look deep enough etc but the point is really that if a foul was committed then it shouldn't count, doesn't matter how legendary or iconic the moment.

If this technology had existed a handful of decades earlier, England would not have won the World Cup. Also, Maradona would have had a red card for a deliberate handball. Henry's handball would not have counted.

It depends if you think that is the right call or not. If you'd prefer to keep those moments as part of the game, then fine, but that isn't competitive sport. You might as well watch the Harlem Globetrotters

How do you know what else might have happened if these incidents didn't happen? Of course it's competitive sport - afterall that's why Maradona and Henry did it.

[Alty_Ram]

Your point taken also Tombo.. to a point. To my mind though, the purpose of stuff like offside rule though was originally to prevent someone blatantly trying to exploit the situation to steal a positional advantage to get a free run on goal rather than whether a sliver of someone's kneecap is further forward than half of their opponent's big toe or whatever. With movement of limbs in a chase for a ball with defender and attacker, you can be on and offside several times in a matter of a few seconds I don't think anyone is that good that they could achieve an unfair advantage by that sort of kneecap margin so agonising over that sort of ultra-marginal decision is just not something I can be that bothered with. Contentious penalty issues I can fully understand people getting a bit more het up over.

To write off over 130 plus years of non-VAR football and everything below the Premier League as non competitive sport is somewhat of a stretch though ! But I appreciate that you were just trying to emphasise your point. As you well know though, I'm absolutely not saying that we should ignore decisions just because there is an entertaining passage of play. For better or worse I am just happier that the officials do their best to adjudicate a game like they do at all levels outside of the ivory towers of the EPL.

Re tech in general, I'm just not 100% sure where I'd draw a line. I could be persuaded as to the merits of the idea that the on-field officials could call for assistance to adjudicate something that they were unsure of due to poor angle or whatever, but that might lead to endless appeals by players to get the ref to look at everything just in case the VAR can find something wrong whether the defender thinks there was an issue or not. People have suggested limited reviews - might work, might not. Maybe, but then you occasionally see it in cricket where players who are the last man out desperately appeal for a review, just in case something can be found to use against the umpires decision.

I dunno, I'm not an absolutist on this and am happy to consider the merits of technology depending on how it is applied but there are currently more downsides than up with VAR for me. That said, I'm happy to be blown away by some new future tech that can provide timely unobtrusive input to help refs. Years ago there was discussion of consulting multiple camera positions to review whether a ball had crossed the line and that sounded a bit tedious but then someone comes up with a system that reports immediately and boom, goal line technology was introduced - good stuff. It is by its nature though a black and white decision and much of what VAR is now being asked to do is quite a bit more nuanced. Stuff like 'intent', 'sufficient contact' and last nights coming together of heads that wasn't deemed hard enough to warrant a 2nd yellow and therefore red.

[Chopper]

5 hours ago, Alty_Ram said:

People have suggested limited reviews - might work, might not. Maybe, but then you occasionally see it in cricket where players who are the last man out desperately appeal for a review, just in case something can be found to use against the umpires decision.

I've often mused on this, if a manager had 3 challenges per match to challenge any decision, only losing one if the challenge wasn't upheld, that may work. The tight calls for offside etc. the manager may not appeal, but a 'clear and obvious error' then they'd be all over it. Yes I can see any last minute event getting a review regardless.

 

[DiggerB]

Deleted

Edited November 28, 2023 by DiggerB

[Carl Sagan]

Put it on the big screes so fans in the ground can see what's happening. Mike up the officials so we hear the discussions between Stockley Park and the ref.

This is the only way for it to work for those instances where the game has been stopped. Fine for VAR to look at other stuff in the background while the ball is in play, but once play has been stopped, the whole ground needs to be involved and know what's happening. Turn it into sports theatre, like they do in cricket or even in egg-chasing. How can football have got the implementation so incredibly badly wrong?

[Anag Ram]

7 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

Put it on the big screes so fans in the ground can see what's happening. Mike up the officials so we hear the discussions between Stockley Park and the ref.

This is the only way for it to work for those instances where the game has been stopped. Fine for VAR to look at other stuff in the background while the ball is in play, but once play has been stopped, the whole ground needs to be involved and know what's happening. Turn it into sports theatre, like they do in cricket or even in egg-chasing. How can football have got the implementation so incredibly badly wrong?

Foul play should be reassessed. Hand ball was brought in to stop players deliberately using their hands to stop the ball. Offside was brought in to stop a forward seeking unfair advantage. Fouls are deliberate or mistimed physical interventions to stop a player advancing.

Football has misinterpreted the clear and obvious error clause. In cricket, if the umpire has said not out for an LBW and the ball was only clipping the stumps, the decision stands. In football it seems we want perfection.

A player one millimetre closer, to the goal isn’t gaining a meaningful advantage, and if the human eye couldn’t possibly make the determination the decision should stand.

Similarly, a referee can often determine better than technology whether a foul has been committed because he/she can hear contact or not, and can gauge the reaction of the ‘fouled’ player. A dive is often more obvious when you’re close up.

We have to discourage the habit of hooking your foot around a defender (who isn’t moving towards you) in order to then fall over spectacularly. The forwards are cheating, not the defenders.

And handball has got ridiculous. Defenders are soon going to have to wear straitjackets.