Opposition fans back from the game

[SCIAG]

The answer should be to say "In order to award a penalty you must feel CERTAIN it was a penalty.

Same with handball

If in doubt, don't award

I would rather it was harder to win a penalty
and there were less of them

Do you think referees currently are just guessing? They give fouls because they think they're fouls.

Frankly not enough penalties are awarded at present. Defenders get away with far too much cheating. I can see the case for making the penalty area smaller, which would both stop goalkeepers having such a disproportionate influence and stop penalties being awarded for fouls that are really quite far from goal, but the rules shouldn't favour defenders cheating. Football has come a long way in recent years to stamp out the ugly brutality we used to see, but there's still work to be done.

[Zip]

In this day and age it’s inexcusable not to be using technology. VAR needs to be used far more effectively. We cannot rely on refs to get the big decisions right. The number of errors on big calls has been ridiculous this season..

[NewCorkSeth]

The need to change the offside and handball laws before I will ever be in favour of VAR.

[Snowball]

The answer should be to say "In order to award a penalty you must feel CERTAIN it was a penalty.

Same with handball

If in doubt, don't award

I would rather it was harder to win a penalty
and there were less of them

Do you think referees currently are just guessing? They give fouls because they think they're fouls.

YES, often or taking the coward's way out . Especially at home for certain clubs in front of baying fans

[Sutekh]

In this day and age it’s inexcusable not to be using technology. VAR needs to be used far more effectively. We cannot rely on refs to get the big decisions right. The number of errors on big calls has been ridiculous this season..

Personally couldn’t care less if officials get big decisions right or wrong, it is only a game and their human error is as much part of things as players and management screwing things up. Rather have the talking points about that human error made in a split second rather than someone sat in front of several angles and still getting it wrong.

And no VAR means you get proper celebrations rather than a subdued clap while we all wait several minutes for someone to say it wasn’t a goal as the attacker’s elbow was one millionth of a millimetre offside.

[bcubed]

All of three angles, there were none that showed clear distance between Moore and Aaron's boot. The one that would have been most useful had another player step into the way at precisely the moment it would have shown us.

There can't have been much, but it could have been there and there's no way the ref could be sure and same for VAR in my opinion. Feel free to post up a still that shows clean air between them.

SR, I have found we seem to have been on the same wavelength a lot recently, but I can't agree that this is a natural fall from a tackle.
I think it is what we have become accustomed to, because let's face it every forward goes down like this when near a defender, if they think they can get a penalty.

In principle, it is surely something that should be removed from the game. I think the normal falling down motion after a tackle has been forgotten. Perhaps refs need to watch a Sunday League game to see what happens?

In any case it is perfectly clear that he has launched himself unnaturally into the air and it would be nice if he could be given retrospective punishment of some sort.

Of course that wont happen (I don't think FIFA are interested in any meaningful changes to the rules) so in the mean time we can only deal with it via VAR.

Which is shit.

So yeh definite penalty!

I think there's a misunderstanding here.

I think he probably dived / made the most of it. It looks suspicious and there's certainly no footage showing conclusive and significant contact. My point has been that there's equally no footage that definitively shows no contact and that I think the ref has an incredibly hard job calling that anything but a penalty.

I think there's a bit too much of fans thinking they're anatomists who specialise in the biomechanical analysis of genuine falling and deciding what can and can be a genuine fall or not. I can't be arsed to go back and watch again and again, but to my mind whilst it looked exaggerated and theatrical, it wasn't completely unrealistic.

The problem with punishment for simulation, is how do you know? What's a genuine attempt to con and what's emphasising something. Or worse still, what's avoiding contact to not get hurt that means going over as a result? Almost impossible to judge live on the field. And almost worse to judge on screen because slowing things down completely changes they dynamic of how they look and what impact a touch can have.

No misunderstanding from my point of view. I totally get what you are saying. I just happen to think it is possible to tell the difference between someone falling over having been tackled and someone taking a dive. Especially if you look at it again on a replay. In this case as in many others, the player takes an outrageous dive.

At least it should be considered outrageous. It isn't because the way things are today, he gets no penalty without a dive, even if actually fouled. His manager derides him for not going down. It's a shame the game has become like this but I truly think we are so used to it we believe this to be a genuine reaction when someone attempts to tackle you. As I said above, I think we have forgotten what a "proper" reaction to being tackled looks like.

I tend to agree with Snowball that if less penalties were given it might stop the playacting. But I am under no illusions. This is not an argument I can win. The game has changed. Sadly in my view not for the better.

[Dick Habbin's hairdo]

The need to change the offside and handball laws before I will ever be in favour of VAR.

What pisses me off about VAR - apart from the complete incompetence and time it takes - is that in the 'olden days' one was offside if one's feet were in advance of the last but one defender ... when did all this new fangled 'elbow/knee/fingertip' nonsense creep into the rules? And then waiting for an eternity for the GPS blue line to work it out - assuming the editor stops the frame the exact moment the ball has any forward momentum?

Utter shite and killing the game. Let refs ref - even if they do get it wrong, the vast majority will give it as they see it and footy would be far better for it.

[3points]

The answer should be to say "In order to award a penalty you must feel CERTAIN it was a penalty.

Same with handball

If in doubt, don't award

I would rather it was harder to win a penalty
and there were less of them

Do you think referees currently are just guessing? They give fouls because they think they're fouls.

Frankly not enough penalties are awarded at present. Defenders get away with far too much cheating. I can see the case for making the penalty area smaller, which would both stop goalkeepers having such a disproportionate influence and stop penalties being awarded for fouls that are really quite far from goal, but the rules shouldn't favour defenders cheating. Football has come a long way in recent years to stamp out the ugly brutality we used to see, but there's still work to be done.

Why not have the penalty taken from the spot the foul is committed rather than having a penalty spot in the middle of goal 12 yds out? Or move the penalty spot back 3 or 6 yds?

My biggest bug bear is all the wrestling at corners and set pieces. You can be assaulted and nothing is given whereas a forward running towards goal gets minimal contact and it’s a penalty.

[Notts Royal]

In this day and age it’s inexcusable not to be using technology. VAR needs to be used far more effectively. We cannot rely on refs to get the big decisions right. The number of errors on big calls has been ridiculous this season..

You’re wanting the introduction of the grid lines in the EFL? Personally I’m not in favour of goals being disallowed due to Joao’s nose being offside...but each to their own

[Snowflake Royal]

In this day and age it’s inexcusable not to be using technology. VAR needs to be used far more effectively. We cannot rely on refs to get the big decisions right. The number of errors on big calls has been ridiculous this season..

You’re wanting the introduction of the grid lines in the EFL? Personally I’m not in favour of goals being disallowed due to Joao’s nose being offside...but each to their own

I think we'd prefer a VAR which wasn't implemented by half blind imbeciles.

In a few areas the technology is definitely a case of:

"You were so busy working out if you could, you didn't stop to think if you should."

[Zip]

In this day and age it’s inexcusable not to be using technology. VAR needs to be used far more effectively. We cannot rely on refs to get the big decisions right. The number of errors on big calls has been ridiculous this season..

You’re wanting the introduction of the grid lines in the EFL? Personally I’m not in favour of goals being disallowed due to Joao’s nose being offside...but each to their own

Er no. I’m wanting the introduction of VAR to be used far more effectively than it currently is. It works in other sports. There is no reason why football should be any different.

[Millsy]

Not wanting VAR because sometimes bad decisions are made is like not wanting a police service because some of them are dicks.

It is genuinely mind boggling to me how anyone can think there isn’t a reduction in poor decisions with VAR.

The only argument I do get is how it can slow the game down.

[Jagermesiter1871]

The thing I've never understood is the offside grid lines. Isn't VAR only supposed to be used to overrule clear and obvious wrong decisions? If you're having to draw grid lines I fail to see how thats clear and obvious. Am I missing something?

[From Despair To Where?]

There's been a few of us arguing that point for about 2 years in GF. There's got to be a "referee's call" element to it. If its not obvious after 30 seconds that an error's been made, go with the on field call. I'd go as far as adopting the review system that they have in cricket or the NFL. 2 reviews per half. Lose the decision, lose a review.

[Snowball]

Doesn't the offside rule contains something on the lines
of "with intent to gain an unfair advantage"?

Wasn't it originally brought in to stop goal-hanging.

IMO it shouldn't be "inches, but "immediately obvious"

as in a whole leg in front, or space between.


Thinking of this. Won't it mean a lot less goals from players "timing their run perfectly"?

If it's 99% "perfect" but the leading "running" hand is past the defender, then that's offside?

That is dumb!

We all know instinctively what is a reasonable offside call. We already have the ridiculous
sight of defenders blocking with (unnaturally) their hands behind their back.

Next we'll have players dreaming down the wing with their hands in their pockets

[bcubed]

There's been a few of us arguing that point for about 2 years in GF. There's got to be a "referee's call" element to it. If its not obvious after 30 seconds that an error's been made, go with the on field call. I'd go as far as adopting the review system that they have in cricket or the NFL. 2 reviews per half. Lose the decision, lose a review.

Where has this been happening? Can I join in?!

[bcubed]

Doesn't the offside rule contains something on the lines
of "with intent to gain an unfair advantage"?

Wasn't it originally brought in to stop goal-hanging.

IMO it shouldn't be "inches, but "immediately obvious"

as in a whole leg in front, or space between.


Thinking of this. Won't it mean a lot less goals from players "timing their run perfectly"?

If it's 99% "perfect" but the leading "running" hand is past the defender, then that's offside?

That is dumb!

We all know instinctively what is a reasonable offside call. We already have the ridiculous
sight of defenders blocking with (unnaturally) their hands behind their back.

Next we'll have players dreaming down the wing with their hands in their pockets

I agree with your sentiment but “immediately obvious” would be open to interpretation too.
I think it could be defined in terms of distance in front of the last player. Not sure what that is, but more than an eyelash or a fingernail. 3 inches?

But it is still going to be unsatisfactory isn’t it? Our view of offside, that you mention, is possibly about being significantly ahead of the last defender. So maybe you could look at the relative position of the torsos? Shouldn’t be impossible to represent the torso graphically (and quickly) and show the relative centres of gravity.

Or in the interests of encouraging positive attacking play and more goals, just say there needs to be clear space between the players? Between their torsos, that is

Just spitballing, as the Americans might say

[Jagermesiter1871]

Doesn't the offside rule contains something on the lines
of "with intent to gain an unfair advantage"?

Wasn't it originally brought in to stop goal-hanging.

IMO it shouldn't be "inches, but "immediately obvious"

as in a whole leg in front, or space between.


Thinking of this. Won't it mean a lot less goals from players "timing their run perfectly"?

If it's 99% "perfect" but the leading "running" hand is past the defender, then that's offside?

That is dumb!

We all know instinctively what is a reasonable offside call. We already have the ridiculous
sight of defenders blocking with (unnaturally) their hands behind their back.

Next we'll have players dreaming down the wing with their hands in their pockets

I'd even be happy with - can you see the offside on a replay without drawing guide lines ffs. 1 viewing of a video replay from the right angle should be more than enough to clear up any clear and obvious errors. I just don't understand how we've ended up with grid lines and pausing a replay to the nearest nano second to make a call on something thats only supposed to be used for clear and obvious errors and also why there isn't unanimous uproar and an investigation into how this happened. I feel like most of the media certainly just have accepted the grid lines and are debating the nuances of it as opposed to the lunacy of the whole thing and the fact this isn't what we all signed up to.

[From Despair To Where?]

There's been a few of us arguing that point for about 2 years in GF. There's got to be a "referee's call" element to it. If its not obvious after 30 seconds that an error's been made, go with the on field call. I'd go as far as adopting the review system that they have in cricket or the NFL. 2 reviews per half. Lose the decision, lose a review.

Where has this been happening? Can I join in?!

In General Football on the VAR thread. 62 pages and counting.

[Snowflake Royal]

The thing I've never understood is the offside grid lines. Isn't VAR only supposed to be used to overrule clear and obvious wrong decisions? If you're having to draw grid lines I fail to see how thats clear and obvious. Am I missing something?

Tbf, I think this is a common misconception by fans and media.

I believe clear and obvious is supposed to relate to matters which have an element of subjectivity, like fouls.

In matters of fact, like offside, balls in touch, is the foul in the area and possibly even handball these days ( ) It's there to check the validity of goals etc and be the objective deciding factor, rather than just correct obvious mistakes.

Which is what leads to a mm of someone's armpit ruling out a goal.