- Dec 7, 2010
- 8,770
- 3
- 0
- Sep 1, 2012
- 1,086
- 640
- 12,680
Re: Re:
It really is absurd. The fact that some sports have adopted stupid rules doesn't make those rules any less stupid. If the event of fouling an opponent is deemed less important than the reaction to that foul then why call foul in the first place? When there is a foul, there is a foul and no amount of exaggeration and playacting should erase that, it is just plain common sense.
The way football is with relatively few rules, but with endless ways to interprete those rules it, more than any other sport, mirrors the the whole spectrum of human nature. All of the good, bad and the ugly parts of it. The games standing in the world (not just sports world) and continuing growth shows that the format of the game is more or less optimal as it is, being understandable and attractive to a large majority of worlds population. What is needed, is common sense when applying the rules, not new rules to satisfy some peoples obsessions.
Semper Fidelis said:
It really is absurd. The fact that some sports have adopted stupid rules doesn't make those rules any less stupid. If the event of fouling an opponent is deemed less important than the reaction to that foul then why call foul in the first place? When there is a foul, there is a foul and no amount of exaggeration and playacting should erase that, it is just plain common sense.
The way football is with relatively few rules, but with endless ways to interprete those rules it, more than any other sport, mirrors the the whole spectrum of human nature. All of the good, bad and the ugly parts of it. The games standing in the world (not just sports world) and continuing growth shows that the format of the game is more or less optimal as it is, being understandable and attractive to a large majority of worlds population. What is needed, is common sense when applying the rules, not new rules to satisfy some peoples obsessions.
Re: Re:
Another problem I see is how players treat referees on the field (especially the important names like Messi), which is as big a problem as managers doing it. Anyway, with the introduction of VAR the problem should be resolved (if they can get it right - comms between TV official and referee should be broadcasted and the replay put on the big screen). Corruption is a big problem, and has received plenty of airtime - I don't see what you're talking about there. I'd personally call for a complete upheaval of FIFA (and its partners in different confederation) and its members, and perhaps a completely new organisation set up.
And it really isn't 'stupid'. It punishes bad behaviour or gamesmanship, as should be done. Nobody in rugby ever complains about this rule, but praises it as it instils good behaviour. It isn't a complicated rule at all, and I don't think it will put anyone off the sport - far from it.
Enormous difference of opinion here. Diving massively affects the integrity of the sport: it is cheating, pure and simple, and a disrespect to referees. It is essentially saying to them, I think you are an idiot and I can get you to do whatever I want. It also massively damages its reputation. You don't get this gamesmanship to such an extent in any other important sport, and people who prefer other sports ridicule it as a result. Like it or not, how a game looks matters immensely, and determines its popularity. People are undoubtedly turned off by it, I don't know how many but from a personal perspective it has put me off. I'd rather see players not cheat and twist referees' opinions at every turn.Põhja Konn said:
Another problem I see is how players treat referees on the field (especially the important names like Messi), which is as big a problem as managers doing it. Anyway, with the introduction of VAR the problem should be resolved (if they can get it right - comms between TV official and referee should be broadcasted and the replay put on the big screen). Corruption is a big problem, and has received plenty of airtime - I don't see what you're talking about there. I'd personally call for a complete upheaval of FIFA (and its partners in different confederation) and its members, and perhaps a completely new organisation set up.
More or less. The issue of simulation isn't really present in rugby, but if a penalty is awarded to a team, and then a member of said team goes on to commit foul play or say something to the referee (or is heard to say something), then the referee reverses the penalty. It isn't really that absurd. If someone is fouled, there is no need to roll on the floor for 30 seconds. Just get up and get on with it. It's another case of trying to buy a foul or a card off the referee, and it is gamesmanship. It's a pretty simple and avoidable punishment really, not at all draconian, and will avoid football getting a lot of shtick in the process.Semper Fidelis said:
And it really isn't 'stupid'. It punishes bad behaviour or gamesmanship, as should be done. Nobody in rugby ever complains about this rule, but praises it as it instils good behaviour. It isn't a complicated rule at all, and I don't think it will put anyone off the sport - far from it.
- Sep 1, 2012
- 1,086
- 640
- 12,680
Re: Re:
We indeed are at the different ends of the spectrum on the subject at hand, but I try to elaborate a bit on why I think like I do. Just so that we can respectfully agree to disagree.
The bolded statement really has no basis in reality. Players try to influence referees because they want to get an edge over their opponents whenever possible, its got nothing to do with their attitude to referees as an institution. Often the players previous knowledge about a particular referee determines how they act in certain situations. Also, referees themselves know what to expect of players in certain situations and so do opposing players. In an environment like this there's no cheating because no-one there is naive enough to get cheated. Some players are just more skillful and quicker thinking than others.
However I actually agree with you that the attitude of players towards referees is big problem. It mostly shows out after a decision goes against them, players today just don't accept the decision they don't like. The blatant abuse referees have to endure in such cases is disturbing to watch. Equal part of the same complex of problems is that clubs through their managers are using referees as scapegoats for their own (and their players) failings. Things are so bad that this is already considered as a lost battle when the subject is brought up for debate. Enforcing a rule that only a captain can approach and speak to referee is absolutely necessary, regardless of how hard implementing that at the beginning would be. This complex of problems is the one that has got lot less attention that it deserves and even less have been done to solve it. Respect campaign failed before it had even started and today no-one is even trying to pretend they care.
It is also good that you mentioned the word gamesmanship as analysing thing in that framework will clearly exposes the inherent hypocrisy right at the heart of the diving debate. This concept includes the much loathed things like diving and playacting. Crucially though gamesmanship also includes every single dirty trick (things like clipping heels, tugging on shirt, targeted and rotated fouling of opponents key player etc) that players use to keep opponents out in defensive phase of game. Most of those are widely accepted as normal part of the game. Lamenting the prevalence of gamesmanship, while picking out only a part of it and ignoring the rest - if this is not hypocritical, then what is ?
As a football fan I definetely am a purist and see gamesmanship as a necessary evil which forces every single player to develop their understanding of the game which more often than not results in higher quality of football on display. There obviously are infuriating cases of egregious and over the top playacting which must be punished and can be properly punished in the current framework of laws. When VARs finally get fully implemented in football those cases will be possible to properly deal with. Most of those involve a possible penalty or sending-off and thus will be reviewed immediately.
Despite not agreeing with it, I accept and understand that many people see diving as a problem. But I have really hard time taking seriously anyone who actually think it is the biggest and most prevalent problem in football today.
Brullnux said:
We indeed are at the different ends of the spectrum on the subject at hand, but I try to elaborate a bit on why I think like I do. Just so that we can respectfully agree to disagree.
The bolded statement really has no basis in reality. Players try to influence referees because they want to get an edge over their opponents whenever possible, its got nothing to do with their attitude to referees as an institution. Often the players previous knowledge about a particular referee determines how they act in certain situations. Also, referees themselves know what to expect of players in certain situations and so do opposing players. In an environment like this there's no cheating because no-one there is naive enough to get cheated. Some players are just more skillful and quicker thinking than others.
However I actually agree with you that the attitude of players towards referees is big problem. It mostly shows out after a decision goes against them, players today just don't accept the decision they don't like. The blatant abuse referees have to endure in such cases is disturbing to watch. Equal part of the same complex of problems is that clubs through their managers are using referees as scapegoats for their own (and their players) failings. Things are so bad that this is already considered as a lost battle when the subject is brought up for debate. Enforcing a rule that only a captain can approach and speak to referee is absolutely necessary, regardless of how hard implementing that at the beginning would be. This complex of problems is the one that has got lot less attention that it deserves and even less have been done to solve it. Respect campaign failed before it had even started and today no-one is even trying to pretend they care.
It is also good that you mentioned the word gamesmanship as analysing thing in that framework will clearly exposes the inherent hypocrisy right at the heart of the diving debate. This concept includes the much loathed things like diving and playacting. Crucially though gamesmanship also includes every single dirty trick (things like clipping heels, tugging on shirt, targeted and rotated fouling of opponents key player etc) that players use to keep opponents out in defensive phase of game. Most of those are widely accepted as normal part of the game. Lamenting the prevalence of gamesmanship, while picking out only a part of it and ignoring the rest - if this is not hypocritical, then what is ?
As a football fan I definetely am a purist and see gamesmanship as a necessary evil which forces every single player to develop their understanding of the game which more often than not results in higher quality of football on display. There obviously are infuriating cases of egregious and over the top playacting which must be punished and can be properly punished in the current framework of laws. When VARs finally get fully implemented in football those cases will be possible to properly deal with. Most of those involve a possible penalty or sending-off and thus will be reviewed immediately.
Despite not agreeing with it, I accept and understand that many people see diving as a problem. But I have really hard time taking seriously anyone who actually think it is the biggest and most prevalent problem in football today.
- Oct 5, 2010
- 4,282
- 327
- 16,180
Pretty thrilling final. Germany so strong on all fronts. U-21, B-team, A-team, all good. They just lack a proper No. 9, but Werner can get there.
Some massive transfer movements too. Roma losing lots of players now too, Paredes to Zenit almost done, Rudiger on his way to Chelsea, Salah to Liverpool.
Sandro in a tug of war between Juve and Chelsea now too. Can't believe it if they let both Sandro and Dani Alves go. Will be a massive loss for Juve.
Some massive transfer movements too. Roma losing lots of players now too, Paredes to Zenit almost done, Rudiger on his way to Chelsea, Salah to Liverpool.
Sandro in a tug of war between Juve and Chelsea now too. Can't believe it if they let both Sandro and Dani Alves go. Will be a massive loss for Juve.
- Sep 1, 2012
- 1,086
- 640
- 12,680
Germany do have an amazing depth of talent right now. Difficult to see anyone but them or Brazil winning the World Cup in a years time, although knock-out tournaments are inherently unpredictable.
Obviously, the VARs have got a lot of attention during the Confederations Cup. Unsurprisingly, many are gleefully declaring this a failed experiment and VARs not being ready for daily application in club football. In my opinion, all the problems seen with VARs during last two weeks stem from the fact that no-one involved (referees, players, managers) have a prior experience of using them. Only an experience that comes with the day-to-day working with the system can eradicate these kind of problems. So I personally think they should be implemented by all major European leagues and continental competitions since the beginning of the upcoming season. So that the teething problems would be ironed out long before the season reaches its crucial phase.
One thing to remember is that VARs will never eradicate most of the subjectivity in football. They are meant to help the referee to get the crucial, game-changing decisions right, and as such can work well. But most of the fouls and contentious decisions in the game will remain the subject to a judgement of match referees. Expectations put on VARs must remain realistic, no-one should think that with their implementation the game gets rid of refereeing mistakes.
I hope VARs will be universially inmplemented in football soon and hope they work well enough that we don't have to talk about how a wrongful sending-off or disallowed goal decided an important game any more after that. But the game won't suddenly become completely fair and honest affair when VARs are involved, it will never be that. Human nature won't allow it to happen.
Obviously, the VARs have got a lot of attention during the Confederations Cup. Unsurprisingly, many are gleefully declaring this a failed experiment and VARs not being ready for daily application in club football. In my opinion, all the problems seen with VARs during last two weeks stem from the fact that no-one involved (referees, players, managers) have a prior experience of using them. Only an experience that comes with the day-to-day working with the system can eradicate these kind of problems. So I personally think they should be implemented by all major European leagues and continental competitions since the beginning of the upcoming season. So that the teething problems would be ironed out long before the season reaches its crucial phase.
One thing to remember is that VARs will never eradicate most of the subjectivity in football. They are meant to help the referee to get the crucial, game-changing decisions right, and as such can work well. But most of the fouls and contentious decisions in the game will remain the subject to a judgement of match referees. Expectations put on VARs must remain realistic, no-one should think that with their implementation the game gets rid of refereeing mistakes.
I hope VARs will be universially inmplemented in football soon and hope they work well enough that we don't have to talk about how a wrongful sending-off or disallowed goal decided an important game any more after that. But the game won't suddenly become completely fair and honest affair when VARs are involved, it will never be that. Human nature won't allow it to happen.
- Jun 14, 2010
- 34,930
- 60
- 22,580
Re: Re:
Remember that goal Argentina scored against Mexico in 2010 where it was miles offisde, the replay showed it was miles offside, the ref saw on the replay it was miles offside, and no one could do anything about it. They had to pretend that it was a legitimate goal, even after everyone saw that it wasn't. They had to live a lie for the rest of the game. All 22 players, the refs, the fans in the stadium and everyone outside it, knew within 30 seconds it wasn't a goal yet the whole world had to act like it was and go along with the fiction.
This was a world cup knockout game. Mexico went out as a result.
Was that not an absolute farce?
That was 1 day after Lampards goal was disallowed. That goal led to goaline technology eventually being introduced. But I don't see how Tevez's goal was any less ridiculous. I would question if England being 1 of the big markets for FIFA and its sponsors, and Mexico being a smaller one, led to one of those incidents being forever remembered and leading to changes, while the other is forgotten.
Why not give the Ref the power to overturn a goal like the one Tevez scores, seeing as they now have the power to legitimize goals like the one Lampard did?
Archibald said:
Remember that goal Argentina scored against Mexico in 2010 where it was miles offisde, the replay showed it was miles offside, the ref saw on the replay it was miles offside, and no one could do anything about it. They had to pretend that it was a legitimate goal, even after everyone saw that it wasn't. They had to live a lie for the rest of the game. All 22 players, the refs, the fans in the stadium and everyone outside it, knew within 30 seconds it wasn't a goal yet the whole world had to act like it was and go along with the fiction.
This was a world cup knockout game. Mexico went out as a result.
Was that not an absolute farce?
That was 1 day after Lampards goal was disallowed. That goal led to goaline technology eventually being introduced. But I don't see how Tevez's goal was any less ridiculous. I would question if England being 1 of the big markets for FIFA and its sponsors, and Mexico being a smaller one, led to one of those incidents being forever remembered and leading to changes, while the other is forgotten.
Why not give the Ref the power to overturn a goal like the one Tevez scores, seeing as they now have the power to legitimize goals like the one Lampard did?
Parte of the reason for that is the fact that goal line technology is a lot less controversial and intrusive than VAR, or disallowing a goal after a replay. I personally see nothing wrong with it, but others do. Its a much easier quick fix than the problem with the Tvez goal.
- Jun 15, 2009
- 3,404
- 17
- 13,510
Re: Re:
refs make mistakes - they're human and that's a part of football. Have been for over a century
You can't stop a free flowing game for every decision, nor can you stop it later to take things back because the ref missed it or let something go... "quick, stop the game, I think I saw something and I just want to check it" Seriously??
As if it's not bad enough at the cricket with every umpire no longer able to make a decision and head for the video at every 'howzat!' - and that's a game that doesn't flow freely like football. Not to mention challenging calls so we all sit around twiddling our thumbs awaiting a decision...
And then you can kiss goodbye to playing the advantage - ref waves play-on only for the opposing manager/players to demand a challenge. And what if his call was correct? Will you reset the timer, then restart play from where everyone was standing before the stoppage??
That's the NFL, where the last 5mins of play can take a half hour.
Imagine going to a 7.45pm kick off for a midweek game and not leaving the stadium til midnight after all the stoppages... or even later if it goes to extra time. Same for watching it live.
Don't forget all the logistics for the match organisers/police/public transport/etc for something like this.
what a f**king 'mare just because people can't accept the ref's decision.
I have no issue with goal line technology, but that's as far as it should go.
Then again, on a positive, match of the day would mean less time for the pundits - they'd have to show more of the play, because they'd not be able to do all their own armchair reffing of replays after it all gets done at the game itself.
sure, they're a dime a dozen - 'hand of god', mendes v ManU, Henry v Ireland, Graham Poll's 3 yellows, Jerzey Dudek's coming off his line early for every penalty, et al...The Hitch said:
refs make mistakes - they're human and that's a part of football. Have been for over a century
You can't stop a free flowing game for every decision, nor can you stop it later to take things back because the ref missed it or let something go... "quick, stop the game, I think I saw something and I just want to check it" Seriously??
As if it's not bad enough at the cricket with every umpire no longer able to make a decision and head for the video at every 'howzat!' - and that's a game that doesn't flow freely like football. Not to mention challenging calls so we all sit around twiddling our thumbs awaiting a decision...
And then you can kiss goodbye to playing the advantage - ref waves play-on only for the opposing manager/players to demand a challenge. And what if his call was correct? Will you reset the timer, then restart play from where everyone was standing before the stoppage??
That's the NFL, where the last 5mins of play can take a half hour.
Imagine going to a 7.45pm kick off for a midweek game and not leaving the stadium til midnight after all the stoppages... or even later if it goes to extra time. Same for watching it live.
Don't forget all the logistics for the match organisers/police/public transport/etc for something like this.
what a f**king 'mare just because people can't accept the ref's decision.
I have no issue with goal line technology, but that's as far as it should go.
Then again, on a positive, match of the day would mean less time for the pundits - they'd have to show more of the play, because they'd not be able to do all their own armchair reffing of replays after it all gets done at the game itself.
- Jun 14, 2010
- 34,930
- 60
- 22,580
Re: Re:
NFL games take 3 hours because the game involves 20 second stoppages between plays, constant substitutions, long breaks between scores etc. THe VR's which don't even happen every game, take 1-2 minutes. And that is extensive because of their *** VR system (inferior to Rugby) and because they have 10 million rules to decide between, and because half the battle is locating the ball in between a dozen big guys in a scrum.
BTW by your logic having goal line technology prolongs the game as well. Lampard's goal for example, since it was disalowed, the clock kept running. But with VR, they would have had to stop the game, check the technology, allow the goal, allow the celebration, restart the game 3 minutes later. Game delayed by 3 minutes. And maybe it would have then gone to extra time and penalties. So the poor fans would have had to go home an hour later. The fans who flew 10 000 miles from Europe in order to do nothing other than to watch and talk about football.
Rugby has VR. Do Rugby games take 4 hours like you suggest? I googled the times for the world cup final in 2015, and it kicked off at 16.03 and finished at 16.51.
And if we look at the Tevez goal or the Mendez goal or the Chelsea Barcelona 2009 semi finals, the game/ drama in all those situations actually went on for quite a while because of all the complaining and controversy.
It takes about 3.4 seconds after a goal is scored for a video ref in the booth to see a replay and say "no it was offside/ hand ball, give a free kick".
This is while the players are celebrating anyway, and the other team is protesting anyway. So its not exactly stopping the game or eating into it.
In conclusion, if you are correct and VR's would prolongue football games from an average of 1 hour 50 minutes (including H.T) to 4 hours, yeah you have a point.
If however, VR's would maybe prologue the occasional game by 1 minute, shorten the occasional game by a few minutes (due to lack of controversy and protest) and for the most part not have any effect on 99% of games, then I don't see the problem at all.
But that's not what would happen. At all. You are exaggerating in my opinion.Archibald said:
NFL games take 3 hours because the game involves 20 second stoppages between plays, constant substitutions, long breaks between scores etc. THe VR's which don't even happen every game, take 1-2 minutes. And that is extensive because of their *** VR system (inferior to Rugby) and because they have 10 million rules to decide between, and because half the battle is locating the ball in between a dozen big guys in a scrum.
BTW by your logic having goal line technology prolongs the game as well. Lampard's goal for example, since it was disalowed, the clock kept running. But with VR, they would have had to stop the game, check the technology, allow the goal, allow the celebration, restart the game 3 minutes later. Game delayed by 3 minutes. And maybe it would have then gone to extra time and penalties. So the poor fans would have had to go home an hour later. The fans who flew 10 000 miles from Europe in order to do nothing other than to watch and talk about football.
Rugby has VR. Do Rugby games take 4 hours like you suggest? I googled the times for the world cup final in 2015, and it kicked off at 16.03 and finished at 16.51.
And if we look at the Tevez goal or the Mendez goal or the Chelsea Barcelona 2009 semi finals, the game/ drama in all those situations actually went on for quite a while because of all the complaining and controversy.
It takes about 3.4 seconds after a goal is scored for a video ref in the booth to see a replay and say "no it was offside/ hand ball, give a free kick".
This is while the players are celebrating anyway, and the other team is protesting anyway. So its not exactly stopping the game or eating into it.
In conclusion, if you are correct and VR's would prolongue football games from an average of 1 hour 50 minutes (including H.T) to 4 hours, yeah you have a point.
If however, VR's would maybe prologue the occasional game by 1 minute, shorten the occasional game by a few minutes (due to lack of controversy and protest) and for the most part not have any effect on 99% of games, then I don't see the problem at all.
- Jun 15, 2009
- 3,404
- 17
- 13,510
Re: Re:
And just how far do you want to take it? Do you check every tackle/free kick to see if he got the ball or not? There's countless times of it going the wrong way - you win some, you lose some. Same with corners and goal kicks... That's football...
The refs are there to do a job, but if you're checking every decision or even missed decisions against a replay, you may as well not have a ref or linesmen [person].
How can a match not take longer if you're constantly stopping it?
And does the clock stop for every check, or will they just increase the length of added time at the end of each half? A set time for each stop, or taken on actual time stopped considering whether it takes 1 or lots of viewings (various camera angles) to make the decision...
3.4 seconds? Really? Look at the rugby try or cricket decisions - they show various angles as well as the same (for rugby) for an incident (or few) upfield. Then the big presentation on the scoreboard, which alone takes up your 3 seconds - gotta have your sponsor's logos shown. So much for the ref blowing his whistle for the try and play goes on, or the umpire just raising his hand (or shaking his head) and play going on.
Sure, not every call will need this, but you get the picture...
Do you honestly think it'll prolong a game by only "1 minute"?
It's always said that the best games are those when the ref is barely noticed, yet by adding an "electronic ref" that will be highly invasive on the game, the game gets improved??
You'll kill a free flowing game and turn it into the stop/start of the NFL
[bolded] goal-line technology in the vein of 'hawkeye' or similar - the only one I've seen touted that would be of any benefit would be the sensors in the ball and on the goal line. The ball completely crosses the line or not - end of. No back tracking of whether it was offside back outside the box or not, or whether there's a tugged shirt, or whether there was a dodgy moment further up the pitch that contributed...The Hitch said:
And just how far do you want to take it? Do you check every tackle/free kick to see if he got the ball or not? There's countless times of it going the wrong way - you win some, you lose some. Same with corners and goal kicks... That's football...
The refs are there to do a job, but if you're checking every decision or even missed decisions against a replay, you may as well not have a ref or linesmen [person].
How can a match not take longer if you're constantly stopping it?
And does the clock stop for every check, or will they just increase the length of added time at the end of each half? A set time for each stop, or taken on actual time stopped considering whether it takes 1 or lots of viewings (various camera angles) to make the decision...
3.4 seconds? Really? Look at the rugby try or cricket decisions - they show various angles as well as the same (for rugby) for an incident (or few) upfield. Then the big presentation on the scoreboard, which alone takes up your 3 seconds - gotta have your sponsor's logos shown. So much for the ref blowing his whistle for the try and play goes on, or the umpire just raising his hand (or shaking his head) and play going on.
Sure, not every call will need this, but you get the picture...
Do you honestly think it'll prolong a game by only "1 minute"?
It's always said that the best games are those when the ref is barely noticed, yet by adding an "electronic ref" that will be highly invasive on the game, the game gets improved??
You'll kill a free flowing game and turn it into the stop/start of the NFL
- Sep 1, 2012
- 1,086
- 640
- 12,680
Re: Re:
Did you watch Confederations Cup at all? The framework for a working system was on display, despite all the problems that occured with it. Those problems largely came to be because no-one involved had any experience working with that system. If it gets properly worked in, there'll be very little need for additional stoppages in the game, although some of the existing ones may take a bit longer. For the VAR system to get properly worked in it needs put in constant use, short summer tournaments alone are not enough for that.
Biggest challenge are potential offsides that end up with goal being scored. Those situations can end bizarrly, with celebrations put on hold, before video is reviewed. Much like it works in ice hockey. It takes time getting used to, but won't really change the overall nature of the game. There's also an option of not including those situations for reviewing by a VAR.
Penalties, red cards and goals (in case of a suspicion of offside or deliberate handball) and specially egregious cases of gamesmanship (not every single easyish fall) should be subjects for review if needed, and nothing else. If a situation is put up for review, the final decision is solely for an assistant referee behind the screen to make, no need for extra monitor pitchside for match official. He must trust his assistant like he does currently in case of offside calls.
Almost all of those situations that are meant to be reviewed inevitably lead to a break in play anyway, no need for extra stoppages just to accomondate reviewing those situations will be there. Most things happening during a game will be for match referee to decide like it has always been. When the amount of situations that can be reviewed is limited enough, the VARs can work well and help make the game better without changing its nature, I've got no doubt about that.
Archibald said:
Did you watch Confederations Cup at all? The framework for a working system was on display, despite all the problems that occured with it. Those problems largely came to be because no-one involved had any experience working with that system. If it gets properly worked in, there'll be very little need for additional stoppages in the game, although some of the existing ones may take a bit longer. For the VAR system to get properly worked in it needs put in constant use, short summer tournaments alone are not enough for that.
Biggest challenge are potential offsides that end up with goal being scored. Those situations can end bizarrly, with celebrations put on hold, before video is reviewed. Much like it works in ice hockey. It takes time getting used to, but won't really change the overall nature of the game. There's also an option of not including those situations for reviewing by a VAR.
Penalties, red cards and goals (in case of a suspicion of offside or deliberate handball) and specially egregious cases of gamesmanship (not every single easyish fall) should be subjects for review if needed, and nothing else. If a situation is put up for review, the final decision is solely for an assistant referee behind the screen to make, no need for extra monitor pitchside for match official. He must trust his assistant like he does currently in case of offside calls.
Almost all of those situations that are meant to be reviewed inevitably lead to a break in play anyway, no need for extra stoppages just to accomondate reviewing those situations will be there. Most things happening during a game will be for match referee to decide like it has always been. When the amount of situations that can be reviewed is limited enough, the VARs can work well and help make the game better without changing its nature, I've got no doubt about that.
- Sep 1, 2012
- 1,086
- 640
- 12,680
Re:
We have to wait around a year and half to find out whether they actually managed to do so as the impact of their this summers transfer dealings is being evaluated only at the next autumn and possible sanctions revealed early 2019.
The sums coughed out by PSG are obviouly beyond ridiculous, but somehow aren't angering me nearly as much when Real Madrid started hogging together Ballon d'Or winners for their first galactico project. Probably because I'm older, more cynical now and completely used to seeing biggest clubs in football buying success and trophies.
Anyway, PSG now is a very top heavy team, and are dangerously thin in midfield and defense. When injuries and suspensions start to hit those areas, they could become very vulnerable, specially in the Champions League. In many ways they resemble the Real Madrid team from the time of their first edition of galacticos, the one that ended up being a universal laughing stock.
Brullnux said:
We have to wait around a year and half to find out whether they actually managed to do so as the impact of their this summers transfer dealings is being evaluated only at the next autumn and possible sanctions revealed early 2019.
The sums coughed out by PSG are obviouly beyond ridiculous, but somehow aren't angering me nearly as much when Real Madrid started hogging together Ballon d'Or winners for their first galactico project. Probably because I'm older, more cynical now and completely used to seeing biggest clubs in football buying success and trophies.
Anyway, PSG now is a very top heavy team, and are dangerously thin in midfield and defense. When injuries and suspensions start to hit those areas, they could become very vulnerable, specially in the Champions League. In many ways they resemble the Real Madrid team from the time of their first edition of galacticos, the one that ended up being a universal laughing stock.
- Jan 27, 2012
- 15,151
- 2,544
- 28,180
TRENDING THREADS
-
Il Lombardia 2025, monument, October 11- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 782
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s RR, September 28- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 2K
-
European Championship 2025: Men’s RR, October 5- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 855
-
Teams & Riders The Remco Evenepoel is the next Eddy Merckx thread- Started by DNP-Old
- Replies: 35K
-
Teams & Riders Tadej Pogačar discussion thread- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 40K
-
119th Paris - Tours Elite (12-10-2025)
- Started by Dazed and Confused
- Replies: 158
-
World Championship 2025: Men’s ITT, September 21- Started by Berniece
- Replies: 942
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Sky/Ineos Head Carer of 14 years discovered as member of Aderlass doping ring (Megathread)
- Latest: Dazed and Confused
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram