Maybe it’s the way forward. Instead of relying on the new technology just go on how it looks.
2 Likes
But Jim, I saw my friend rubbing his tummy with one hand and patting his head with the other at the same time. I thought no one was able to do that? If he can do that why did no one tell us it was possible? They need to tell us that it isnt a rule that you cannot.
1 Like
You can throw all the technology you want at it, but you’ll never get a more accurate decision that one gained from looking at the line drawn on the pitch by an old lad with a lawnmower.
2 Likes
I’m just curious as to why this is suddenly an issue. Everyone seems fine about the rules until it is perceived that a Liverpool player has benefitted from it.
And as for a professional player standing on TV bleating on about the fact that he doesn’t even know the rules. Sheesh!
3 Likes
Saw this posted on reddit, but the poster did not quote the source for the top freeze frame. (Edit: He did quote another reddit source/picture.)
The correct freeze-frame VAR used in their review with a higher fps capability. The wrong one was shown live and is being spread online to push a narrative that we were given an offside goal. We weren’t.
2 Likes
No it was for simulation!
Add all the goals we didn’t get for offside when it was not offside, but Wirtz for once get the decision to give the goal and everyone is up in arms about it.
2 Likes
It’s a bit strange. I think that it was a very similar situation as the one Wilson scored in the first half. They were almost on the same line with the last defendre, and thus, the decision goes with the attacker, the goal is granted. In that sense, the refereeing decision was absolutely ok: both sides get treated the same way in a similar situation.
I don’t know what all the fuss in the media is about. If Wilson is on, then Wirtz is on as well.
4 Likes
If Wilson still played for Liverpool he would be off as well in the media
4 Likes
This is what the holidays are football is all about; three friends sitting around chewing gum looking at freeze frames from the latest match.
2 Likes
I have a cynical thought on our goal…I think the Fulham goal was offside…but given…cause they (VAR) wangled the lines…and when the same situation arose with Wirtz…and some of our players actually pointed out details to reffy…he knew he could alleviate any finger pointing to the boys in black and VAR ..so our goal stood…I did say in the match build up…I would take a goal by any means fair or foul…we did…
1 Like
Because pundits are morons and not only did they not know about the last 5 years of “tolerance” but even today they havent taken the time to understand what it means before complaining about it.
The concept of tolerance was brought in by the prem to account for measurements that were within the margin of error of the technology. If the system can only reliably measure distances to the nearest 5cm (not strictly true, but lets use it for the sake of example) then any player measured as offside by a distance of less 5cm may in fact not actually be in an offside position in reality. If he is measured as offside by 3cm then we can be reasonably confident that he was actually onside by as much as 2cm. In the initial implementation of VAR they didnt account for this at all and it caused mayhem. They eventually increased the tolerance to better account for this, meaning there is a minimum distance the forward must be measured to be beyond the last defender before we can confident enough that he is really offside of the officials to give it, but that was 5 years ago and where the talk of “thicker lines” came from. We’ve now switched to the new tech but kept the same level of tolerance.
To this guy’s objections that it is confusing because it isnt a rule, well quite simply that is because it isnt a rule. It is just the prem’s perspective of the best way to implement the technology. The concept of tolerance is treated differently in different competitions because of differences in technology and differences in experiences in managing the PR of objectively bad decisions made with the tech.
4 Likes
2 Likes
The latest tinkering with the rules:
The Wenger offside tweak was ridiculous as it would just encourage every team to play a low block, but the proposed “torso” rule sounds even worse.
2 Likes
Doubt it will be any worse than Wenger, some of the other rules on there are baffling though, the corners thing is silly.
As for the throw in thing eithier go full on it or don’t. All you’ll get is people questioning why it happened to them and not 5 minutes before to the other team. As for the removal of a yellow card if the team score I don’t get this, if its dangerous player and the player is injured a goal isn’t going matter.
1 Like
Maybe just employ an additional linesperson to each side of the pitch to mirror the other two already running it, but designate them to flag for offside calls only… Between them and the referee, make the call.
The further we are going away from the original concept of the rules, the further we are going to ruin the game as a spectacle.
1 Like
I often suggested this in the time before VAR, one of the corners in the Arsenal game was so far out of the circle it was more of a free kick.
Not sure if it would over complicate matters but frankly would it do any worse than these suggestions. As for the throw in thing, that’s not the worst idea but it can’t be an occasional rule.
1 Like
Football is just incredibly bad at down streaming the impact of these decisions.
1 Like
The one about expanding DOGSO to a supporting player is infuriating given the way the rule is currently implemented for the guy with the ball. We have seen them be so picky over the criteria that we’ve seen them refuse to give clear ones because of an absurd commitment to the out of context interpretation of the criteria - remember the absurd one that was ignored against Brighton 2 seasons ago when Dom got pulled back in the act of preparing to shoot from 10 yards out with only the keeper to beat? Well one of those criteria is likelihood of gaining or keeping control of the ball, and we’ve seen them refuse to give reds for strikers through on goal because they were fouled before the ball reached them leaving questions about the quality of their first touch. Today, that is sometimes enough to ignore the DOGSO should. Yet now we’re thinking of allowing a red in a case where he is fouled before the ball is even passed to him?
1 Like