The Footie Thread

[Swango1980]

So the officials have come out and said it was wrong decision.

Fans always moan the game has gone that it's becoming a non contact sport

Yet people still holding onto fact they think it's the correct call?

At least the officials will sometimes come out and say they got it wrong. Fans never do though. Many will allow their bias to get in the way, convince themselves that a call was right or wrong, and never allow themselves to change their mind.

Bowen never fouled Mendy. Mendy came out to make the save, as Bowen was running full pelt towards him. There was minor contact between the players, which would really be expected as they fly towards each other towards the ball. Bowen never kicked out at Mendy, and he by and large did hurdle over him. However, some have convinced themselves that, in the millisecond this all.happened, Bowen actively decided to leave a foot in. That he could have somehow made a better decision to.fully leap over Mendy. All to defend the decision of a free kick being given. A decision even referees have now come out and said was wrong.

Of course, for those who said it should have been a free kick, I suspect have bias towards Chelsea and/or against West Ham (or just like an argument). I'd fully expect them to argue 100% the opposite if the decision went against their own club. If Sterling had made contact with Fabianski in exactly the same way, you can bet the same people would be screaming it wasn't a foul in a million years.

 

[Jimaroid]

Throughout the game players were going down like they'd been shot, despite being built like brick houses. Wrestling; sly digs; feigning injury; life threatening cramp; you name it, it went on. And one referee & two assistants trying to sort it all out in an atmosphere of fans and players baying in their ears.

So is it the officials and VAR to blame; or the players, and their coaches? I've watched a fair bit of professional youth football and it doesn't seem to be there, and the referees seem to do a better job, despite being less experienced. But it changes at full professional level.

I agree, who’d be a referee, you’d have to be mad. Fact is all people make mistakes and I do think players are putting too much pressure on them with fakery and shenanigans. I freely admit I enjoy that sometimes but think it’s time we saw some laws in place to improve sportsmanslike and honourable behaviour on the pitch. Play the ball, not the referee.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

And herein lies the biggest problem. For as much as we berate referees about what they get wrong, and rightly so in certain circumstances, it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to think that when they are trying to sort out 22 conmen they actually do bloody well to get as much right as they do.

In respect of the game I was at, there were complaints that the keeper stayed down unnecessarily to try & buy the free kick. If he did, he was only afforded that opportunity because the incoming forward trailed a leg into him to try & buy the penalty (he turns round & starts to appeal until he realises they have the ball). Hurdle the keeper (and he could have done) and you get your point.

Throughout the game players were going down like they'd been shot, despite being built like brick houses. Wrestling; sly digs; feigning injury; life threatening cramp; you name it, it went on. And one referee & two assistants trying to sort it all out in an atmosphere of fans and players baying in their ears.

So is it the officials and VAR to blame; or the players, and their coaches? I've watched a fair bit of professional youth football and it doesn't seem to be there, and the referees seem to do a better job, despite being less experienced. But it changes at full professional level.

As the old song says, when you point your finger, there's three more fingers pointing back at you; is it time players and coaches looked in the mirror and took some responsibility for this mess? And do the pundits with their "he was entitled to go down" bull also bear some responsibility?

I thought Mendy’s response was hilarious after the decision was overturned, he rose and sprinted to berate the ref ??

It shows how subjective most decisions actually are. I thought Bowen left a trailing leg in there but the ref had a perfect view of it and let it play.

I think when refs look at the monitor, they are looking at incidents in Slow Motion which all look worse than the actual incident. It needs to be played in real time aswell as Slo-mo.

Re the pundits, I have said exactly the same for years, it was started by Andy Gray and sky. They’ve got a lot to answer for.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

I agree, who’d be a referee, you’d have to be mad. Fact is all people make mistakes and I do think players are putting too much pressure on them with fakery and shenanigans. I freely admit I enjoy that sometimes but think it’s time we saw some laws in place to improve sportsmanslike and honourable behaviour on the pitch. Play the ball, not the referee.

Problem with introducing more laws of the game is they fail to enforce some of them now, what chance have we got of them enforcing more??

I’d like to see common sense introduced into referees.

 

[Tashyboy]

Problem with introducing more laws of the game is they fail to enforce some of them now, what chance have we got of them enforcing more??

I’d like to see common sense introduced into referees.

This all day long. How long does it take to take a goal kick. As someone mentioned. Keeper was booked in the last minute for time wasting when he has done it all game. It antagonises the crowd even more. Warn him the first time after the first time and book him the second time. Players are part of the problem and it falls to the ref to endorse the rules.

 

[Piece]

At least the officials will sometimes come out and say they got it wrong. Fans never do though. Many will allow their bias to get in the way, convince themselves that a call was right or wrong, and never allow themselves to change their mind.

Bowen never fouled Mendy. Mendy came out to make the save, as Bowen was running full pelt towards him. There was minor contact between the players, which would really be expected as they fly towards each other towards the ball. Bowen never kicked out at Mendy, and he by and large did hurdle over him. However, some have convinced themselves that, in the millisecond this all.happened, Bowen actively decided to leave a foot in. That he could have somehow made a better decision to.fully leap over Mendy. All to defend the decision of a free kick being given. A decision even referees have now come out and said was wrong.

Of course, for those who said it should have been a free kick, I suspect have bias towards Chelsea and/or against West Ham (or just like an argument). I'd fully expect them to argue 100% the opposite if the decision went against their own club. If Sterling had made contact with Fabianski in exactly the same way, you can bet the same people would be screaming it wasn't a foul in a million years.

I have no skin in the game for that incident. Not in the slightest. I haven't changed my mind that Bowen left a foot in to get pen (Vardy style). Most will say foul, some say no foul. Its subjective, an interpretation of the current law, therefore it can't be 'wrong'.

 

[Jimaroid]

Problem with introducing more laws of the game is they fail to enforce some of them now, what chance have we got of them enforcing more??

I’d like to see common sense introduced into referees.

Good point well made. Seriously though, what’s happened to the spirit of playing with integrity? Has it ever really been there? I don’t know any more but somewhere it’s not the game I remember. Players used to kick all hell out of each and stay on their feet. I get really wound up by the “entitled to go down” and “won the foul” attitude.

Nothing will change, that’s what frustrates me.

 

[Swango1980]

I have no skin in the game for that incident. Not in the slightest. I haven't changed my mind that Bowen left a foot in to get pen (Vardy style). Most will say foul, some say no foul. Its subjective, an interpretation of the current law, therefore it can't be 'wrong'.

The decision for VAR to intervene was wrong though. VAR should not be getting involved if about 5% of the population think Bowen left a foot in, and therefore MIGHT be a free kick.

And, as I said, many who think the free kick should he given would think the exact opposite if their team had a goal cancelled out for same thing.

 

[Dando]

The decision for VAR to intervene was wrong though. VAR should not be getting involved if about 5% of the population think Bowen left a foot in, and therefore MIGHT be a free kick.

And, as I said, many who think the free kick should he given would think the exact opposite if their team had a goal cancelled out for same thing.

if it was at the other end, toys would’ve been thrown from the pram

 

[Piece]

The decision for VAR to intervene was wrong though. VAR should not be getting involved if about 5% of the population think Bowen left a foot in, and therefore MIGHT be a free kick.

And, as I said, many who think the free kick should he given would think the exact opposite if their team had a goal cancelled out for same thing.

I don't follow why VAR intervening is 'wrong' though? Replays shown give the VAR time to assess (as a goal was scored) and the VAR believes, in his opinion, there was a foul. The VAR and the on-field ref then discuss (privately, unfortunately) over the pitch monitor and 'agree' a foul was committed. I can't see how that is wrong or for VAR to intervene as wrong? Just because most think it wasn't a foul, can't make it wrong or right.

Being slightly obtuse, if that goal is allowed to stand in the future via the PMGOL "educating officials", it indirectly gives licence for players to leave a foot in on the goalkeeper.

 

[Neilds]

This all day long. How long does it take to take a goal kick. As someone mentioned. Keeper was booked in the last minute for time wasting when he has done it all game. It antagonises the crowd even more. Warn him the first time after the first time and book him the second time. Players are part of the problem and it falls to the ref to endorse the rules.

I have often said that referees should start 'enforcing' the rules from the start. None of the "It's early in the game so that foul isn't a yellow card" - if it is a bookable offence then show a card. Also, clamp down on foul and abusive language and then when games are called off after 20 minutes as one side has too few players (less than 7?), award the game to the other side. Things will soon change as players and managers get the message


Unless they really are as stupid as we often think they are

 

[Swango1980]

I don't follow why VAR intervening is 'wrong' though? Replays shown give the VAR time to assess (as a goal was scored) and the VAR believes, in his opinion, there was a foul. The VAR and the on-field ref then discuss (privately, unfortunately) over the pitch monitor and 'agree' a foul was committed. I can't see how that is wrong or for VAR to intervene as wrong? Just because most think it wasn't a foul, can't make it wrong or right.

Being slightly obtuse, if that goal is allowed to stand in the future via the PMGOL "educating officials", it indirectly gives licence for players to leave a foot in on the goalkeeper.

The officials, I believe, have already come out and said it was wrong though. Have they not?

If you still think it is correct, then VAR MUST intervene every single time any part of a players body touches part of an opponents body. Just for the sake that, there may be a small chance the player could have acted differently so that zero contact was made. We have been repeatedly told that VAR only should intervene when there has been an obvious mistake. So, when you say "just because most think it wasn't a foul" seems like the most definitive answer as to exactly why VAR should never intervene in this specific case. If most think it wasn't a foul, how could you argue it was an obvious foul and therefore an obvious mistake!?

As I said before, if you had at least 2 VAR referees, then at least you'd iron out the issue of an obvious mistake. If a single VAR referee is in the 5% of people who thinks a mistake was made, then maybe to them it is 100% a mistake but to 95% of people it was 100% the right call. If you had a couple in the VAR studio, then VAR may have a chance of working better as intended, as there is a better chance that a colleague would argue against a mistake being made, thus both having to agree there was nothing obvious. However, while there is only a single VAR guy in the studio, then these sorts of problems will always arise, as there will always come a time when the VAR ref is in the extreme minority.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

Good point well made. Seriously though, what’s happened to the spirit of playing with integrity? Has it ever really been there? I don’t know any more but somewhere it’s not the game I remember. Players used to kick all hell out of each and stay on their feet. I get really wound up by the “entitled to go down” and “won the foul” attitude.

Nothing will change, that’s what frustrates me.

The integrity went as soon as we introduced european/south american players into English football.

You've only got to look at early CL football when English teams struggled to get past the knockouts.

Now football for most is win at all costs and if you cant beat them, join them.

It really does baffle me when a unit like Joelinton* gets a touch off the smallest fella on the pitch and rolls around like he's been shot.

The reason players do such things as diving and making a meal of tackles is because unless they dont go down they dont get the foul. That is wrong and it can only changed by the officials.

*i used Joelinton as a big unit example.

 

[RichA]

The officials, I believe, have already come out and said it was wrong though. Have they not?

If you still think it is correct, then VAR MUST intervene every single time any part of a players body touches part of an opponents body. Just for the sake that, there may be a small chance the player could have acted differently so that zero contact was made. We have been repeatedly told that VAR only should intervene when there has been an obvious mistake. So, when you say "just because most think it wasn't a foul" seems like the most definitive answer as to exactly why VAR should never intervene in this specific case. If most think it wasn't a foul, how could you argue it was an obvious foul and therefore an obvious mistake!?

As I said before, if you had at least 2 VAR referees, then at least you'd iron out the issue of an obvious mistake. If a single VAR referee is in the 5% of people who thinks a mistake was made, then maybe to them it is 100% a mistake but to 95% of people it was 100% the right call. If you had a couple in the VAR studio, then VAR may have a chance of working better as intended, as there is a better chance that a colleague would argue against a mistake being made, thus both having to agree there was nothing obvious. However, while there is only a single VAR guy in the studio, then these sorts of problems will always arise, as there will always come a time when the VAR ref is in the extreme minority.

Where have you got this 95% mandate from? More than 5% of people in this conversation without bias towards the teams involved have said they don't think the Chelsea / West Ham VAR decision was wrong.

As someone else has pointed out, it's highly unlikely that the officials are corrupt, whereas it is highly likely that the players are cheating. The focus is on the wrong problem.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

Where have you got this 95% mandate from? More than 5% of people in this conversation without bias towards the teams involved have said they don't think the Chelsea / West Ham VAR decision was wrong.

As someone else has pointed out, it's highly unlikely that the officials are corrupt, whereas it is highly likely that the players are cheating. The focus is on the wrong problem.

Very accurate. That said, when there's a certain ref in charge at your game, you know that you're not going to be on the end of the 50/50 decisions. I can safely say that from speaking to fans of other teams we all have one.

 

[Badger]

my two'penneth for what it's worth, when VAR was introduced we were told that it was to intervene when a "clear and obvious error" had been made and think most of us were on board with that concept.

whatever your view on any of the weekend's incidents think it's fair to say that none of them fit the criteria of "clear and obvious errors", they were subjective, and so the question should be why is VAR getting involved ?

on a more general point it's just sucking the joy out of the game. the greatest moments of being a football fan are those seconds after your team scores a goal when you find yourself hugging strangers or jumping around the living room, they are what I remember anyway, I was lucky enough to be at Anfield in 89, if that happened today we'd all be standing there sweating while they made a VAR check !

 

[Swango1980]

Where have you got this 95% mandate from? More than 5% of people in this conversation without bias towards the teams involved have said they don't think the Chelsea / West Ham VAR decision was wrong.

As someone else has pointed out, it's highly unlikely that the officials are corrupt, whereas it is highly likely that the players are cheating. The focus is on the wrong problem.

I hope you didn't think I had evaluated all comments and attributed a % split? I was clearly only using the % as a very approximate demonstration. If you simply take comments from this thread, it is a value that can't be trusted. I'd expect there be more likelihood for those that agree with an unpopular decision to be more likely to come on a forum to defend it. Whereas, if people tend to agree with the general thought it was the wrong decision, then they are less likely to feel the need to state there case on a forum. It has all been said.

Outside the forum, I've not come across anyone that is anywhere close to agreeing it was a foul by Bowen. From what I have seen, the every pundit I've heard talk about it do not understand why it was given. Even those that say there might be a reason to think Bowen could have left a foot lower than he could have done, still cannot say they are 100% sure on that. And, as such, still cannot come to the conclusion it was an obvious error by the ref.

PS. I don't think anyone is suggesting the officials are corrupt (well, I'm sure there are some out there that spread these conspiracy theories, just not heard it mentioned in here). Simply that the officials made a mistake. And, yes, the players, managers AND fans make it very much harder for the referees on the pitch. Players fake injuries and dive, managers shout and scream at refs, and fans (in particular home fans) shout anytime there is even a hint of an infringement against their team (how often do you hear fans shout handball when it hits an opponent in the box, then boo when nothing is given, only to see in the replay the ball was nowhere near the guys hand?). However, VAR is another tool that should get around this issue in many respects.

 

[Swango1980]

my two'penneth for what it's worth, when VAR was introduced we were told that it was to intervene when a "clear and obvious error" had been made and think most of us were on board with that concept.

whatever your view on any of the weekend's incidents think it's fair to say that none of them fit the criteria of "clear and obvious errors", they were subjective, and so the question should be why is VAR getting involved ?

on a more general point it's just sucking the joy out of the game. the greatest moments of being a football fan are those seconds after your team scores a goal when you find yourself hugging strangers or jumping around the living room, they are what I remember anyway, I was lucky enough to be at Anfield in 89, if that happened today we'd all be standing there sweating while they made a VAR check !

I still agree with this, but I just think we are having to get used to that, as it is not going to change now.

Anytime my team score, I've got used to not getting overly excited, as there is every chance it might still be ruled out. Whether it might be a close offside call, or a subjective decision against your team. Once the goal is finally given, it is more a sense or relief than ecstatic joy. Sure, there will be decisions that go in favour of your team, so there are advantages to VAR. But, in general, it just seems to have reduced the levels of ecstatic joy to an extent, and increased the feelings of relief. I'm not sure if that is a good thing for football, as I'd have thought anything that can generate more extreme levels of emotion, at either end of the spectrum, is better than the sport than one that dampens this?

One of the benefits to VAR is that is was supposed to work out better for "smaller" clubs, as it was felt on field referees could be easily lead by the larger crowd of the "bigger" club, especially in home games. It would be interesting to see if there is any evidence that this is the case. One could argue it might have gone the other way. After all, the VAR referee will subconsciously know that any decision they make for / against a big club will be much more scrutinised than a smaller club. The VVD incident could be a prime example. It was on the edge of being a red, and I think he was lucky. However, I agree there are arguments it was not quite a red card, and simply one of those that if it was given, most could also see why that was the case. For a VAR ref, if they were on the edge of thinking it was a red, it might be easier to simply leave it, knowing the controversy it would cause, especially amongst the highly supported Liverpool fans (nothing against Liverpool, I'd say the same about Man Utd, City, Chelsea, etc). Whereas, if Anderson of Crystal Palace made that challenge, would the same VAR ref be pushed to the other edge of asking the onfield ref to review it?

 

[Piece]

The officials, I believe, have already come out and said it was wrong though. Have they not?

It would help us all if they educated us in why the decision to disallow was made and under what law interpretation. Until then, "wrong" has no real meaning or value. I will admit that having lacking of information or explanation from the refs does not help their cause - I'm all for some type of rugby style comms live time.

If you still think it is correct, then VAR MUST intervene every single time any part of a players body touches part of an opponents body. Just for the sake that, there may be a small chance the player could have acted differently so that zero contact was made. We have been repeatedly told that VAR only should intervene when there has been an obvious mistake. So, when you say "just because most think it wasn't a foul" seems like the most definitive answer as to exactly why VAR should never intervene in this specific case. If most think it wasn't a foul, how could you argue it was an obvious foul and therefore an obvious mistake!?

You've misunderstood. VAR did its job in that it has to check any potential infringements as a goal was scored. The VAR felt a foul was committed and two refs 'agreed' to strike out the goal. Also note it is not just an "obvious mistake" that VAR gets involved - it's also for any decision review ("missed incidents") that the VAR feels the on-field ref needs to see/review in what the PL define as a "match affecting" situation.

As I said before, if you had at least 2 VAR referees, then at least you'd iron out the issue of an obvious mistake. If a single VAR referee is in the 5% of people who thinks a mistake was made, then maybe to them it is 100% a mistake but to 95% of people it was 100% the right call. If you had a couple in the VAR studio, then VAR may have a chance of working better as intended, as there is a better chance that a colleague would argue against a mistake being made, thus both having to agree there was nothing obvious. However, while there is only a single VAR guy in the studio, then these sorts of problems will always arise, as there will always come a time when the VAR ref is in the extreme minority.

What if both VAR refs disagree? The more people involved, the worse it will become, in my opinion. We are in realms of diminishing returns to get VAR to 100% - it won't happen. However, I do believe there is still small room for improvement, so I'm open to any suggestion that gets us there.

 

[Springveldt]

my two'penneth for what it's worth, when VAR was introduced we were told that it was to intervene when a "clear and obvious error" had been made and think most of us were on board with that concept.

whatever your view on any of the weekend's incidents think it's fair to say that none of them fit the criteria of "clear and obvious errors", they were subjective, and so the question should be why is VAR getting involved ?

on a more general point it's just sucking the joy out of the game. the greatest moments of being a football fan are those seconds after your team scores a goal when you find yourself hugging strangers or jumping around the living room, they are what I remember anyway, I was lucky enough to be at Anfield in 89, if that happened today we'd all be standing there sweating while they made a VAR check !

"Clear and obvious error" and now they are drawing lines all over the place saying "he's offside, look, his left pinkie is in front of the defender". Complete nonsense.