Printable View
They were discussing VAR earlier, and the feeling was that it is NOT being used to correct "clear andobvious mistakes", but to back up the ref on the pitch - "Mates' rates" they called it.
Just now, they said there should have been a clear red card in the Leicester game, ref missed it, VAR showed it should have been red,... but nothing given!
Courruption amongst "worst refs in the world"?
Shirley not.
That was Tielemans on Wilson. Red card every single time, and yes exactly the incident that VAR is supposed to help with.
Bloody awful thing get rid off (VAR )
We'd be better off going back to the Laws of the Game as they were 30 years ago before they started fiddling with them:
- off sides and interfering with play
- hand ball and unintentional hand ball
- back passes
- goalkeepers at penalties
- goal kicks to players within the box
- kick offs taken backwards
... etc.
If the original Laws were brought back and applied as they should be then the game would be in a far better state. Interpretation always gives a get-out to bad decisions.
StT.
<><
The original rules? So you want to see no offsides at all, no substitutes, keepers getting the shit kicked out of them, etc?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve the Tea
Oh yes , and jumpers for goalpostsQuote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman
You want to see back passes, fewer goals per game and the creative players kicked out of matches?Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve the Tea
Can't agree with that.
And why is the ball going backwards at kick off (you mean forwards) rule a problem? How has that made the game worse?
The clue was: "as they should be ..."Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
StT.
<><
Jumping to conclusions, Mr Gunman. You actually need to read what I said. I did not say the original rules. I repeat, I wrote, "the Laws of the Game as they were 30 years ago." Furthermore I did not say I advocated players having lumps kicked out of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman
StT.
<><
That doesn't answer my questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve the Tea
2 points for a win, 1 substitute (for injuries only), referees wearing blazers
Bring it on.
You said, and I quote: "If the original Laws were brought back and applied as they should be then the game would be in a far better state."Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve the Tea
The laws of the game 30 years ago were not the original laws, obviously.
It comes as no surprise whatsoever that you believe things were better 30 years ago during what you regard as 'your' era and that time should have stood still since then. That's a trait of so many men of your age and of my age too. It is, of course, a daft notion.
In my opinion, the changes to the offside laws have generally benefitted the game, as have keepers not being able to pick up back passes, while other minor tweaks such as the ball being able to go backwards from a kick-off and three substitutes being available rather than one or two are sensible rather than problematic, and goal line technology is a definite and clear benefit.
VAR is rubbish though, as is the new handball rule.
What are your thoughts on the goalkeeper being able to pass a goal kick inside the box?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman
It seems to contradict the back pass rule to me in as much it just wastes time and adds nothing to the game.
How does it waste time? Teams can do exactly the same tactic as before but have a bit more space to do it in.Quote:
Originally Posted by insider
I agree it adds nothing to the game. It seems a really odd change as I don't know what was perceived to be the problem in the first place. It benefitted City against Huddersfield, though. I couldn't believe how often they were trying to pass the ball around their own penalty area from goal kicks. It was just idiotic on their part as it was so easy for the City lads to quickly close them down and put them in trouble.Quote:
Originally Posted by insider
Yes almost as it’s a nice shiny new law some teams feel they should take ‘advantage’ of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman
I think you are correct in that it will benefit teams like Cardiff who will likely never use it than teams who will.
I can’t see the point of the new goal kick law, goalies have very often in the past had the ball at their feet in the six yard box during open play yet it was very rare that a defender would run back to receive a two yard pass from him. I know from the goal kick the attackers have to be outside the box but they’re still close enough to create pressure. Teams like Huddersfield, thinking that they’re better footballers than they are, are committing suicide doing it. Oh for someone like a young Craig Bellamy in these situations, he’d have had Huddersfield’s pants down every time. As for Fulham using it the other night, I wasn’t sure what type of football was more mind numbing, our hit and hope or their two centre backs playing keep ball deep in their half.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman
I bow to your greater knowledge of the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Well thanks, but if it's timewasting then that's a tactic, not a rule problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by insider
A free kick, corner, penalty, etc only have to move one ball circumference before someone else touches it, but a goal kick has to travel however many yards? Come on, it didn't make sense.
As a tactic, I think it's silly for all but the top teams who have ball players at the back. As a rule change, it's fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by splott parker
They've made a rule change that can be exploited as a time wasting ploy.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
How does it add anything to football?
Who thought I know we'll improve the game by letting goalkeepers pass to defenders in their own box from goal kicks.
Someone is getting paid money to come up with this shit in the modern game.
I don't know where time wasting comes into it, to be honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by insider
Maybe I've worded it wrong for time wasting substitute unnecessary passes that add absolutely fa to the entertainment of the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
I can sympthaise with that, tapping it round at the back is boring. But blame the teams for that, not the authorities.Quote:
Originally Posted by insider
Now var, that is something serious that's wrecking the game.
This has gone off topic a bit, but VAR has had a right slagging today on at least 3 programs.
Sunday Supplement also said there was "appalling referreeing" on the pitch as well as at Stockley Park (where VAR is centred). How come they don't get fined, but Warnock does?
Why does a manager get fined by the FA but people on TV don't?Quote:
Originally Posted by bobh
Warnock doesn't get find for poor managerial performances. He gets fined for gobbing off about referees.Quote:
Originally Posted by bobh
Usually to mask a poor performance.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman
The problem was that there was no punishment for receiving the ball inside the box, it was simply a retake. So if the keeper played a sloppy pass, the defender could step in and retake the goal kick, stopping the attacker from nipping in and scoring.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman
The handball rule though, is an absolute p*sstake. I was at a league meeting discussing the new rules and the lead ref (refereed in EFL for 10+ seasons) who was running the training described it as "people making decisions for the sake of making decisions".