Newcastle (H) - 11.02.19 - Monday Night Football

[Deutsch Wolf]

But technology deems it to be clear, even if it's 2cm?

We had a goal ruled out vs Huddersfield by about that margin, fine, no problem.

 

[Deleted Cyber]

But technology deems it to be clear, even if it's 2cm?

We had a goal ruled out vs Huddersfield by about that margin, fine, no problem.

You are talks g about something different. The ball is over the line or it's not. It's the is he offside or isn't he I have issue with and 2 cm is too close to call in that case and I would not want every decisikn dissected

 

[darlowolf64]

You are talks g about something different. The ball is over the line or it's not. It's the is he offside or isn't he I have issue with and 2 cm is too close to call in that case and I would not want every decisikn dissected

However the linesman vs Spurs decided that Doc was offside and flagged... Oops!
So that's ok or would you want VAR to make that "1 or 2 cm call"?

If onside is onside then offside is offside. You can't have your cake and eat it too

 

[jdrodrigues]

While I understand the "losing football" feeling, allow me to play the devils advocate.

These are competitions worth millions, where a goal can be a decisive factor in winning, drawing or losing with various consequences. A mistake by a referee can have an impact over a year's work.

As such, we should strive to diminish any margin of error as much as possible and VAR is a right decision, IF it's implemented right.

The VAR tool is exceptionally accurate at dealing with off side plays. It makes mistakes, sometimes, but greatly reduces these. Penalties are hit and miss. Then there are things like red cards, which the VAR might give, yellow card to the wrong player and disallowing goals due to fouls within the goal play.

Losing an european cup because the ref didn't give a penalty and then the other team scores fluke goal or wins in the shoot out is infuriating, let me tell you.

 

[Dublin Drummer Wolf]

Grinds my gears almost as much as pundits acting like penalty judgements should change based on the time left in the game. "It's too early to make that call" or whatever. Fuck off, if it's a foul it's a foul.

/rant

See, I don't really agree, as it takes a few minutes to 'settle' into a game, you may not be fully warmed up, or the grass is still extra slippy from where they've had the sprinklers on before KO and you find yourself sliding into people with more force than intended etc etc. Theres a few factors that can affect your performance in the first 15-20 mins of a game, and I think it's up to the ref to understand that and set the tone for how the game is going to go.

This is why we frequently see ref's having a word with a player after their first foul, rather than getting the cards out. He's setting the tone and expectations of how he will ref the game. That dynamic then changes as the game goes on and people commit fouls. The cards come out, people get sent off for challenges that would only warrant a talking to in the first half, it's the way the game has always been and it's not as simple as just saying a foul is a foul.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

See, I don't really agree, as it takes a few minutes to 'settle' into a game, you may not be fully warmed up, or the grass is still extra slippy from where they've had the sprinklers on before KO and you find yourself sliding into people with more force than intended etc etc. Theres a few factors that can affect your performance in the first 15-20 mins of a game, and I think it's up to the ref to understand that and set the tone for how the game is going to go.

This is why we frequently see ref's having a word with a player after their first foul, rather than getting the cards out. He's setting the tone and expectations of how he will ref the game. That dynamic then changes as the game goes on and people commit fouls. The cards come out, people get sent off for challenges that would only warrant a talking to in the first half, it's the way the game has always been and it's not as simple as just saying a foul is a foul.

I just can't get my head around this mentality? So a player can tackle more fiercely in the first 20 mins of a game than in the last 20? That's just ridiculous, in what other sport does this take place?

The laws are the laws, blaming a ref for "ruining the game" for sending off a player in the first 5 minutes pisses me off, blame the player who made the stupid challenge!

 

[MobNet Wolf]

While I understand the "losing football" feeling, allow me to play the devils advocate.

These are competitions worth millions, where a goal can be a decisive factor in winning, drawing or losing with various consequences. A mistake by a referee can have an impact over a year's work.

As such, we should strive to diminish any margin of error as much as possible and VAR is a right decision, IF it's implemented right.

The VAR tool is exceptionally accurate at dealing with off side plays. It makes mistakes, sometimes, but greatly reduces these. Penalties are hit and miss. Then there are things like red cards, which the VAR might give, yellow card to the wrong player and disallowing goals due to fouls within the goal play.

Losing an european cup because the ref didn't give a penalty and then the other team scores fluke goal or wins in the shoot out is infuriating, let me tell you.

Let me play devils advocate in response:

For many, many people, seeing their team score a goal might the genuine highlight of their week (or month!). The release, the ecstasy, the passion all tied-up in that momentary event. Never quite knowing if a goal will stand, or if there will be a word in the referees ear, could diminish that if VAR is not implemented sympathetically and only when absolutely necessary.

So while I hear what you say about competitions being worth "millions", the financial value of any competition pales into insignificance when compared against the diminished joy associated with all future goals, ever. Even if there is only a 2% difference, that 2% is a priceless loss to the sport.

 

[nimrod]

See, I don't really agree, as it takes a few minutes to 'settle' into a game, you may not be fully warmed up, or the grass is still extra slippy from where they've had the sprinklers on before KO and you find yourself sliding into people with more force than intended etc etc. Theres a few factors that can affect your performance in the first 15-20 mins of a game, and I think it's up to the ref to understand that and set the tone for how the game is going to go.

This is why we frequently see ref's having a word with a player after their first foul, rather than getting the cards out. He's setting the tone and expectations of how he will ref the game. That dynamic then changes as the game goes on and people commit fouls. The cards come out, people get sent off for challenges that would only warrant a talking to in the first half, it's the way the game has always been and it's not as simple as just saying a foul is a foul.

:yikes:
not sure that's an accepted norm ddw. i can understand more sending offs later - if someone has been persistenty niggly they may eventually warrant an extra card. but a sending off offence is usually pretty clear regardless of time

on var I approve of it where and if it can be introduced effectively, but that's still a big "if" given some of the time being taken to make a decision. i see it as giving the ref an extra view of a key incident in helping him reach his decision rather than taking a decision off him for tv disection. that means, he could still make a judgement call that some might argue with.

i agree with cyber's point on offside to a degree. i have to say that maybe I don't know the rules these days or what they are trying to do with them at least. if i watch a game on tv, i might see a defender running away from goal and a forward running towards goal. foot wise the forward may at worst be level with the defender yet due to the different body direction pundits have said there's a clear offside. i think maybe the rule says it's done based on the shoulder position(?). anyway, fuck the rules, that isn't offside to me and if it's so marginal, give advantage to the striker as i thought was intended.

 

[malta mick]

:yikes:
not sure that's an accepted norm ddw. i can understand more sending offs later - if someone has been persistenty niggly they may eventually warrant an extra card. but a sending off offence is usually pretty clear regardless of time

on var I approve of it where and if it can be introduced effectively, but that's still a big "if" given some of the time being taken to make a decision. i see it as giving the ref an extra view of a key incident in helping him reach his decision rather than taking a decision off him for tv disection. that means, he could still make a judgement call that some might argue with.

i agree with cyber's point on offside to a degree. i have to say that maybe I don't know the rules these days or what they are trying to do with them at least. if i watch a game on tv, i might see a defender running away from goal and a forward running towards goal. foot wise the forward may at worst be level with the defender yet due to the different body direction pundits have said there's a clear offside. i think maybe the rule says it's done based on the shoulder position(?). anyway, fuck the rules, that isn't offside to me and if it's so marginal, give advantage to the striker as i thought was intended.

i too thought that was always the 'rule' but most decisions tend to side with the defence.

 

[jdrodrigues]

:yikes:
not sure that's an accepted norm ddw. i can understand more sending offs later - if someone has been persistenty niggly they may eventually warrant an extra card. but a sending off offence is usually pretty clear regardless of time

on var I approve of it where and if it can be introduced effectively, but that's still a big "if" given some of the time being taken to make a decision. i see it as giving the ref an extra view of a key incident in helping him reach his decision rather than taking a decision off him for tv disection. that means, he could still make a judgement call that some might argue with.

i agree with cyber's point on offside to a degree. i have to say that maybe I don't know the rules these days or what they are trying to do with them at least. if i watch a game on tv, i might see a defender running away from goal and a forward running towards goal. foot wise the forward may at worst be level with the defender yet due to the different body direction pundits have said there's a clear offside. i think maybe the rule says it's done based on the shoulder position(?). anyway, fuck the rules, that isn't offside to me and if it's so marginal, give advantage to the striker as i thought was intended.

The rule of the off side basically only excludes the arms as it mentions any playable body part. This means head, torso, shoulders, legs and feet. Say a player is running forward, with a slight curve in his body, due to positioning and the defender is doing same movement but towards the opposite side. Chances are, the striker is off side.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

The rule of the off side basically only excludes the arms as it mentions any playable body part. This means head, torso, shoulders, legs and feet. Say a player is running forward, with a slight curve in his body, due to positioning and the defender is doing same movement but towards the opposite side. Chances are, the striker is off side.

Yeah and as a result he has gained an advantage and is more likely to get to the ball first, so he should be deemed offside.

 

[nimrod]

The rule of the off side basically only excludes the arms as it mentions any playable body part. This means head, torso, shoulders, legs and feet. Say a player is running forward, with a slight curve in his body, due to positioning and the defender is doing same movement but towards the opposite side. Chances are, the striker is off side.

your explanation makes sense j based on what i hear, though i've not changed my view. i think it's dumb to consider that sort of incident offside - player running from deep and essentially level or even onside feet wise but simply because his body is ahead of a defender's is deemed off. when you compare that to say Jota's winner v Leicester where a player can hang around offside yet is considered onside due to a second phase and i think it's really silly.

 

[Johnny75]

your explanation makes sense j based on what i hear, though i've not changed my view. i think it's dumb to consider that sort of incident offside - player running from deep and essentially level or even onside feet wise but simply because his body is ahead of a defender's is deemed off. when you compare that to say Jota's winner v Leicester where a player can hang around offside yet is considered onside due to a second phase and i think it's really silly.

So if a player scores a diving header when his head is clearly offside but his feet are level the goal should stand?

Offside is offside no matter the distance.

 

[nimrod]

So if a player scores a diving header when his head is clearly offside but his feet are level the goal should stand?

Offside is offside no matter the distance.

doesn't apply to the example i gave (a player running through). perhaps you somehow have read the words 'diving header' in one of my posts.

it's an interesting one though, are you saying that when a ball is played a player would already be in a diving header position that would caused him to be judged offside? maybe the silver surfer?

 

[Deleted Cyber]

However the linesman vs Spurs decided that Doc was offside and flagged... Oops!
So that's ok or would you want VAR to make that "1 or 2 cm call"?

If onside is onside then offside is offside. You can't have your cake and eat it too

That wasn't that close. He was on by a foot!

That would come under clear and obvious for me.

 

[Johnny75]

doesn't apply to the example i gave (a player running through). perhaps you somehow have read the words 'diving header' in one of my posts.

it's an interesting one though, are you saying that when a ball is played a player would already be in a diving header position that would caused him to be judged offside? maybe the silver surfer?

If you go on the position of the feet (your point above) and they were level with the last defenders feet but the attacker was in full diving header position and his head was a full 5ft+ offside would you still give the benefit to the attacker or is offside offside?

 

[nimrod]

If you go on the position of the feet (your point above) and they were level with the last defenders feet but the attacker was in full diving header position and his head was a full 5ft+ offside would you still give the benefit to the attacker or is offside offside?

if someone is 5ft offside when the ball is played they’re offside Johnny. I don’t think anyone would dispute that. I don’t personally consider someone running onto a through ball and essentially level with a defender but for body shape or a rogue arm should be considered offside. I appreciate the rules are not with me on it but that’s my opinion. I don’t think you need to create a dumb example to disagree with me.

my view is a player running

 

[Johnny75]

if someone is 5ft offside when the ball is played they’re offside Johnny. I don’t think anyone would dispute that. I don’t personally consider someone running onto a through ball and essentially level with a defender but for body shape or a rogue arm should be considered offside. I appreciate the rules are not with me on it but that’s my opinion. I don’t think you need to create a dumb example to disagree with me.

my view is a player running

It's not really a dumb example is it? A player could conceivably jump forwards having run first and his body and head be in front of a defender but their feet could be level.

Still offside though. Much easier to say you're offside or you're not rather than, he was leaning forward therefore the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacker.

 

[darlowolf64]

If you go on the position of the feet (your point above) and they were level with the last defenders feet but the attacker was in full diving header position and his head was a full 5ft+ offside would you still give the benefit to the attacker or is offside offside?

The Law is that if any part of your body, that can legally score a goal, is beyond the last defender then you are offside.

So if your body is level with the last man but your feet, leg or head are beyond him, you're off.

 

[nimrod]

It's not really a dumb example is it? A player could conceivably jump forwards having run first and his body and head be in front of a defender but their feet could be level.

Still offside though. Much easier to say you're offside or you're not rather than, he was leaning forward therefore the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacker.

i’d say the major difference is it sounds like you’re describing a scenario of a player throwing himself ahead of a defender to ensure he gets to the ball first and in that instance is clearly offside.

i’m talking about someone beating an offside trap and has timed his run well with defender essentially still goal side to or level with him but is ruled offside because his body shape is forward. I don’t agree with that.

you can create rules that makes officiating or interpretation easier but i don’t think that makes them fair. Some people think contact on a forward in the box entitles them to go down for a pen for instance. I don’t think that’s right either.