Spain (a) in October

[Sergeant Wilson]

10 minutes ago, printer said:

Don't think so. Why?

The obvious answer is no, but you seemed to say offside and a foul amount to the same thing.

[JamesP_81]

With offside VAR in theory seems like a great idea, it's a binary decision someone is either off or on end of . Except it isn't tho is it but as soon as it gets looked at in freeze frame high definition someones fingernail being a mm off etc now puts the decision maker in a position as something that clearly isn't in the spirit of the rule then has to be given , making a mockery of what the technology was brought in to do in the first place . 

Just a quick thought would it perhaps make more sense to say that VAR can only be used to overturn a wrongly declared offside? 

[Donathan]

I’d go back to the “daylight” rule from c.2003 and if any part of the attacker overlaps with the last defender, it’s onside. 
 

That seems like the best way to keep offside as a black and white rule without the toenail thing happening repeatedly 

[Lurkst]

1 minute ago, Donathan said:

I’d go back to the “daylight” rule from c.2003 and if any part of the attacker overlaps with the last defender, it’s onside. 
 

That seems like the best way to keep offside as a black and white rule without the toenail thing happening repeatedly 

You'd then have VAR analysing images for a chink of daylight.

 

[Donathan]

2 minutes ago, Lurkst said:

You'd then have VAR analysing images for a chink of daylight.

 

Semi-automated offside with the daylight rule imo 

[Fuctifano]

Moving the line doesn't change anything though. 

Solution A is get VAR in the bin obviously, but in the absence of that if we're going to millimetre level granularity, the tech needs to improve and have tracking chips in the ball and in the players' boots that can be time stamped and use the position of the chips to assess offside. 

They already have some form of this with goal line technology and the GPS kits that players wear either in the shirts or the sports bra things so assume it's possible. 

It would make it even more robotic and costly but it's the only solution (again, other than getting VAR to f**k) that makes sense 

[The Algebraist]

44 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

The two are intrinsically related though.

Before we started using the technology in this way, toenails didn't matter.  Officials made calls based on their observations.  If TV pictures subsequently showed an error by the margin of a toenail, it did not animate us.  The spirit of the law had been observed and we moved on.  The fact is that even with extensive, conclusive TV pictures, there was no great sense of injustice unless the officials' errors were exposed as glaring.

VAR is not currently being employed intelligently.

 

Agree. If we don't complain nothing will change

There are a few sensible suggestions above. Mine would be to let the ref see the replay and call it by eye in discussion with the VAR officials. I think that's what happens in rugby, as I said previously I haven't seen them draw lines for a forward pass previously.

I think people's heads will give you close to the spirit of the rules than lines everywhere.

Edited October 14, 2023 by The Algebraist

[craigkillie]

11 minutes ago, Donathan said:

I’d go back to the “daylight” rule from c.2003 and if any part of the attacker overlaps with the last defender, it’s onside. 
 

That seems like the best way to keep offside as a black and white rule without the toenail thing happening repeatedly 

There never was a "daylight" rule.

[Lex]

Hand up and clearly signalling for an offside infringement before Spain take the free kick. As Balague said he did, to be fair. 

[craigkillie]

Skyline Drifter is due one hell of a lot of apologies on this thread, I wonder how many will be big enough to do it.

[pthardie]

They need to get on with announcing their decisions over the tannoy like the Women’s World Cup.

With the offside argument, if you flip, it would we have been happy if there was a goal given for Spain with the same margin of offside as Hendry?

[Jaggy McJagface]

19 minutes ago, pthardie said:

They need to get on with announcing their decisions over the tannoy like the Women’s World Cup.

With the offside argument, if you flip, it would we have been happy if there was a goal given for Spain with the same margin of offside as Hendry?

If Spain score that goal then it stands.

[Ginaro]

On 13/10/2023 at 00:08, Ginaro said:

Sorry, but having seen the highlights I'm unsure what all the complaining is about? Player in an offside position gets involved in active play by interfering with the goalkeeper, goal correctly ruled out for offside. Referee points in the direction of the free kick as normal - however we don't see him put his hand up for an IDFK so we don't know if it was for offside or not.

Is that it?

So despite the red dots I was right, didn't help with the distance between the VAR monitor and location of the IDFK as the ref took a while to run back to make the signal and the TV coverage cut away. Of course ref mic (even if it was delayed for the broadcasters and available at HT/FT) would've cleared up the confusion.

[2426255]

On 13/10/2023 at 11:36, accies1874 said:

I thought we did try to play out quite a bit initially and Hendry was the only one who looked good in those situations. I could be wrong though. 

This is a good point. I was thinking that we've seen those away games before, but it's worthwhile to put it into the overall context. 

I had a look back through. We changed to a 352 after 20 minutes so I just restricted myself to that first 20 minutes. I agree that we did sometimes attempt to play out in that period. It was more often in the form of quick counter-attacking and less in the form of building up play through the thirds.

That period of the game was a mix between knocking it long and playing for 2nd balls and attempting quick counter-attacks in the form of dribbles or vertical passes and combinations. We were unable to break the press with any regularity and so ultimately moved away from that and to a 352 which gave us more up top to try and win flick ons or 2nd balls. That's how I interpreted our plan with the ball during the first part of the game: counter-Attacks and long balls mostly.

https://streamable.com/qay4b9

Edited October 14, 2023 by 2426255

[printer]

16 hours ago, printer said:

When I said committed the foul, I meant the offside foul. To me a foul is anytime a player commits an offence which is punishable by a free kick. I might be wrong in that view.

 

14 hours ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Would you get booked for persistent offside?

 

2 hours ago, printer said:

Don't think so. Why?

 

2 hours ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

The obvious answer is no, but you seemed to say offside and a foul amount to the same thing.

I think it's pretty clear what I've said - first quote above. I've also admitted I could be wrong. 

I'm not sure your argument (persistent fouling leading to a booking) is helpful or definitive at all. I think the correct phrase is persistently infringing the laws of the game. Again, I might be wrong as it's a while since I looked at the actual laws.

Don't see it as a big deal either way tbh. 

[printer]

13 hours ago, H Wragg said:

Eck and Co also on the case!

Salmon always was an opportunistic w*nk.

2 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

The two are intrinsically related though.

Before we started using the technology in this way, toenails didn't matter.  Officials made calls based on their observations.  If TV pictures subsequently showed an error by the margin of a toenail, it did not animate us.  The spirit of the law had been observed and we moved on.  The fact is that even with extensive, conclusive TV pictures, there was no great sense of injustice unless the officials' errors were exposed as glaring.

VAR is not currently being employed intelligently.

 

I'm not sure that's correct, but even if it is the use of VAR or any similar system was always going to be sh*te and any changes to it won't improve it significantly IMO. 

The very people who were crying out for something like VAR are those who are now criticising it most. It perpetuates the narrative that keeps them in a job/gets them likes on Twitter (as was), that "referees are sh*te".

 

[parsforlife]

2 hours ago, The Algebraist said:

Agree. If we don't complain nothing will change

There are a few sensible suggestions above. Mine would be to let the ref see the replay and call it by eye in discussion with the VAR officials. I think that's what happens in rugby, as I said previously I haven't seen them draw lines for a forward pass previously.

I think people's heads will give you close to the spirit of the rules than lines everywhere.

You can’t draw lines for a forward pass as the law isn’t if the ball moves forward between passer and taker, it’s the point/manor of release that matters and therefore it can only really be done by eye.

I think we’d be taking a backwards step for VAR to check offsides without lines and sending refs to the monitor to see if they agree. The tech maybe flawed but it’s certainly more accurate than asking a human to judge camera angles etc.

[Bairnardo]

1 hour ago, craigkillie said:

Skyline Drifter is due one hell of a lot of apologies on this thread, I wonder how many will be big enough to do it.

People should apologise to him because he couldn't resist taking a condescending and argumentative tone, and information has come to light that he didn't have when doing so? He's right by blind luck. Having taken a position against available evidence at the time, and even if you are right, talking to folk in such a way generally doesn't have the apology queue thronging.

For my small (if at all) part in his flouncing off, iv already agreed that he would be a loss to the site, but that I couldn't get my head round the way he went about it on here. That will do for me. 

 

But then, I'm not known as a big man. 

[Monkey Tennis]

18 minutes ago, printer said:

I'm not sure that's correct, but even if it is the use of VAR or any similar system was always going to be sh*te and any changes to it won't improve it significantly IMO. 

So the very use of it at all, ever, is the problem here?

I don't agree.  I think there's a case for using film of games to assist officials.  I think its current use is probably creating more difficulties than it solves though.

[2426255]

32 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

People should apologise to him because he couldn't resist taking a condescending and argumentative tone, and information has come to light that he didn't have when doing so? He's right by blind luck.

I apologise to @Skyline Drifter on behalf of @Bairnardo and the rest of the dumplings. It takes a strong personality to stick to what you believe when the majority are against you. Well done, commendable. I think you deserve an apology, but people such as @Bairnardolack the courage to admit when they get things wrong and so that's why I've taken the step to apologise on their behalf.

Edited October 14, 2023 by 2426255