Good news on subs and possibly on VAR?

[Addison]

Is that so? The Guardian has it that clubs votee 'overwhelmingly against it'.

They have been wrong before, however.

Premier League clubs REJECT allowing five substitutes next season

A total of 11 top flight teams shared their disapproval with the proposal at a shareholding meeting held on Thursday morning. The ruling means three substitutes will be allowed next season.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Fail say eleven votes against including Dirty Weeds. Also proposal to retain a bench of nine even with three subs allowed was tied at 10-10 so it failed, back to a bench of seven next season. Dirty Weeds joined the big boys in supporting a bench of nine but failed. Most of the press reports suggest it was the bottom half against the top half in the voting. As CW was opposed to 5 subs we seem to have supported Villa and the bottom half crew who led the objections

 

[Dullblade]

I believe its to balance out the attacking handball negating a goal, for a change its one rule for both and no grey area around it.

I understand the reasoning behind it, still doesn't mean it's good reasoning. For me, like I've said before, handball for either side should be based on three questions.

Did it touch the hand/arm?

Was it deliberate?

Did they gain an advantage?

I suppose the last one would be the challenging one to get right. I believe if the ball was to hit another part of the body if the arm wasn't there, you could argue they didn't get an advantage.

I think you'll never please everyone with any handball rule. Maybe the best way forward is to be unfair to everyone and make it black and white... Touch arm then foul

 

[Working Class Hero]

I understand the reasoning behind it, still doesn't mean it's good reasoning. For me, like I've said before, handball for either side should be based on three questions.

Did it touch the hand/arm?

Was it deliberate?

Did they gain an advantage?

I suppose the last one would be the challenging one to get right. I believe if the ball was to hit another part of the body if the arm wasn't there, you could argue they didn't get an advantage.

I think you'll never please everyone with any handball rule. Maybe the best way forward is to be unfair to everyone and make it black and white... Touch arm then foul

There was nowt wrong with the handball rule before all this crap though. Everyone knew what handball was.

 

[Dullblade]

There was nowt wrong with the handball rule before all this crap though. Everyone knew what handball was.

This is true. Wish we would follow the way cricket and rugby have implemented it... Minus Hawkeye when they don't turn it on

 

[Booker4]

no was a summer hot waether amendment
they are allowing a hug a hot water bottle break in january

Bovril at every 15 minutes the way forward I say!

 

[Keen Blade]

So if you're an attacker in the box , you deliberately kick the ball against a defender's arm and get an automatic penalty ?
World's gone mad.

 

[Cerberus Blade]

Is the mid half drinks break still remaining ? It often interrupts the flow of the game in my opinion.

This is an important question.

I sincerely hope not. I fear it’s the thin end of the wedge that will lead to more breaks in play to facilitate TV advertising and the game will end up like American Football.

 

[Dronfield Blade]

I hate VAR but it looks like we are stuck with it.

I think each team having the ability to request a VAR check (limited amount per game) would make it more interesting. Maybe a max of 2 request per team, requested via the captains.

VAR in its current form is slow and disengaging for fans. Going into a game knowing there would only be 4 VAR incidents, 2 of them potentially favouring united, would IMO be better than the current system.

In that scenario if a big toe is offside and the opposition team don't even realise and make a check request, then nobody can really blame officials.

Would in no way be perfect, but I cant stand the current format and I just don't celebrate goals the same anymore.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Is the mid half drinks break still remaining ? It often interrupts the flow of the game in my opinion.

Yes, clubs can decide on drinks. Wilder picked Peroni.

 

[BornOnShorehamStreet]

I sincerely doubt that adding layers of subjectivity like "trying to gain an unfair avantage" would achieve anything other than make the rule even more convoluted and individual instances more open to debate.

The offside law was originally brought in to stop teams gaining unfair advantage

 

[blade67]

Great news on the subs, I really thought it would go the other way.

It's not even just that we'd probably be disadvantaged, it's more that 5 subs each makes a match feel very disjointed and puts me in mind of England friendlies, especially when Eriksson was in charge.

5 subs almost made sense playing 2 games every week in June/July.

Absolutely no need for a season that will only be 3 weeks shorter than a normal season

 

[PokerBlade]

The offside law was originally brought in to stop teams gaining unfair advantage

Yes, like all rules, but it's better for the way to enforce those rules to be as objective as possible. Otherwise we're going to have teams be in offside positions but have refs make subjective speculations as to whether they offside "enough" to give a free kick. There's already enough bickering over phases of play, defences resetting, and such that we've had with VAR season without adding an extra layer of debate.

 

[More Bladier than thou]

Good news on VAR? Has Stockley Park burned down?

Wait there 4 mins so i can check, i need to draw lots of lines and shit.......... Sorry no idea, would you believe this 9000-1 chance but the all the camera views are blocked. Please dont ask to see the occluded pictures though because you will be ignored.

 

[8lade]

Any decent ref will, presumably, have the authority to decide that a player wasn't seeking to gain unfair advantages and was, for example, checking back in an attempt not to.

I can't see the above being upheld when they don't even try and comply with the foul rules:
"A direct free kick is awarded if a player commits any of the following offences against an opponent in a manner considered by the referee to be careless, reckless or using excessive force:

• charges
• jumps at
• kicks or attempts to kick
• pushes
• strikes or attempts to strike (including head-butt)
• tackles or challenges
• trips or attempts to trip

"

 

[Sheffsteel]

There is a potential problem with refs using pitch side monitors.

I’m predicting players will be begging the ref or trying to intimidate the ref during his walk to the camera.
The crowd will be baying for blood if it’s a 50/50 decision. You can bet the ref will feel the pressure and favour the home side.
There will be loads of controversy about refs being weak and unable to make calm accurate and fair decisions when under pressure.
Dissent and disrespect towards the ref will increase. At the moment the players and crowd can’t blame the ref....but next season they can.

 

[BornOnShorehamStreet]

Yes, like all rules, but it's better for the way to enforce those rules to be as objective as possible. Otherwise we're going to have teams be in offside positions but have refs make subjective speculations as to whether they offside "enough" to give a free kick. There's already enough bickering over phases of play, defences resetting, and such that we've had with VAR season without adding an extra layer of debate.

or, just show the ref the video and let him decide if the spirit of the law has been broken.

A never-ending conundrum going round in ever-decreasing circles eh?

 

[BornOnShorehamStreet]

There is a potential problem with refs using pitch side monitors.

I’m predicting players will be begging the ref or trying to intimidate the ref during his walk to the camera.
The crowd will be baying for blood if it’s a 50/50 decision. You can bet the ref will feel the pressure and favour the home side.
There will be loads of controversy about refs being weak and unable to make calm accurate and fair decisions when under pressure.
Dissent and disrespect towards the ref will increase. At the moment the players and crowd can’t blame the ref....but next season they can.

It's getting to the stage where all football matches should be played on FIFA whatever it is.

It's moving a very long way from jumpers for goalposts

 

[blade67]

It's just as well that the league has voted to change back. I think the players listed below is our entire squad of senior professionals at the moment. We could just about field a 20 man match day squad but it means picking Kean Bryan on the bench or a youth team player, or 2 goalies.

Foderingham
Baldock, Basham, Egan, O'Connell, Stevens
Berge, Norwood, Fleck
McBurnie, McGoldrick

Subs
Mousset, Osborn, Robinson C, Robinson J, Sharp, Moore, Freeman L, Lundstram

Bryan, K, Verips
Did I see that Jags had another 12 months? I've not seen it confirmed

There are also 12 junior professionals who are unlikely to come through this year I guess, although it would be great to see 1 or 2 involved in some way.

 

[blade67]

An

Yes, like all rules, but it's better for the way to enforce those rules to be as objective as possible. Otherwise we're going to have teams be in offside positions but have refs make subjective speculations as to whether they offside "enough" to give a free kick. There's already enough bickering over phases of play, defences resetting, and such that we've had with VAR season without adding an extra layer of debate.

Another option is for the VAR machine to make the lines a bit wider and say if they cross, then it's in an area of doubt so the ref decides (umpires call they call it in Cricket I think). Any sane ref, then says, well if the tech can't decide then how do I call it off-side? Goal stands.

They seem to have lost the fact that VAR/goal line tech was brought in to stop the huge injustices not the half a toe bollocks. Henry's handball goal for example but it's been like they've got a toy so they have to use it.

 

[CoatesyBlade]

So no change to the offside law then? Its not VAR that's the main problem its the law that allows VAR to then disallow a goal because one players toe is slightly in front of the opposition players toe.

The offside rule looks worse now. There’s gonna be a ton of goals ruled out with those shitty lines drawn across the screen again!! Unless the ref has to use the monitor every time?? God knows?? I think the linesman’s decision should be final. We don’t have the technology to categorically determine whether it’s on or offside anyway.

 

[CoatesyBlade]

An

Another option is for the VAR machine to make the lines a bit wider and say if they cross, then it's in an area of doubt so the ref decides (umpires call they call it in Cricket I think). Any sane ref, then says, well if the tech can't decide then how do I call it off-side? Goal stands.

They seem to have lost the fact that VAR/goal line tech was brought in to stop the huge injustices not the half a toe bollocks. Henry's handball goal for example but it's been like they've got a toy so they have to use it.

Couldn’t agree more!

 

[Rocketmark66]

Maybe if Var drew thicker lines across the pitch to determine where the attacking player is in relation to the last defender. This will then give the Stockley Park mob a slightly bigger tolerance to work with.
This should determine whether it's offside or not.
Lunnys big toe would then have been onside.

 

[Booker4]

The offside rule looks worse now. There’s gonna be a ton of goals ruled out with those shitty lines drawn across the screen again!! Unless the ref has to use the monitor every time?? God knows?? I think the linesman’s decision should be final. We don’t have the technology to categorically determine whether it’s on or offside anyway.

I'm fairly sure that in the past that daylight was generally seen as a good barometer for an offside decision? It may not have been an official requirement but I'm sure that it was used as a guide. I don't think an offside law of millimetres is what we ever needed from an offside law but having VAR has now given the opportunity to implement it.

 

[CoatesyBlade]

I'm fairly sure that in the past that daylight was generally seen as a good barometer for an offside decision? It may not have been an official requirement but I'm sure that it was used as a guide. I don't think an offside law of millimetres is what we ever needed from an offside law but having VAR has now given the opportunity to implement it.

It’s certainly not about millimetres here and there is it. I’ve spoke about a ‘buffer zone’ of 2 feet running down the core of both the attacker and defender, if the two cross at all it’s onside. Or you could go with the linesman’s original decision in this scenario. If the two zones don’t cross then the player is offside as it’s clear and obvious. But yes I’d be happy with the daylight idea too. The point is VAR should only prevent clear and obvious errors! Cos at the minute VAR is making too many errors of its own!

 

[PokerBlade]

or, just show the ref the video and let him decide if the spirit of the law has been broken.

A never-ending conundrum going round in ever-decreasing circles eh?

How would that be better? Then ref isn't making his decisions based on the objective position of the players but on his personal interpretation and understanding of "the spirit of the law", which is going to naturally result in even less consistency in decisions, even more openness to bias, and even less clarity for fans, players, and managers as to why decisions are or aren't given. The inconsistency and doubt is the whole thing VAR was supposed to eliminate, not to bring in extra layers of it.

 

[PokerBlade]

An

Another option is for the VAR machine to make the lines a bit wider and say if they cross, then it's in an area of doubt so the ref decides (umpires call they call it in Cricket I think). Any sane ref, then says, well if the tech can't decide then how do I call it off-side? Goal stands.

They seem to have lost the fact that VAR/goal line tech was brought in to stop the huge injustices not the half a toe bollocks. Henry's handball goal for example but it's been like they've got a toy so they have to use it.

I've said a few times that calculating error margins is something that I did for my A-level science coursework and can be done on the back of a fag packet. People have posted the maths on the accuracy given the frame rate of the camera, speed of players (this is the confounding factor because it's not a constant as players speed up and slow down while going for the ball). A computer could spit out a decent +/- in a microsecond and if the offside isn't greater than that margin then it's on. Instead the authorities thought they could show off by declaring people 8cm offside when just a quick look at the still frame will show you the clarity of picture simply isn't there.

My big problem with VAR is that it was supposed to improve decision making and so far we've seen absolutely no benefit of it. Refs are still bottling major decisions, there's still the perception of bias towards certain clubs, the reasons for decisions are a mystery, it's being used to make decisions it isn't accurate enough for, and it's added big delays to the game.

And for some reason I still can't grasp, this will be solved by the ref on the pitch going to the monitor. But the ref on the pitch is from the same group of refs that do the VAR reviews, so God only knows why that would make any difference.

 

[Sheff de party]

Be interesting to see how close it was and who voted for and against it. Chelsea were apparently trying to whip up support among the smaller clubs.

I read somewhere that 11 clubs voted against having 5 subs.

I think two thirds have to vote for something for it to happen, so I’m assuming the motion must have been “introduce five subs” rather than a motion to scrap it.

Common sense has prevailed!

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

I read somewhere that 11 clubs voted against having 5 subs.

I think two thirds have to vote for something for it to happen, so I’m assuming the motion must have been “introduce five subs” rather than a motion to scrap it.

Common sense has prevailed!

For the moment............

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

Sure, but if there were technology which could determine the position of players to that degree of accuracy such that there was no dispute over to where his big toe was at least we could all sit back and say we had an objective decision. Then we could have a discussion over whether that law was fit for purpose. Personally I'd be okay with the idea of settling the matter objectively, with the rules as written, instead of trying to work more subjectivity into footballing decisions. The problem though is that we don't have that technology. And what we have had is the footballing bodies try to pass it off as though we do.

If we hadn't had VAR, and a linesman had rightly or wrongly flagged Lundstram offside then the whole thing would've been forgotten. But instead VAR stepped in and added a huge break in the game without any improvement to the decision making.

You can kind of have both.
If the VAR decision lines were thicker, it would get rid of the 'toe' problem, and also the issue if frame rate, when the ball was kicked etc and give a margin of what is a sensible .

 

[PokerBlade]

You can kind of have both.
If the VAR decision lines were thicker, it would get rid of the 'toe' problem, and also the issue if frame rate, when the ball was kicked etc and give a margin of what is a sensible .

Like I said to someone else, calculating a margin of error is incredibly easy. Easy enough even the Daily Mail managed it.

VAR said Sterling was 2.4cm offside but allowed 13cm margin for error

Doubts over VAR's accuracy in deciding offside calls are now heightened as The Mail on Sunday can reveal findings that show flaws in the technology currently rocking football.

www.dailymail.co.uk

But I can only think the footballing bodies thought they'd sound good if they said stupid things like "8cm offside".