The Footie Thread

[Swango1980]

Sky used to run a commentary option which was 1 fan from each team, that was brilliantly entertaining

It definitely had novelty value, but I think that generally wore off pretty quickly for most of us.

Although I do generally watch the best bits of Mark Goldbridge commentating on each Man Utd game, usually about 10 minutes long. If Utd are going to lose, the only silver lining for me is watching his reaction. He is like the football equivalent of Alan Partridge.

 

[Bdill93]

Wayne Rooney appointed Birmingham City manager

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67055334

LOL

I had hoped they'd come up, I miss the second city derby games.

 

[Orikoru]

tell me youre a Spurs fan without telling me youre a Spurs fan lol

Eh? Do you not remember it?

Sorry it's the Mail but it was the first article I found that covered what I was referring to: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...call-following-mysterious-World-Cup-exit.html
He left the squad for 'personal reasons' and Southgate has actually had to ask him if he'd want to return. Does that not sound to you like he's fallen out with someone, or multiple people within the England set-up?

 

[TimShady]

It definitely had novelty value, but I think that generally wore off pretty quickly for most of us.

Although I do generally watch the best bits of Mark Goldbridge commentating on each Man Utd game, usually about 10 minutes long. If Utd are going to lose, the only silver lining for me is watching his reaction. He is like the football equivalent of Alan Partridge.

He’s certainly playing a character. Rumours are that he’s a Forest fan.

 

[Swango1980]

No there isn't.

I didn't say I want them to review all the yellow cards.

If you want them to review contentious yellow cards, then they effectively have to review all yellow cards. Sure, +90% of them they simply will not intervene, but they still have to review it first to ensure there is no reason to intervene.

If you are telling them not to review all yellow cards, then what yellow cards would you tell them to review?

 

[Orikoru]

If you want them to review contentious yellow cards, then they effectively have to review all yellow cards. Sure, +90% of them they simply will not intervene, but they still have to review it first to ensure there is no reason to intervene.

If you are telling them not to review all yellow cards, then what yellow cards would you tell them to review?

What I want to cut out is the long delays of reviewing things because they've decided they can't stop the game if it's restarted. If they can actually review things while the game continues, and stop it and bring it back if there is a serious error, then all power to them.

 

[Swango1980]

The corner and throw in thing annoys me to be honest. In the grounds you can clearly see its a mistake at times but they don't get overturned. Yet to see one personally that leads to a goal but if it did it would feel pretty contentious to me that it wasn't checked back to that refereeing decision.

If VAR was to start reviewing every throw in, corner and free kick then the onfield referee would truly not be a referee anymore. They'd simply be a person who would dictate when play can restart, and that would be after VAR confirmed or indicated what the correct decision should be after any event.

The onfield referee makes a decision instantly, and I'd imagine many of these decisions are straight forward and they get the vast majority correct. But, we've seen many times, with the benefit of a replay, that what we though initially (and were 100% convinced on) was actually incorrect. And, many of these times we are simply talking about a thrown in, corner kick or free kick which can be regular events in a football game. And on rare occasions, you have the double impact that the onfield decision was incorrect AND the benefitting team then go on to score. It certainly does not happen every week, but it does happen. So, to avoid that, the only way around it is to review every single decision before play restarts. I can only imagine how long that would add to a game of football.

 

[Swango1980]

What I want to cut out is the long delays of reviewing things because they've decided they can't stop the game if it's restarted. If they can actually review things while the game continues, and stop it and bring it back if there is a serious error, then all power to them.

But, we've already had many complain that they don't like the linesman not waving for offside if they think it is offside, in case a player goes on to get injured (people complaining about that clearly do not understand that this is necessary to avoid incorrect offside calls being made). But, if you allowed play to restart, and then say all that play has to be abandoned because a different decision needed to be made previously, than that is going to cause a lot of discontent. They'll be lynched the first time a player gets injured in that wasted part of play, that never needed to be restarted in the first place. They'd get lynched if the other team scores, and then it isn't allowed. What if a team wants to take a quick penalty or free kick, score from it and then VAR comes later to say it was never a penalty or free kick in the first place? The TV audience, and maybe even some in the ground with a good view, may be absolutely convinced that VAR is going to make a different call. The TV audience get the replays, and can see a clear foul that wasn't given for example. Yet, while VAR double, triple checks, a new phase of play is started, and we are all sitting there knowing it is a waste of time.

So, it makes complete sense that VAR has to come to a final decision before play restarts. Last week was a bit different though. VAR DID come to a final decision before play restarted. The issue was that it was communicated badly. So, there probably should be allowance that, if play continues against the advice of VAR simply due to bad communication, VAR should be able to immediately call the ref to halt the game. If that was the case, this specific event could have been avoided. Of course, it would only have solved this one error that has occurred in the 4 years VAR has been used. It isn't going to suddenly make VAR the perfect tool everyone wants it to be.

 

[Orikoru]

But, we've already had many complain that they don't like the linesman not waving for offside if they think it is offside, in case a player goes on to get injured (people complaining about that clearly do not understand that this is necessary to avoid incorrect offside calls being made). But, if you allowed play to restart, and then say all that play has to be abandoned because a different decision needed to be made previously, than that is going to cause a lot of discontent. They'll be lynched the first time a player gets injured in that wasted part of play, that never needed to be restarted in the first place. They'd get lynched if the other team scores, and then it isn't allowed. What if a team wants to take a quick penalty or free kick, score from it and then VAR comes later to say it was never a penalty or free kick in the first place? The TV audience, and maybe even some in the ground with a good view, may be absolutely convinced that VAR is going to make a different call. The TV audience get the replays, and can see a clear foul that wasn't given for example. Yet, while VAR double, triple checks, a new phase of play is started, and we are all sitting there knowing it is a waste of time.

So, it makes complete sense that VAR has to come to a final decision before play restarts. Last week was a bit different though. VAR DID come to a final decision before play restarted. The issue was that it was communicated badly. So, there probably should be allowance that, if play continues against the advice of VAR simply due to bad communication, VAR should be able to immediately call the ref to halt the game. If that was the case, this specific event could have been avoided. Of course, it would only have solved this one error that has occurred in the 4 years VAR has been used. It isn't going to suddenly make VAR the perfect tool everyone wants it to be.

Did I not say it's only for game-changing incidents like reds and goals?

Pick holes in what I'm saying all you like but what they're doing now is categorically not working. You seem to think it's all fine and dandy? Given that you only shoot others down and don't suggest any alternatives.

 

[Bdill93]

If VAR was to start reviewing every throw in, corner and free kick then the onfield referee would truly not be a referee anymore. They'd simply be a person who would dictate when play can restart, and that would be after VAR confirmed or indicated what the correct decision should be after any event.

The onfield referee makes a decision instantly, and I'd imagine many of these decisions are straight forward and they get the vast majority correct. But, we've seen many times, with the benefit of a replay, that what we though initially (and were 100% convinced on) was actually incorrect. And, many of these times we are simply talking about a thrown in, corner kick or free kick which can be regular events in a football game. And on rare occasions, you have the double impact that the onfield decision was incorrect AND the benefitting team then go on to score. It certainly does not happen every week, but it does happen. So, to avoid that, the only way around it is to review every single decision before play restarts. I can only imagine how long that would add to a game of football.

I agree, but honestly some of them would be seconds to decide. Anything contentious deserves the time taken to get right IMO.

And this comes from a guy who sits in the stands every week too - I'm more than happy with the added time so far this season! Way more football for my money.

 

[GB72]

Not sure how you would deal with something like a goal being incorrectly disallowed, the other team then go down the pitch and score, you then have to call back the play, chalk off the goal scored and allow the original one plus reset the clock to when the first goal was scored. What about if the same situation occurs and a red card is awarded before the reset. Is that struck off as well. It could cause chaos to get all of that across as well as cause confusion on the time left to play (still no idea why football does not operate on a live clock that stops and starts rather than have the random element of time added on).

Personally, I am simply in favour of VAR being a tool that can be used as much or as little as the ref wants. The ref asks for reviews when he wants a review and how he wants it reviewed and the VAR team generally only point out clear foul play that has been missed.

 

[Swango1980]

Did I not say it's only for game-changing incidents like reds and goals?

Pick holes in what I'm saying all you like but what they're doing now is categorically not working. You seem to think it's all fine and dandy? Given that you only shoot others down and don't suggest any alternatives.

I do not think it is fine and dandy, but what I'm saying is that your solutions, in my opinion, would make it so much worse.

You did say it should only be used for game changing incidents (which I generally agree with and stated that this is actually the case now anyway), but I pointed out that there were other comments you made that contradicted this. As you then seemed to suggest it should have more licence to act in incidents it doesn't currently get involved with.

If you want my opinion, I didn't like VAR to begin with, and it still tempers my celebrations when my team scores. But, to get rid of it now would then cause the serious problem of bad decisions being allowed to stand. Like it or not, VAR has probably ensured that the vast majority of bad decisions that used to be made, are now corrected. If we scrapped it now, we'd be complaining the first time our team loses to a goal that should have been offside.

So, assuming it is here to stay, I'd like automated offside, and hopefully that tech can, or will soon be able to, make an offside call in seconds. The linesman can then be immediately notified, and raise their flag even if they felt it was onside at the time. Hopefully, that way the fans and players can get a very quick indication that a goal will not be given, and so we can start to celebrate a bit more freely if that flag is not raised, as we've more confidence it will not be given offside an minuteot 2 later.

Secondly, I'd like to see them simplify handball. I know it will still be subjective at times. But, a complete accidental handball shouldn't be given, unless a defender is blocking a shot like Schmeichel, or jumping for a header with hand way above head, or clearly stopping ball go into net. I hate it that, if it brushes a strikers hand, a goal will not be given if they score as it is handball, but if they pass to someone else the goal will be given. So, handball only given to the goalscorere, no one else on the pitch. That is ridiculous. If a defender tries to clear the ball, it smacks against a strikers hand right next to them, and the striker scores, give the bloomin goal. The whole point of handball is to stop footballers playing rugby, so accidental handballs like that, in my view, should not be given

 

[Swango1980]

I agree, but honestly some of them would be seconds to decide. Anything contentious deserves the time taken to get right IMO.

And this comes from a guy who sits in the stands every week too - I'm more than happy with the added time so far this season! Way more football for my money.

Some take seconds to decide, some not so clear cut. Some need different views to check who made last contact. That requires humans to go through the process of playing those views, and then communicating what they see. The whole process often takes more than seconds. Offside and red cards are sometimes clear as day, yet look how long it takes to get to the correct decision. And, if they simply rush through every single decision, it is obvious mistakes will sometimes happen.

 

[Bdill93]

Some take seconds to decide, some not so clear cut. Some need different views to check who made last contact. That requires humans to go through the process of playing those views, and then communicating what they see. The whole process often takes more than seconds. Offside and red cards are sometimes clear as day, yet look how long it takes to get to the correct decision. And, if they simply rush through every single decision, it is obvious mistakes will sometimes happen.

But as I say, I'll take a wait for the right decision.

They certainly need to improve how its communicated in stadiums too but I think that will come in time too.

 

[Tashyboy]

If you want them to review contentious yellow cards, then they effectively have to review all yellow cards. Sure, +90% of them they simply will not intervene, but they still have to review it first to ensure there is no reason to intervene.

If you are telling them not to review all yellow cards, then what yellow cards would you tell them to review?

Come what may, referees and VAR will never provide what we fans want. Consistency. At the weekend Kovacic should have been sent off for a second yellow after what could and should have been a first red. The ref either missed or bottled a second card. VAR could have asked the ref to look at the second incident/ tackle/ foul to see if it was dangerous. It wasn’t but he caught him with the studs and at that point a second yellow should have been given. But it cannot coz rules state otherwise. Bottom line a wrong decision was made. Why because we are handcuffed by limited VAR rules.
Look at City v Chelsea women at the weekend. A City player receives a second yellow from a foul by a player who did it on purpose to stop a break. From the moment of the foul to the player picking themselves up after half a dozen seconds. Another player comes over To take the kick,wants to play it short but by this point all the Chelsea players have closed down the City players. The City player plays the ball sideways at the same time the ref blows for time wasting. This gives the player a second yellow and sent off. Yet the average time to play a free kick in women’s football is 31 seconds.
Like I have said at the moment football to me looks pig ugly.

 

[Swango1980]

But as I say, I'll take a wait for the right decision.

They certainly need to improve how its communicated in stadiums too but I think that will come in time too.

You might, but having heard the constant VAR bashing from fans and media for the last 4 years, it seems obvious that many would not accept waiting even longer than they already do, by adding many more decisions to the VAR mix. There seem to be many that the time to make any decisions is their biggest VAR hate, and they'd rather go back to a time where the onfield decision made the ref instantly, despite the bigger risk of it being wrong

 

[Orikoru]

I do not think it is fine and dandy, but what I'm saying is that your solutions, in my opinion, would make it so much worse.

You did say it should only be used for game changing incidents (which I generally agree with and stated that this is actually the case now anyway), but I pointed out that there were other comments you made that contradicted this. As you then seemed to suggest it should have more licence to act in incidents it doesn't currently get involved with.

If you want my opinion, I didn't like VAR to begin with, and it still tempers my celebrations when my team scores. But, to get rid of it now would then cause the serious problem of bad decisions being allowed to stand. Like it or not, VAR has probably ensured that the vast majority of bad decisions that used to be made, are now corrected. If we scrapped it now, we'd be complaining the first time our team loses to a goal that should have been offside.

So, assuming it is here to stay, I'd like automated offside, and hopefully that tech can, or will soon be able to, make an offside call in seconds. The linesman can then be immediately notified, and raise their flag even if they felt it was onside at the time. Hopefully, that way the fans and players can get a very quick indication that a goal will not be given, and so we can start to celebrate a bit more freely if that flag is not raised, as we've more confidence it will not be given offside an minuteot 2 later.

Secondly, I'd like to see them simplify handball. I know it will still be subjective at times. But, a complete accidental handball shouldn't be given, unless a defender is blocking a shot like Schmeichel, or jumping for a header with hand way above head, or clearly stopping ball go into net. I hate it that, if it brushes a strikers hand, a goal will not be given if they score as it is handball, but if they pass to someone else the goal will be given. So, handball only given to the goalscorere, no one else on the pitch. That is ridiculous. If a defender tries to clear the ball, it smacks against a strikers hand right next to them, and the striker scores, give the bloomin goal. The whole point of handball is to stop footballers playing rugby, so accidental handballs like that, in my view, should not be given

Yeah, you can't scrap VAR altogether - it just needs to be implemented the way it should have been to begin with.

Fully agree on automating the offsides (like the World Cup) and going back to a handball law that actually made sense.

 

[Swango1980]

Come what may, referees and VAR will never provide what we fans want. Consistency. At the weekend Kovacic should have been sent off for a second yellow after what could and should have been a first red. The ref either missed or bottled a second card. VAR could have asked the ref to look at the second incident/ tackle/ foul to see if it was dangerous. It wasn’t but he caught him with the studs and at that point a second yellow should have been given. But it cannot coz rules state otherwise. Bottom line a wrong decision was made. Why because we are handcuffed by limited VAR rules.
Look at City v Chelsea women at the weekend. A City player receives a second yellow from a foul by a player who did it on purpose to stop a break. From the moment of the foul to the player picking themselves up after half a dozen seconds. Another player comes over To take the kick,wants to play it short but by this point all the Chelsea players have closed down the City players. The City player plays the ball sideways at the same time the ref blows for time wasting. This gives the player a second yellow and sent off. Yet the average time to play a free kick in women’s football is 31 seconds.
Like I have said at the moment football to me looks pig ugly.

You are absolutely correct, VAR will never be consistent. There are far too many decisions that are simply subjective. And, when I say subjective I don't mean everyone is around 50/50 on it. I mean subjective that 40% of people will be 100% one decision should be made, 40% of people are 100% the exact opposite decision should be made and 20% of people aren't sure either way. Or 80% of people are 100% a decision should be made one way, 5% thing the exact opposite and 15% are not entirely sure. In that scenario, the general feeling is the 80% of people are probably correct, and that should be the correct decision. Yet, by its very nature, there is still subjectivity there. Unless VAR has a panel of 10-20 people, and they all get an equal vote so that the majority win, then there is more emphasis on the VAR ref to try and be impartial, and even if they think they are 100% one way or another, they need to question whether they may be in the minority and is there any reason to think they could be wrong. This may well be why VAR fails to act sometimes, because even if they think they may have come to a different decision, they question whether that is down to their own subjectivity rather than the onfield ref actually missing something.

Yes, Kovacic was lucky. But, should VAR now rule on second yellow cards? What about first yellow cards that were / wer not given, if that player then goes on to get another and then potential red?

Didn't see the City v Chelsea women's game, so no idea if timewasting was harsh or not. But, again, subjective. We've generally been crying out for referees to punish timewasting more harshly. So, if they do, inevitably there will be some subjective opinions on when this is occurring and exactly how long has been wasted. What led to the foul in the first place is irrelevant, or even whether that was harshly or leniently dealt with by the ref, as we are now talking about a separate issue from that point.

 

[GB72]

You might, but having heard the constant VAR bashing from fans and media for the last 4 years, it seems obvious that many would not accept waiting even longer than they already do, by adding many more decisions to the VAR mix. There seem to be many that the time to make any decisions is their biggest VAR hate, and they'd rather go back to a time where the onfield decision made the ref instantly, despite the bigger risk of it being wrong

Certainly you hear a lot on phone ins, especially from relegated clubs, about how nice it is to have the immediacy of the game back. You can celebrate a goal, boo or cheer a decision etc knowing that is final rather than holding back for a check. I actually like that and would rather be debating the quality of the ref after a match in any sport and have the enjoyment of the game reffed how it used to be. I think the only sport it works well in is cricket but the pace of the game suits that and adds some drama.

 

[Swango1980]

Certainly you hear a lot on phone ins, especially from relegated clubs, about how nice it is to have the immediacy of the game back. You can celebrate a goal, boo or cheer a decision etc knowing that is final rather than holding back for a check. I actually like that and would rather be debating the quality of the ref after a match in any sport and have the enjoyment of the game reffed how it used to be. I think the only sport it works well in is cricket but the pace of the game suits that and adds some drama.

I wonder if anyone has compared the new stories after games related to referee decisions pre LIV, and were they more or less frequent to the news stories we get about refs and VAR in today's game? And, for specific incidents, do we spend more or less time criticising officials now than we did pre VAR? I suspect we spend a lot more time these days criticising officials. And if that hypothesis is correct, it is ironic that this is the case, considering the whole point of VAR was meant to help referees, not make things worse.

Although VAR must ultimately be leading to more correct outcomes than pre VAR, it is interesting if the reputation of officials has declined now that more scrutiny can be placed on them, now they have time and super slow motions to make the big calls.