Jump to content
IGNORED

Football Thread 2021/2022


Plissken
 Share

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, davidcotton said:

So how did this go ahead but Arsenal didn’t?  Just injuries as opposed to covid?

 

Yip, though it was actually looking like our injury crisis was easing before the match. 🤦

 

We should be out of sight here still. Goal disallowed for hitting a player on the line. Hit the post and James missed a sitter. 

 

Bracing for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Arsenal had one Covid case though I believe.  The rest is injuries, suspensions and players away at AFCON.  It absolutley makes a mockery of the competition that they have been allowed a postponement today.

 

Whatever the result now this has easily been the performance of the season from Leeds.  We have absolutely battered a top 4 side away from home. :hat:

 

If we can just hold out now it has the feel of a real game changing moment for the season.🤞

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well done Leeds. You wanted it much more than we did. Looked like you had twice the players on the pitch at times. Whole back four of ours were useless and double fucking useless for Diop and only Rice, Bowen (though how did he miss that chance at the death?)  and Fornals get any credit from that. 

 

Sign some reinforcements Moyes or we'll drop like a stone again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That disallowed Leeds goal is stupid isn't it? 'It hit his offside arm'. Well he was stood on the goal line as the ball was blasted into the net. It didn't go into the net because it hit his arm, it brushed off him. There was no advantage, it made no difference, remove the player and the goal is still scored. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Loik V credern said:

That disallowed Leeds goal is stupid isn't it? 'It hit his offside arm'. Well he was stood on the goal line as the ball was blasted into the net. It didn't go into the net because it hit his arm, it brushed off him. There was no advantage. 

 

The problem with VAR is that it removes most of the referees discretion. Pre VAR if a referee even sees it, he's unlikely to disallow the goal because it's clearly not the intent of the rule.

 

VAR encourages a level of officiousness that would make rugby proud. You then get all of usual mistakes and inconsistency, which makes it hard to swallow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, kensei said:

 

The problem with VAR is that it removes most of the referees discretion.

I thought that the whole point of VAR is that it's just another tool for the ref to use, and therefore they can ignore it if they see fit?

 

Maybe they really need to revisit what the point of VAR is, because it shouldn't be used to overrule the ref or make him look stupid, the ref should have the final say, otherwise what's the point of having him on the field?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, kensei said:

The problem with VAR is that it removes most of the referees discretion. Pre VAR if a referee even sees it, he's unlikely to disallow the goal because it's clearly not the intent of the rule.

 

VAR encourages a level of officiousness that would make rugby proud. You then get all of usual mistakes and inconsistency, which makes it hard to swallow.

 

We're at the point where no one questions it, just 'oh right yeah technically he was offside wasn't he' without thinking 'what was the unfair advantage here?' They never seem to ask that, like the rules are to prevent unfair advantages, not just be technically accurate. There are so few instances of offside where there's been an unfair advantage. 

 

Goals disallowed for accidentally brushing arms are an annoyance to me, sometimes it just happens, it really doesn't matter. Really, if England reach another final again and the opposition score a winning goal where for a split second in the build up the ball slightly brushes an arm I won't feel begrudged. 

 

Luckily Bowen tried to chest an easy header and the relegation teams are terrible, if that draw meant Leeds are pulled into that dogfight and get relegated then I'd be pissed. (The win is a massive resurgence of their season while a draw would have been disappointing even if the performance is what will give them confidence from now until May, not necessarily the 3 points). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Smoothy said:

I thought that the whole point of VAR is that it's just another tool for the ref to use, and therefore they can ignore it if they see fit?

 

Maybe they really need to revisit what the point of VAR is, because it shouldn't be used to overrule the ref or make him look stupid, the ref should have the final say, otherwise what's the point of having him on the field?

 

He can overrule, but it's about 10x harder to ignore VAR than it is to just let the game flow.

 

When they introduced a video ref in rugby, there was lots of talk about how the referee doesn't have to go to the video ref to confirm a try. But in practice they do every time there's the tiniest chance of controversy. The mere existence of video refs changes refereeing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, kensei said:

The problem with VAR is that it removes most of the referees discretion. Pre VAR if a referee even sees it, he's unlikely to disallow the goal because it's clearly not the intent of the rule.

 

Pre VAR, I think that still gets disallowed, because while it may not be the intent of the rule it's still the rule, and no referee is going to incur the wrath of an opposing team by saying "oh yeah, he was offside for sure when he touched the ball, but I decided it didn't matter."

 

I'd also say that there are cases where simple blanket rules are better than introducing yet more subjectivity, and this would be one of them - if you touch the ball from an offside position, you're offside, no matter what. Edge cases like this are so few and far between that a simpler application makes more sense than trying to find the point where contact with the ball stops mattering.

 

Leeds haven't had much luck with offside decisions against West Ham recently, but this one was at least correct, and didn't affect the result.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Fry Crayola the referee does not need to say anything, it just a talking point on Match of the Day. If big brother is watching that's impossible.

 

Rules are routinely ignored all the time - defenders get away with things in the box they wouldn't in midfield, goalkeepers get away with murder and the mere existence of lenient and strict refs tells you that there's some latitudes in how the rules are applied.

 

VAR isn't even getting all the calls rigt even with an electron microscope. Subjectivity is inescapable, a good ref is letting play flow as much as possible and giving the benefit of the doubt to the attacking side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say the rules that get ignored all the time are already subjective. Touching the ball when offside is an objective fact, so there's no leeway for a referee to purposely waive away the infraction.

 

Though I guess you could argue that without VAR, it's always possible the ref doesn't see the infraction in the first place. I don't think many people on the pitch yesterday knew it had happened until the replays.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fry Crayola said:

Pre VAR, I think that still gets disallowed, because while it may not be the intent of the rule it's still the rule, and no referee is going to incur the wrath of an opposing team by saying "oh yeah, he was offside for sure when he touched the ball, but I decided it didn't matter."

 

I'd also say that there are cases where simple blanket rules are better than introducing yet more subjectivity, and this would be one of them - if you touch the ball from an offside position, you're offside, no matter what. Edge cases like this are so few and far between that a simpler application makes more sense than trying to find the point where contact with the ball stops mattering.

 

Leeds haven't had much luck with offside decisions against West Ham recently, but this one was at least correct, and didn't affect the result.

 

It not making any difference to the goal being scored is not subjective though, that's as factual as the technicality. In that split second the offside player wasn't interfering with play, he wasn't blocking the keeper's view or in his way, he was behind him. 

 

And I don’t even agree with the offside because his arms are outstretched so the subjectivity might as well be over what is and isn't offside. I'd measure it by the boots. I think you should be able to lean and point with your arm all you like. People like to say it's either offside or it isn't but it's not true. I was watching the bad over hit Ziyech pass with Lukaku running in the City game and couldn't tell whether it'd be disallowed or not. He looked level but his arm was over. I could see them pointing at his knee and going nope. 

 

The game is about scoring goals and we get fixated on denying so many (on a low scoring game) for no reason at all because we obsess about applying the rules at the expense of common sense of why the rules are there in the first place and without accepting the game is messy sometimes. I think Barney Ronay summed it up best, like the handball rule is just a quick easy thing to know, it doesn't need to become this ginormous thing where we pause, zoom in and collectively lose our minds at what's just happened. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Loik V credern said:

It not making any difference to the goal being scored is not subjective though, that's as factual as the technicality.

 

I have to disagree. Sure, in the case in question, that ball was going in, but once you introduce such a rule change you're asking the referees to make a judgement call. Some situations will be clear cut as yesterday, and some won't. How do you apply such a rule without making a subjective decision? Even the choice of where to draw the line between definitely going in, and possibly not, is itself a subjective matter. How far away from goal does the infringement need to be for the referee to waive it? 

 

That's the problem with introducing rule changes in response to what looks like a clear cut situation - it's going to be put to the test in far more situations which aren't clear, and you're introducing complexity and murkiness into the rules in an attempt to solve rare edge cases.

 

Leeds were unfortunate. I'd love for them to be given the goal. And I'd have loved for Ghana to be awarded a goal instead of a penalty when Suarez bat the ball away during the World Cup when a red card didn't matter. But how often does any of that happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Fry Crayola said:

I'd say the rules that get ignored all the time are already subjective. Touching the ball when offside is an objective fact, so there's no leeway for a referee to purposely waive away the infraction.

 

Though I guess you could argue that without VAR, it's always possible the ref doesn't see the infraction in the first place. I don't think many people on the pitch yesterday knew it had happened until the replays.

 

None of the on pitch officials saw it, hence it took VAR to rule it out.

 

I'd say shirt pulling is not subjective, but it's not got anywhere like the same scrutiny applied because people fear of what actually applying the rule would mean for the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stopharage said:

Eriksen looks likely to go to Brentford, unless another club comes in for him today. With their Danish influence and Frank having managed him before, would be a decent signing for player and team. 

I had no idea this was happening.

:omg: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it will be this game, but at some point the Premier League are going to decline a request to cancel  (and then maybe all future requests or not) and it's going to kick off with the team declined pointing to Arsenal's request being approved and others.

 

Of course, if it's Burnley denied that will cause less noise then one of the big clubs unless they are going to let clubs postpone until they announce a future date where it isn't allowed anymore?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Stopharage said:

Eriksen looks likely to go to Brentford, unless another club comes in for him today. With their Danish influence and Frank having managed him before, would be a decent signing for player and team. 


Genuinely stunned he’s cleared to play again. Obviously very happy he is though, and should be a good fit for Brentford even if just having him in training elevates those around him.

 

Thank goodness that dark day last summer has turned into a positive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ork1927 said:

Maybe it will be this game, but at some point the Premier League are going to decline a request to cancel  (and then maybe all future requests or not) and it's going to kick off with the team declined pointing to Arsenal's request being approved and others.

 

Of course, if it's Burnley denied that will cause less noise then one of the big clubs unless they are going to let clubs postpone until they announce a future date where it isn't allowed anymore?

Wouldn't a simpler solution be for teams to present daily/weekly/whatever testing results to the Premier League and the Premier League deciding if a tie should be postponed rather than letting the teams making requests, like Micah Richards has said, currently what Arsenal did is in the rules and the Premier League have put themselves in a position where any club can try to take advantage and point to other fixtures as an example. By keeping track of test results, theres less chance of a team taking the pisz (though someone will always find a way)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the rule of 13 + keeper is fine as a benchmark, but they've kept some leeway for themselves as they know they've made a dog's breakfast of the whole thing. People are pissed off so will say 'well, they only had one case, how's that fair', whilst ignoring the fact that you can have a slower trickle of cases over a few weeks which puts strain on the players who are forced to play every minute are then run into the ground. Liverpool had basically no cases in the end but played it safe and closed the training ground so they couldn't prepare properly – is that a better situation than having say, 8 cases but the rest of the squad is fit and ready to play? Spurs can sit on their high horse having indulged in a three week break whilst other teams have had to take on the stupid festive calendar and a load of covid cases throughout. 

 

People talk about player welfare, but what they mean is they're worried about their players. Aubameyang has had to come back from AFCON because his heart is knackered after Covid, but as he's presumably through his quarantine period I guess he's ready to make the numbers up again, lest anyone's Sunday in front of the television be disrupted again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.