The Footie Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 15344
  • Start date Start date
Honest question as I have no idea but is there anything in the rules to allow the game to be stopped and the goal awarded. If there is nothing set, the ref on the pitch has no idea what to do.

My assumption is that at the end of the day, right or wrong, the decision of the ref is final and so by allowing play to continue with no goal awarded, he has ruled on the issue and that is final.
 
Stuart_C said:
Spot on. I never expected it to be 7 seconds.

Blow the whistle, get the managers and captains together and explain the issue. Give the goal and restart. Simple.

Instead they've kicked the can down the road. Gross negligence.
Click to expand...
The interesting thing about that excellent link ( and I suspect half the footie comments on here won’t read it), is that they have brought in a guy from Rugby league whose sole job is to improve communication. Let that bit sink in. Coz obviously it has not at the VAR centre. Again look at Rugby Union. The refs are miked up and it don’t take a genius to say “ check for the offside flag going up”. The whole stadium and armchair supporters know exactly what is going off.
However we are talking about the PGMOL, and these rammel decisions have been happening since the very day VAR was brought in.

Finally an excellent post Mr J 👍
 
Tashyboy said:
The interesting thing about that excellent link ( and I suspect half the footie comments on here won’t read it), is that they have brought in a guy from Rugby league whose sole job is to improve communication. Let that bit sink in. Coz obviously it has not at the VAR centre. Again look at Rugby Union. The refs are miked up and it don’t take a genius to say “ check for the offside flag going up”. The whole stadium and armchair supporters know exactly what is going off.
However we are talking about the PGMOL, and these rammel decisions have been happening since the very day VAR was brought in.

Finally an excellent post Mr J 👍
Click to expand...

Thing is the ref is still in charge of the whole thing in rugby whereas I am not sure that football has worked that out yet. The ref asks the video assistant to look at what he or she wants looked at, the ref is given the footage, is given opinions if asked for but the ref makes the final decision. In rugby it is a tool to provide the ref with information if requested and if the ref does not want to look at it then the video assistant does not get involved. Even the question asked is important. 'Try yes or no' invites the video ref to find grounds to support one being scored 'any reason not to award a try' means the ref has decided that he is happy but wants the video ref to see if there is any foul play or issues. They will also point out foul play to look at if it has been missed. The thing is that rugby has the time and the stoppages to do that, football does not.

The big difference is that the ref in rugby looks at the the footage and makes a decision with advice. I am still not sure who makes the final decision in football.
 
GB72 said:
What i find odd is the calls on the radio this morning for more people in the VAR booth and, in particular ex players.

The speed to VAR decisions has been complained about before so who knows how long they will take if you have a full committee in there discussing the outcome. Add to that someone with input on what they feel should be right from a players point of view as opposed to applying the laws of the game. is just a recipe for disaster.

No real idea as to how you increase the accuracy for VAR decisions (OK this weekend was just a massive horlicks but I am not sure you can ever totally write off one of those happening occasionally) whilst also keeping up the pace of play. The simple fact is that football is not suited to off field analysis simply due to the pace it is played at. Starting to think you can have a quick decision or a right decision but trying to achieve both is just not working.
Click to expand...
I hear the likes of Danny Murphy scream incompetence about the officials, and how he could do the job much better as he knows the game. He literally says that, and there are many pundits who pretty much say the same. I have heard many ex-players say that ex-players should be in VAR, because they know the game. They know what is a foul and what is not.

I tell you what, I'd absolutely LOVE it if the PGMOL invited ex-players, and ex-players only, to be the VAR officials for a month in the PL. Maybe even just one weekend. I'd love it, because I'm virtually certain they'd make a complete mess of it. Half the time, it is clear they don't know the rules themselves, and just speak from a passionate point of view, like fans. They will be guilty of human error, as they are human as well. But will also be guilty of making the wrong decisions because they just don't know the rules. Some will try and apply the rule if they've read a part of it, others will try and make a decision based on their gut instinct on how the game "should" be played, and so you'd have massive inconsistency from one game to another, and from one minute to another in the same game.
 
TimShady said:
It did. Only five bookings in the game.
Click to expand...
Indeed....in the ten minutes before i posted that players were building up a head of steam with some niggly challenges, unprovoked elbows to the back of the head...the game was getting stretched...could see some rash challenges occurring.....and then it all died down!!!
 
Swango1980 said:
I hear the likes of Danny Murphy scream incompetence about the officials, and how he could do the job much better as he knows the game. He literally says that, and there are many pundits who pretty much say the same. I have heard many ex-players say that ex-players should be in VAR, because they know the game. They know what is a foul and what is not.

I tell you what, I'd absolutely LOVE it if the PGMOL invited ex-players, and ex-players only, to be the VAR officials for a month in the PL. Maybe even just one weekend. I'd love it, because I'm virtually certain they'd make a complete mess of it. Half the time, it is clear they don't know the rules themselves, and just speak from a passionate point of view, like fans. They will be guilty of human error, as they are human as well. But will also be guilty of making the wrong decisions because they just don't know the rules. Some will try and apply the rule if they've read a part of it, others will try and make a decision based on their gut instinct on how the game "should" be played, and so you'd have massive inconsistency from one game to another, and from one minute to another in the same game.
Click to expand...
Perhaps the best and most accurate post in days, if not months.

Ex-players, pundits and show-pony radio jockeys are blazenly guilty of creating this mass hysteria anti-VAR, anti-referee environment that the majority buy into. Mr Jenas was a front for a 'respect the officials' campaign not so long ago, yet felt it appropriate to use social media the other week to slag off officials. 🛎🔚

The last few days have been predictably way over-the-top, to such a degree, that I've avoided the last few pages of this thread, Sky Sports and TalkSh*t radio. 😁. I'd wager what I've 'missed' has been all about incompetent refs, how VAR is ruining the game, no common sense applied, and this is what should have happened, or how pundit X would fix everything VAR/referee related if Y happened.

The only way ex-players will bring any tangible benefit to VAR is if they become fully qualified officials. Until then, their opinion is no more valid than any other unqualified opinion. 👍. But it would be funny watching a game with ex-pros reffing, running the line and operating VAR. 🤣📺. Then you'd see incompetence at the next level, regularly. 🤣
 
Last edited:
When we say ex-players should be involved in VAR, I don't think we're talking about just sending Jenas or Shearer in there with no training. I'd be in favour of recently retired players, who actually have a brain in their heads, being encouraged to train as VAR assistants to help give a little context to the decisions. If they're not going to scrap it in it's current form and go back to the drawing board, that is. I'd be even more in favour of scrapping the VAR booth altogether and simply let the referee use the pitch side monitor if he wants to.
 
Orikoru said:
When we say ex-players should be involved in VAR, I don't think we're talking about just sending Jenas or Shearer in there with no training. I'd be in favour of recently retired players, who actually have a brain in their heads, being encouraged to train as VAR assistants to help give a little context to the decisions. If they're not going to scrap it in it's current form and go back to the drawing board, that is. I'd be even more in favour of scrapping the VAR booth altogether and simply let the referee use the pitch side monitor if he wants to.
Click to expand...
Nearly every pundit I've heard, at one point or another, have argued until they are blue in the face something should or should not have been given. They'll even throw lines like "it is a penalty in the laws of the game, but that is never a penalty"

We want VAR to make quicker decisions. Imagine having egos like that in the VAR booth arguing about a decision because they are using their footballing brain, rather than applying the written law.

Furthermore, all pundits have different opinions about big incidents, it isn't like they'll suddenly give us more consistency.

Jamie Carragher spent about 15 minutes last night arguing about the methodology VAR uses in the Jones red card at weekend, how still and slow images make it worse. He then played it in real time to say it doesn't look ad bad (it did look bad in normal speed when I saw it, and was still a potential ankle breaker). He also spent a good 5 minutes trying to explain the mentality of the player, and how he didn't set out to injure the opponent. I don't dudagrre with that, but that doesn't stop it being a red. He then said if they used his thinking, they may still give a red card, though he doesn't think it was. That 15-20 minutes is great evidence that players should be nowhere near VAR.

I've no issue that players and managers are involved with how the law is written, after all if they all abide by those rules then it is good for them to give their point of view from playing the game. Although I suspect this possibly does happen already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Hobbit
Another footie thread
2
Replies
36
Views
930
WorldHandicapSystem
W
road2ruin
Fantasy Footie 25/26
2 3 4
Replies
76
Views
3K
Orikoru
Orikoru
SwingsitlikeHogan
Rental Rights Act
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
jim8flog
jim8flog
jim8flog
Golf or football
2
Replies
33
Views
5K
Voyager EMH
Voyager EMH
SaintHacker
The EFL Thread
33 34 35
Replies
698
Views
47K
Beezerk
Beezerk
Top