DavCobb
|
|
« Reply #20 on: November 29, 2023, 12:22:00 pm » |
|
It's just about eliminating human error (opinion).
Another great advance would be if they took away from individual Referees how much time to be added on. Should be done with an electronic clock, stopped every time the ball is not in play, would cut down time wasting almost completely. Probably need to be only 30 minutes a half though.
I heard a debate about the sin bin proposal. The main concern was teams wasting time/slowing play down to eat up the 10 minute penalty. I thought that the only way around this was to have a dedicated sin bin clock that was controlled by a 5th official. A 10 min penalty could end up being 20 minutes plus! I am a bit surprised that we haven't seen the rugby style timing yet, although you are right they'd have to shorten the half, maybe to 40 mins like in rugby. While we are at it we can change the shape of the ball.
|
|
|
|
TPFKA Marvo
|
|
« Reply #21 on: November 29, 2023, 12:31:37 pm » |
|
I heard a debate about the sin bin proposal. The main concern was teams wasting time/slowing play down to eat up the 10 minute penalty. I thought that the only way around this was to have a dedicated sin bin clock that was controlled by a 5th official. A 10 min penalty could end up being 20 minutes plus! I am a bit surprised that we haven't seen the rugby style timing yet, although you are right they'd have to shorten the half, maybe to 40 mins like in rugby. While we are at it we can change the shape of the ball. I believe the last time I saw a test on the amount of time a ball stays in play each half it was 29 minutes. That doesn't surprise me one jot.
|
It's all about balance.
|
|
|
Monkey
|
|
« Reply #22 on: November 29, 2023, 13:55:08 pm » |
|
It's just about eliminating human error (opinion).
Another great advance would be if they took away from individual Referees how much time to be added on. Should be done with an electronic clock, stopped every time the ball is not in play, would cut down time wasting almost completely. Probably need to be only 30 minutes a half though.
There is definietly a strong argument for 60min stop clocks - would eliminate a lot of issues around time wasting and injury time etc. I was recently reading some stats on average time the ball was in play for prem games. The average I think was around 55-60mins, but it varied drastically from game to game. i.e. Some Stoke games (the Tony Pulis effect) were as low as 40 mins whereas the likes of Man City had games that were nearer to 70 mins. A 30 min difference of in-play time is significant for both the integrity of the game and the fans enjoyment.
|
|
|
|
DavCobb
|
|
« Reply #23 on: January 02, 2024, 09:13:27 am » |
|
Latest howler...
First Liverpool pen, questionable but probably enough not to overturn. The second one??? Zero contact, a clear camera angle to show the keeper withdrew his hands and never touched him. It couldn't have been clearer than no penalty and a yellow for diving.
|
|
|
|
BackOfTheNet
|
|
« Reply #24 on: January 02, 2024, 09:23:09 am » |
|
I really dislike VAR. For me, I'd like to see technology used for goal line decisions which are a binary did-it-cross-the-line-or-not question.
For everything else where it's more subjective it disrupts the flow of the game and the loss of spontaneity detracts more from the enjoyment of the game than an incorrect decision ever does. It's not even as if it's always right anyway!
Is there a sadder sight in sport than a goalscorer standing around, waiting to see if they can celebrate or not?
|
The Hotelend Grand National* Sweepstake Champion 2020
|
|
|
Deepcut Cobbler
|
|
« Reply #25 on: January 02, 2024, 10:02:39 am » |
|
Latest howler...
First Liverpool pen, questionable but probably enough not to overturn. The second one??? Zero contact, a clear camera angle to show the keeper withdrew his hands and never touched him. It couldn't have been clearer than no penalty and a yellow for diving.
His elbow caught his heel. I probably wouldn't have given it but there was no reason to overturn the onfield decision. It's not a VAR howler, it's the subjective decision by the onfield official that you would have had without/pre VAR.
|
“They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.” Laurence Binyon
The Hotelend Grand National Sweepstake Champion 2009
|
|
|
Deepcut Cobbler
|
|
« Reply #26 on: January 02, 2024, 10:06:14 am » |
|
I really dislike VAR. For me, I'd like to see technology used for goal line decisions which are a binary did-it-cross-the-line-or-not question.
For everything else where it's more subjective it disrupts the flow of the game and the loss of spontaneity detracts more from the enjoyment of the game than an incorrect decision ever does. It's not even as if it's always right anyway!
Is there a sadder sight in sport than a goalscorer standing around, waiting to see if they can celebrate or not?
I agree, but I would add offside to the binary and non subjective "is he on or off" decisions...
|
“They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.” Laurence Binyon
The Hotelend Grand National Sweepstake Champion 2009
|
|
|
TPFKA Marvo
|
|
« Reply #27 on: January 02, 2024, 10:36:38 am » |
|
What made no sense about the Jota incident is why he didn't stay on his feet and put the ball in the empty net?
I think that may have swayed the officials.
In regard offside, I'd either get rid of them all together or introduce a line across the pitch level with the penalty box. Offside was brought in to stop "goal hanging" I don't see any point whatsoever in having somebody given offside a yard inside the opponents half. It would also stretch the game, leaving more space in which to play.
|
It's all about balance.
|
|
|
DavCobb
|
|
« Reply #28 on: January 02, 2024, 11:14:42 am » |
|
His elbow caught his heel. I probably wouldn't have given it but there was no reason to overturn the onfield decision. It's not a VAR howler, it's the subjective decision by the onfield official that you would have had without/pre VAR. I think we’ll agree to disagree on that one DC. I’d class that as a clear and obvious error without any subjectivity. In terms of contact, if anything his foot brushes the elbow, which in itself would never be a foul. Would have been interesting if the official would have had the bottle to overturn it given the opportunity to watch it back. That’s the issue, there is so much inconsistency. As to Marvo’s point, absolutely no idea why he threw himself to the ground with an open net. I’m with Chris Sutton on this one, 3 match ban for obvious diving like that. It would soon eliminate it. As for the handball law, they seriously need to sort that one out.
|
|
|
|
EB Claret
|
|
« Reply #29 on: January 02, 2024, 11:29:22 am » |
|
OK we all think we know better than the match officials, but if VAR can't prove otherwise within 30 seconds we should stick with the original decision.
Years ago the rule was changed so that an attacker was onside if he was level with the last defender. If VAR must draw lines across the pitch make them the same width as each players body, if the lines overlap they are level, so onside. I think that is more in keeping with the spirit of the law.
|
|
|
|
Deepcut Cobbler
|
|
« Reply #30 on: January 02, 2024, 12:14:25 pm » |
|
I think we’ll agree to disagree on that one DC. I’d class that as a clear and obvious error without any subjectivity. In terms of contact, if anything his foot brushes the elbow, which in itself would never be a foul. Would have been interesting if the official would have had the bottle to overturn it given the opportunity to watch it back. That’s the issue, there is so much inconsistency.
As to Marvo’s point, absolutely no idea why he threw himself to the ground with an open net. I’m with Chris Sutton on this one, 3 match ban for obvious diving like that. It would soon eliminate it.
As for the handball law, they seriously need to sort that one out.
There was contact, which could have caused the player to fall over, the decision about whether it did is subjective and therefore not 'a clear and obvious error'. That is your own subjective perspective. If he hadn't awarded the penalty kick, there would have been some, especially of the scouse persuasion, who would have queried it.
|
“They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.” Laurence Binyon
The Hotelend Grand National Sweepstake Champion 2009
|
|
|
DavCobb
|
|
« Reply #31 on: January 02, 2024, 12:41:49 pm » |
|
There was contact, which could have caused the player to fall over, the decision about whether it did is subjective and therefore not 'a clear and obvious error'. That is your own subjective perspective. If he hadn't awarded the penalty kick, there would have been some, especially of the scouse persuasion, who would have queried it.
Nope, not for me. I haven't seen anything conclusive to show actual contact. I have seen however that IF there was the slightest contact, it didn't lead to the fall which suggested he had just been shot by a sniper. That is VERY clear on any of the replays. I also haven't read one 'expert' who thought it was a penalty in any context, rules based or otherwise. Just a shockingly poor decision and awful sportsmanship by Jota. I totally get the ones where the rules 'block' the 'correct' decision making, or there is ambiguity like the blocked view of the ball being in/out of play in the West Ham/Arsenal game. It's exactly poor decisions like this why players will continue with simulation. For me VAR continues to add very little, other than mistakes and delayed celebrations. We're better off without it....in which case the penalty would have been given in some instances and he would have been booked for diving in others.
|
|
|
|
Deepcut Cobbler
|
|
« Reply #32 on: January 02, 2024, 13:12:10 pm » |
|
Nope, not for me. I haven't seen anything conclusive to show actual contact. I have seen however that IF there was the slightest contact, it didn't lead to the fall which suggested he had just been shot by a sniper. That is VERY clear on any of the replays. I also haven't read one 'expert' who thought it was a penalty in any context, rules based or otherwise. Just a shockingly poor decision and awful sportsmanship by Jota.
I totally get the ones where the rules 'block' the 'correct' decision making, or there is ambiguity like the blocked view of the ball being in/out of play in the West Ham/Arsenal game.
It's exactly poor decisions like this why players will continue with simulation. For me VAR continues to add very little, other than mistakes and delayed celebrations. We're better off without it....in which case the penalty would have been given in some instances and he would have been booked for diving in others.
If you haven't seen or acknowledge the elbow catching his heel on the TV close ups that were shown during/after the game, you are arguing in a conversation without the benefit of all of the facts, which has an impact on your subjective perspective.
|
“They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them.” Laurence Binyon
The Hotelend Grand National Sweepstake Champion 2009
|
|
|
DavCobb
|
|
« Reply #33 on: January 02, 2024, 14:21:16 pm » |
|
If you haven't seen or acknowledge the elbow catching his heel on the TV close ups that were shown during/after the game, you are arguing in a conversation without the benefit of all of the facts, which has an impact on your subjective perspective. If it is accepted that there was the faintest of contacts and that therefore means if the player throws himself to the ground theatrically, leading to the ref thinking it was a foul it's OK? Then on review there was the faintest of contacts, ignoring the fact that the ref was conned by the dive but because of any contact the ref isn't allowed to review his/her decision....then the system isn't right. The footage CLEARLY shows that any contact did not cause the fall. I'd far rather have a retrospective ban for the dive. Anyway, enough on this one. Refs are human, they make mistakes...I'd expect those to be mitigated if we insist on reviewing some of the wacky decisions from multiple angles. I can see why the ref gave it but then VAR should've helped him make the correct decision. We seem to have implemented rules that actually stop the 'correct' decisions being made. Bizarre. I'm glad we don't have it in the lower leagues....I'd rather accept the sh*t refs! As for balls blasted at point blank range resulting in pens, that's definitely not the refs fault and a simple rule change required. I am sure AI will take over these decisions sooner than we think!
|
|
|
|
Carton Lid
|
|
« Reply #34 on: January 04, 2024, 20:39:52 pm » |
|
Just seen Dominic Calvert-Lewin sent off for a tackle that wasn't even a foul, absolute joke. I think VAR is good it's just the dickheads operating it
|
|
|
|
Winslow Lee
|
|
« Reply #35 on: January 04, 2024, 20:46:38 pm » |
|
Just seen Dominic Calvert-Lewin sent off for a tackle that wasn't even a foul, absolute joke. I think VAR is good it's just the dickheads operating it
That was always going to be a red card. You can’t make that sliding challenge with studs showing and make contact with an opponent above the ankle. Surely everybody knows this now and it blows my mind that players still go in like that.
|
|
|
|
DavCobb
|
|
« Reply #36 on: January 04, 2024, 21:58:01 pm » |
|
Once the ref goes to review it’s a done deal. I’m not sure why they bother.
|
|
|
|
Carton Lid
|
|
« Reply #37 on: January 05, 2024, 15:12:02 pm » |
|
That was always going to be a red card. You can’t make that sliding challenge with studs showing and make contact with an opponent above the ankle. Surely everybody knows this now and it blows my mind that players still go in like that.
So does that make the referee, who was 5 yards away and gave nothing, incompetent ? I was, and still am quite harsh on some refs, but I thought he was spot on, not even a foul let alone a card.
|
|
|
|
Tabasco Kid
|
|
« Reply #38 on: January 05, 2024, 15:33:44 pm » |
|
So does that make the referee, who was 5 yards away and gave nothing, incompetent ?
I was, and still am quite harsh on some refs, but I thought he was spot on, not even a foul let alone a card.
Yep. Works for me, just thinking about Phil Crossley at Mansfield. He had a great game whilst 5 yards away from the action.
|
Were in the pipe 5 by 5.
|
|
|
CobblerForever
|
|
« Reply #39 on: January 09, 2024, 16:28:04 pm » |
|
Calvert-Lewin's red card (discussed above) has been rescinded.
|
|
|
|
|