Snowflake RoyalThe Enfield Royal71Silver Fox We've already established you didn't, stop saying you did
Nobody has established I didn't. You and your tin foil hat said I didn't. But you have no idea really do you.
I've got a pretty good idea.
by The Enfield Royal71 » 14 Aug 2019 07:18
Snowflake RoyalThe Enfield Royal71Silver Fox We've already established you didn't, stop saying you did
Nobody has established I didn't. You and your tin foil hat said I didn't. But you have no idea really do you.
I've got a pretty good idea.
SanguinePlatypussSanguine It was what Shearer on MoTD and the chaps on Goals on Sunday both made of it, so might be a tweak. A welcome one if so.
What the laws say and what VAR is entitled to be used for in relation to supporting decision-making are not necessarily the same thing .
In the case of encroachment, VAR may only be used to change a decision (or non-decision) when it is identified that the encroachment had a direct impact on the outcome.
Got it - and that explanation completes the circle between the pundits' assertion on MoTD, and the laws paps linked to.
Separately, I happen to think that it would be a sensible tweak to the laws anyway.
Hoop BlahSanguinePlatypuss
What the laws say and what VAR is entitled to be used for in relation to supporting decision-making are not necessarily the same thing .
In the case of encroachment, VAR may only be used to change a decision (or non-decision) when it is identified that the encroachment had a direct impact on the outcome.
Got it - and that explanation completes the circle between the pundits' assertion on MoTD, and the laws paps linked to.
Separately, I happen to think that it would be a sensible tweak to the laws anyway.
Again it shows a bit of a flaw in the idea of having VAR in the first place though doesn't it? It's picking and choosing what to look at as an infringement.
Either you use it to look at encroachment, or you don't. Surely that would make more sense?
Sanguine I'm saying that it makes sense to me that the encroachment laws reflect whether a defending team actually gains an advantage - and fwiw I expect the laws might be refined as such at some point. VAR has just shone a light on it.
Hoop BlahSanguine I'm saying that it makes sense to me that the encroachment laws reflect whether a defending team actually gains an advantage - and fwiw I expect the laws might be refined as such at some point. VAR has just shone a light on it.
Maybe so, but it's still picking and choosing which infringements to officiate on and, it would seem in this instance, making up it's own laws as well.
The current law is supposedly the way it is to discourage encroachment and, maybe, to stop defending players potentially distracting the penalty taker by running past him during his run up!
SanguineHoop BlahSanguine I'm saying that it makes sense to me that the encroachment laws reflect whether a defending team actually gains an advantage - and fwiw I expect the laws might be refined as such at some point. VAR has just shone a light on it.
Maybe so, but it's still picking and choosing which infringements to officiate on and, it would seem in this instance, making up it's own laws as well.
The current law is supposedly the way it is to discourage encroachment and, maybe, to stop defending players potentially distracting the penalty taker by running past him during his run up!
That's clutching at straws I think.
As I said, I think the way the law was applied in this instance, whilst not to the letter, made sense. Using it as a stick to beat VAR with is silly. There's plenty of such more valid sticks.
by The Enfield Royal71 » 18 Aug 2019 08:57
Hoop Blah Another joy-sapping moment from VAR yesterday.
I know fans of VAR will say it's the correct decision by the letter of the (revised) law, but that change to the interpretation has only been brought in because of the use of VAR, and, IMO, it's totally against the spirit of the game.
Such moments are not for the good for the game.
The Enfield Royal71 Tbf tbat is as much as the new stupid rule that is in place only for handballs accidentally or not that result in a goal.
Although if var wasn't a thing nobody ever would have noticed or in any game in any league ever. It was an absolute non handball and a stupid rule.
Sanguine It's getting a but monotonous now - VAR gives football an opportunity to refine its laws alongside the use of technology. That makes a hell of a lot more sense than whinging that we'd rather let infringements go because 'joy'.
The ball hit Laporte's hand and deflected to the goalscorer. If Reading lost a play-off final to that we'd be spitting feathers, and rightly so.
A huge positive impact of VAR is that penalty box swan dives seem to have become a thing of the past.
by The Enfield Royal71 » 19 Aug 2019 11:55
Hoop BlahSanguine It's getting a but monotonous now - VAR gives football an opportunity to refine its laws alongside the use of technology. That makes a hell of a lot more sense than whinging that we'd rather let infringements go because 'joy'.
The ball hit Laporte's hand and deflected to the goalscorer. If Reading lost a play-off final to that we'd be spitting feathers, and rightly so.
A huge positive impact of VAR is that penalty box swan dives seem to have become a thing of the past.
You're kidding? If that goal was scored against us I'd not bat an eyelid about the handball.
I don't think that would ever have been considered a handball at any stage in the history of football. It flicked his arm, unintentionally, as two players came together.
I don't think we needed refine the law on this kind of thing. It worked perfectly well before and we're seeing changes made to try and make black and white decisions out of areas of grey and I think the game will be worse off for it.
Hoop BlahSanguine It's getting a but monotonous now - VAR gives football an opportunity to refine its laws alongside the use of technology. That makes a hell of a lot more sense than whinging that we'd rather let infringements go because 'joy'.
The ball hit Laporte's hand and deflected to the goalscorer. If Reading lost a play-off final to that we'd be spitting feathers, and rightly so.
A huge positive impact of VAR is that penalty box swan dives seem to have become a thing of the past.
You're kidding? If that goal was scored against us I'd not bat an eyelid about the handball.
I don't think that would ever have been considered a handball at any stage in the history of football. It flicked his arm, unintentionally, as two players came together.
I don't think we needed refine the law on this kind of thing. It worked perfectly well before and we're seeing changes made to try and make black and white decisions out of areas of grey and I think the game will be worse off for it.
Sanguine it didn't work perfectly well before - there were countless discussion about intent and natural vs unnatural positions. The change in the law makes it unambiguous - you can't score a goal either directly or indirectly from a handball, deliberate or not. That makes sense to me. Or would we be okay if Laporte had handballed it over the line?
Hoop Blah Another joy-sapping moment from VAR yesterday.
I know fans of VAR will say it's the correct decision by the letter of the (revised) law, but that change to the interpretation has only been brought in because of the use of VAR, and, IMO, it's totally against the spirit of the game.
Such moments are not for the good for the game.
by Winston Biscuit » 19 Aug 2019 16:11
by Victor Meldrew » 19 Aug 2019 16:22
Winston Biscuit I don't like VAR. I prefer football without VAR.
StrandedHoop Blah Another joy-sapping moment from VAR yesterday.
I know fans of VAR will say it's the correct decision by the letter of the (revised) law, but that change to the interpretation has only been brought in because of the use of VAR, and, IMO, it's totally against the spirit of the game.
Such moments are not for the good for the game.
Saw an interesting thought on F365 I think, why should one teams fans joy being sapped be worth more than the other teams fans spending the next week (or however long) annoyed at a clear injustice.
I know this instance highlights the inadequecy of a new law but a goal being chalked off by VAR only ends joy slightly slower than those moments where your team have scored and you don't notice the whistle has blown.
by Snowflake Royal » 19 Aug 2019 18:26
StrandedHoop Blah Another joy-sapping moment from VAR yesterday.
I know fans of VAR will say it's the correct decision by the letter of the (revised) law, but that change to the interpretation has only been brought in because of the use of VAR, and, IMO, it's totally against the spirit of the game.
Such moments are not for the good for the game.
Saw an interesting thought on F365 I think, why should one teams fans joy being sapped be worth more than the other teams fans spending the next week (or however long) annoyed at a clear injustice.
I know this instance highlights the inadequecy of a new law but a goal being chalked off by VAR only ends joy slightly slower than those moments where your team have scored and you don't notice the whistle has blown.
by Silver Fox » 19 Aug 2019 22:53
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 85 guests