The Footie Thread

[GB72]

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.

I think TV has a lot to answer for. Not for any reason of criticism but now you can see every moment of every match from every angle at any speed and so every smallest thing will be picked apart.

Back in the good old days, you saw none of that and so maybe you would debate a couple of major incident but not everything. VAR has just made people look in even more detail. I suspect that very little has changed but you can see the errors more. Plus, hammering the ref for poor decision was just part of the game, you just accepted it, (every ref was biased and short sighted)and I would love to go back to that.

 

[Slime]

Unfortunately, and unavoidably, when humans are involved there will always be mistakes, inconsistencies and differences of opinions.

It'd probably help if the players weren't so intent on cheating so bloody much.

 

[Golfmmad]

I think TV has a lot to answer for. Not for any reason of criticism but now you can see every moment of every match from every angle at any speed and so every smallest thing will be picked apart.

Back in the good old days, you saw none of that and so maybe you would debate a couple of major incident but not everything. VAR has just made people look in even more detail. I suspect that very little has changed but you can see the errors more. Plus, hammering the ref for poor decision was just part of the game, you just accepted it, (every ref was biased and short sighted)and I would love to go back to that.

I mentioned this some while ago.

The first football match I was taken to as a kid was Charlton Athletic at the Valley.
The main thing that stood out to me then was, how all these men were shouting and swearing at the ref. He couldn't do a thing right it seemed.

Nothing much has changed!

 

[Bunkermagnet]

I mentioned this some while ago.

The first football match I was taken to as a kid was Charlton Athletic at the Valley.
The main thing that stood out to me then was, how all these men were shouting and swearing at the ref. He couldn't do a thing right it seemed.

Nothing much has changed!

My dad used to go there. He siad you'd have 100'000 standing there on their massive banked terraces. He loved it.

 

[Jimaroid]

I don’t think it’s just VAR or even referees or players that are at fault. The root of many problems is that the game of football is not very precise in its rules. It never has been and might never be. Football is an ambiguous game in many ways. So the laws of the game are simply not aligned for the modern age where everything can be analysed to within milllionths of units distance or time. Many of the laws are not true/false binary decisions, or conversely, some try to be but instead create ambiguities as they can never account for all possible situations in definition.

Parts of the game are ambiguous and imprecise and other parts are binary. We can’t apply judgement on both those things equally.

Football has broken down due to an illusion of certainty that we all have in our heads. It might actually be impossible to fix unless we accept that subjectivity and ambiguity is what makes football great.

 

[Golfmmad]

I don’t think it’s just VAR or even referees or players that are at fault. The root of many problems is that the game of football is not very precise in its rules. It never has been and might never be. Football is an ambiguous game in many ways. So the laws of the game are simply not aligned for the modern age where everything can be analysed to within milllionths of units distance or time. Many of the laws are not true/false binary decisions, or conversely, some try to be but instead create ambiguities as they can never account for all possible situations in definition.

Parts of the game are ambiguous and imprecise and other parts are binary. We can’t apply judgement on both those things equally.

Football has broken down due to an illusion of certainty that we all have in our heads. It might actually be impossible to fix unless we accept that subjectivity and ambiguity is what makes football great.

I can't articulate as well as you have done.
To me, a more simplistic view is that they are trying to reinvent the wheel.
All we really need is goal line technology and leave the rest to the Referee.

 

[Pin-seeker]

Already fed up of hearing about Rooney at Birmingham

 

[TimShady]

Scotland’s disallowed goal last night was a joke of a decision.

 

[Orikoru]

Scotland’s disallowed goal last night was a joke of a decision.

I was actually watching that for some reason. The most amazing thing was that they changed their reason for disallowing it - unless that was just the TV coverage getting it wrong. Initially they said it was a foul on the keeper, which was the real joke - barely laid a hand on the goalie's chest and he just gave up. What happened to the days when a keeper would smash through opponents to punch the ball clear??

About ten minutes later we were told it was actually offside rather than a foul. This made a little more sense since he probably was in an offside position and certainly distracted the keeper's attention. But did he have any chance of saving it either way? He seemed to have already mis-judged the flight and be nowhere near it. I don't actually know if that is deemed relevant in the laws here.

 

[Pin-seeker]

Scotland’s disallowed goal last night was a joke of a decision.

Let’s see if Sky bang on about it for a full week.

 

[Orikoru]

Let’s see if Sky bang on about it for a full week.

Really I think it's only fair if they replay the match.

 

[RichA]

He was offside. He made contact with the keeper without making any attempt to get to the ball. I thought it was a pretty obvious foul or offside - hardly mattered which option they went with.
They ought to qualify comfortably anyway.

 

[Orikoru]

While we're on the subject, let's talk about Scott McTominay for a minute. Who the hell decided he was a holding midfielder? When playing there he looks clumsy and lost. The nearer the opposition goal, the better he is. Look at his goal record lately, he's like the Scottish Frank Lampard. Scottish national team is clearly devoid of a decent striker, they'd be best off playing Scott as a false 9 perhaps? His best position has to be as an advanced midfielder, if not practically a support striker. Does he need to leave United simply to get a game in his best position, given that they have Bruno F and Eriksen in his way? I am reminded of Jon Obi Mikel, average holding player in the league, but banging goals from number 10 for Nigeria.

 

[Deleted member 21784]

While we're on the subject, let's talk about Scott McTominay for a minute. Who the hell decided he was a holding midfielder? When playing there he looks clumsy and lost. The nearer the opposition goal, the better he is. Look at his goal record lately, he's like the Scottish Frank Lampard. Scottish national team is clearly devoid of a decent striker, they'd be best off playing Scott as a false 9 perhaps? His best position has to be as an advanced midfielder, if not practically a support striker. Does he need to leave United simply to get a game in his best position, given that they have Bruno F and Eriksen in his way? I am reminded of Jon Obi Mikel, average holding player in the league, but banging goals from number 10 for Nigeria.

I know we were in for him. Think he would be a great box to box for us to add to the mix

 

[Orikoru]

I know we were in for him. Think he would be a great box to box for us to add to the mix

He could replicate the way Soucek played when he used to score goals.

 

[Swango1980]

Scotland’s disallowed goal last night was a joke of a decision.

Na. I've just desperately tried to find reasons to think the same thing. I had reasons like "the offside player never obstructed the keeper's view of the ball, and therefore goal should have stood"

However, I've looked at the incident again on youtube. The offside player clearly moves into the keeper, his hand going into his body. The keeper is not properly poised, and so that slight movement just shifts him into his own goal. Had the Scotland player not been there at all, it seems highly unlikely the keeper would have walked back behind his goal line as the ball flew in.

For me, it is one of those things that it is barely a foul, so had the player been onside then I personally feel the goal should stand. He's barely touched him, and keeper was weak. But, as he was in an offside position, then it seems clear he has influenced the keeper. Some people said it would have gone in anyway, which I completely disagree with. The ball flew in from a ridiculously tight angle, keeper on line in middle of goal. I'd back anyone in this forum to save that if there was no pressure from the Scottish player in front of you.

 

[Swango1980]

I know we were in for him. Think he would be a great box to box for us to add to the mix

Hands off. I'm reconsidering we should keep him, to bag us a couple of goals in injury time if required.

 

[pendodave]

He could replicate the way Soucek played when he used to score goals.

Soucek has scored 4 goals this season in all comps.
Only Son has scored more than 2 for Spurs all season.
Of course, Spurs are playing in fewer matches than most proper football clubs this year, but still...

 

[Orikoru]

Soucek has scored 4 goals this season in all comps.
Only Son has scored more than 2 for Spurs all season.
Of course, Spurs are playing in fewer matches than most proper football clubs this year, but still...

No I meant proper goals, like that season when he was your top scorer.

Let's not be bragging about goals against Lincoln and someone that might be an anagram of a real team.

 

[Orikoru]

Na. I've just desperately tried to find reasons to think the same thing. I had reasons like "the offside player never obstructed the keeper's view of the ball, and therefore goal should have stood"

However, I've looked at the incident again on youtube. The offside player clearly moves into the keeper, his hand going into his body. The keeper is not properly poised, and so that slight movement just shifts him into his own goal. Had the Scotland player not been there at all, it seems highly unlikely the keeper would have walked back behind his goal line as the ball flew in.

For me, it is one of those things that it is barely a foul, so had the player been onside then I personally feel the goal should stand. He's barely touched him, and keeper was weak. But, as he was in an offside position, then it seems clear he has influenced the keeper. Some people said it would have gone in anyway, which I completely disagree with. The ball flew in from a ridiculously tight angle, keeper on line in middle of goal. I'd back anyone in this forum to save that if there was no pressure from the Scottish player in front of you.

Agreed. Obviously there was some confusion over whether he awarded a foul or offside - but ultimately it amounts to the same thing. It would be very soft as a foul, but given that there was some contact with his hand on the goalies chest, and the fact he was in an offside position, I think you need to disallow it. They should have just made it clear it was for offside.

Why did that player put his hand on the keeper? Silly boy - if he doesn't do that, it's a goal.