kingjoey Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 1 hour ago, Savage Henry said: It’s probably Ally McCoist being so good, but I don’t think he’s that bad any more. And if Vicky Sparks ends up getting the gig… Clive Tyldesley is one of the most unlistenable commentators I've ever heard. 25 minutes ago, GroundskeeperWillie said: or for decisions so blatantly wrong that it requires intervention) You mean like a handball missed by the referee and linesmen? 19 minutes ago, Chripper said: The main issue is that the rules change literally every year. It's no surprise that ex players, pundits and fans don't know the rules. A lot of pundits know the Laws, but don't like them, so want decisions made that follow the Laws that they think should be in force. 18 minutes ago, virginton said: Meanwhile, back in the real world, offside is not in fact 'factual' as claimed. See the France v Netherlands game: was Dumfries active when a shot beat Magnan? Given that Dumfries was directly between the goalkeeper and where the ball went, it's blatantly obvious that he was actively stopping him attempting to save it. That's objective, not subjective. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topcat(The most tip top) Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 8 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said: I would argue it is objective. His position was directly between the GK and ball. The subjective part would be whether or not he would have been able to save it if he wasn't there, however that is irrelevant in the Laws of the Game. I'm not saying this to you directly but a lot of people seem to be unable to come to terms with "modern football" and pretend not to understand why decisions are reached because they don't agree with the Laws behind them. You can disagree with them whilst still understanding why decisions are reached. Ultimately there are always going to be some very close calls and whoever gets the shitty end of the stick can justifiably feel sorry for themselves even f they were correct 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 5 minutes ago, topcat(The most tip top) said: Ultimately there are always going to be some very close calls and whoever gets the shitty end of the stick can justifiably feel sorry for themselves even f they were correct Agreed. "f**k sake that's soft" or "a toenail offside" and you'd be feeling incredibly hard done by. But it's still incredibly old man yells at cloud stuff to make out said decisions are wrong just because they wouldn't have been given a few years ago. Defenders know about the hand ball rule and how it is applied and have adapted to keep their arms in, arguably, unnatural positions to avoid giving away penalties. Players who opt not to do this are running the risk of being penalised if the ball then strikes their hand. I'd have sympathy if it was a lower league player in a cup tie who is not used to VAR, but not for a player who plays in the EPL and is well used to it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamonds are Forever Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 (edited) I think the issue with handball isn't specifically the law, when you read the laws all they really say is that you can't deliberately touch the ball, or make yourself bigger to increase the likelihood of the ball hitting you, both perfectly reasonable. It's the directives around how these are applied that are the issue. The 'problem' is both of these are subjective - you can't read someone's mind to judge intent, and you need to be a 'biomechanics' expert (copyright M. Stewart) to judge natural positions. Obviously there are some situations where it is blatant, but most have a large element of uncertainty. In a desperate search for consistency the associations and FIFA have tried to make subjective decisions objective with their 'directives', to the point where basically if your arm isn't by your side you are going to get penalised - despite this being perfectly natural in lots of cases. VAR has obviously made this worse, but I think in general TV coverage was making it go in this direction anyway. They are probably getting more consistency, but it goes completely against the spirit, and indeed purpose, of the actual law - to avoid players gaining an advantage by deliberately using their hands. Virtually every other decision in a game is subjective to some extent, why is there such an issue with handball being the same? The only question should be 'has this player deliberately put his arms/hands in a position to increase the chances of hitting the ball'? That is the point of the law and is what should form the basis of any decision by a referee. Unless you are absolutely certain that the player has tried to make contact with the ball then there is no foul. In tonight's game, there's nowhere near enough evidence to show that the defender's arm isn't there naturally. He's rotating away which will mean his arm comes out, it's still below shoulder height and he's a yard away from the guy. If we're at the point where that has become, in the eyes of FIFA, an objective offside decision (which Unkel seemed to claim) then there needs to be a complete overhaul of how they are applying the law. I'd suggest letting referees go back to actually deciding for themselves in real time. Edited June 29 by Diamonds are Forever 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said: I would argue it is objective. His position was directly between the GK and ball. The subjective part would be whether or not he would have been able to save it if he wasn't there, however that is irrelevant in the Laws of the Game. I'm not saying this to you directly but a lot of people seem to be unable to come to terms with "modern football" and pretend not to understand why decisions are reached because they don't agree with the Laws behind them. You can disagree with them whilst still understanding why decisions are reached. At what point/moment was he 'directly between' the GK and the ball though? If the ball is at the same distance from goal as the goalkeeper - i.e. Dumfries is physically occupying the goalkeeper's diving space - then it's obviously relevant and a foul. If (for whatever reason) the goalkeeper is ten or twenty yards off his line though, the shot goes past him and only then does Dumfries become directly between the GK and ball near the goal line then it's patently not relevant. The ball's going to go in or not regardless. If Dumfries tries to tap it in then offside, but he clearly wouldn't have interfered with Magnan's earlier decision (at least in any logical sense). Those are two extreme cases but the point is that the Dutch 'goal' and all similar decisions ultimately reside along that spectrum. Where you choose to decide interference/not interference or active/not active is in fact a subjective decision. Even with VAR supposedly overseeing things, officials categorically do not make consistent calls on that, about handball or fouls within the penalty verdict on a weekly basis. And they will never do so. 'Limb monitoring' - if you believe that pish - doesn't actually resolve the underlying issue that sport is actually about honest adjudication of advantages gained rather than Poindexter litigation of regularly binned rules. Edited June 29 by vikingTON 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingjoey Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 7 minutes ago, virginton said: At what point/moment was he 'directly between' the GK and the ball though? If the ball is at the same distance from goal as the goalkeeper - i.e. Dumfries is physically occupying the goalkeeper's diving space - then it's obviously relevant and a foul. If (for whatever reason) the goalkeeper is ten or twenty yards off his line though, the shot goes past him and only then does Dumfries become directly between the GK and ball near the goal line then it's patently not relevant. The ball's going to go in or not regardless. If Dumfries tries to tap it in then offside, but he clearly wouldn't have interfered with Magnan's earlier decision (at least in any logical sense). Those are two extreme cases but the point is that the Dutch 'goal' and all similar decisions ultimately reside along that spectrum. Where you choose to decide interference/not interference or active/not active is in fact a subjective decision. Even with VAR supposedly overseeing things, officials categorically do not make consistent calls on that, about handball or fouls within the penalty verdict on a weekly basis. And they will never do so. 'Limb monitoring' - if you believe that pish - doesn't actually resolve the underlying issue that sport is actually about honest adjudication of advantages gained rather than Poindexter litigation of regularly binned rules. You are Michael Stewart, and I claim my three red cards. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONKMAN Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 Germany are actually very good, and on another night could have scored 3 or 4 more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 5 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said: Agreed. "f**k sake that's soft" or "a toenail offside" and you'd be feeling incredibly hard done by. But it's still incredibly old man yells at cloud stuff to make out said decisions are wrong just because they wouldn't have been given a few years ago. Defenders know about the hand ball rule and how it is applied and have adapted to keep their arms in, arguably, unnatural positions to avoid giving away penalties. Players who opt not to do this are running the risk of being penalised if the ball then strikes their hand. I'd have sympathy if it was a lower league player in a cup tie who is not used to VAR, but not for a player who plays in the EPL and is well used to it. What act should the Denmark player have performed this evening to prevent the ball striking his hand though? I don't disagree that players know 'the rules' and can adapt their behaviour accordingly - but there's a practical limit to that. Anyone who is buying Christina's American lawyer pish about silhouettes and rotating arms in that situation from 1 yard distance needs their head wobbled, quite frankly. • You are running full pelt in a European Championship knock out game to deal with a potential threat behind your defence. • You are not wrapping your arms behind your back while running and are not actually able to do so before a cross gets blasted at you from 1 yard distance. Neither of the above facts counts as the defender cheating or preventing the attacking team from scoring a goal, by any credible application of how sport is supposed to work. All while completely cynical fouls on counter-attacks get free kicks and a talking to/yellow card. The rules are horseshit, the application of those rules is horseshit and football as a professional sport needs to launch this litigious shite in the sea where it belongs before it seriously undermines what makes it an enjoyable spectacle at every level. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 10 minutes ago, virginton said: At what point/moment was he 'directly between' the GK and the ball though? If the ball is at the same distance from goal as the goalkeeper - i.e. Dumfries is physically occupying the goalkeeper's diving space - then it's obviously relevant and a foul. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 (edited) By posting a specific image of the player locations, you are supporting my argument that the judgment for being active/interference in an offside decision is in fact subjective rather than an objective. So... thanks for that. Edited June 29 by vikingTON 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 Just now, virginton said: What act should the Denmark player have performed this evening to prevent the ball striking his hand though? Hold it by his side. I agree it's unnatural and there are a lot of things that can be improved with the hand ball rule. I also don't like it. I don't like a lot of penalty decisions (Georgia v Portugal for example). But... with the Laws of the Game as they currently are it's a penalty every day of the week. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 1 minute ago, virginton said: By posting a specific image of the player locations, you are supporting my argument that the judgment for being active/interference in an offside decision is in fact subjective rather than an objective. So... thanks for that. Of course i'm posting a specific image to demonstrate an objective point. Dumfries could have avoided it all by not being needlessly being in an offside position in the first place. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuctifano Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 Obviously as I'm not a VL my preferred option is still to bin VAR, but given that's not happening I actually think I'm coming round to the opinion- which I would previously have attributed only to Yank xG types- that penalties for handball should only be given for what would currently be red card offences like Suarez vs Ghana. Everything else like the dozens of penalties a season that get awarded for a cross skiffing off someone's arm, if you're going to penalise them give an indirect free kick. You're punishing a trivial offence with an 80% chance of a goal. I know offside is a yes/no decision but with VAR its absolutely not what the law was intended for. An attacker getting a 3 yard head start on a defender to chase a through ball ? That's offside. Someone being 2 inches ahead makes no difference in 99.99999% of scenarios. I don't know how you fix this other than binning VAR tho, moving the line to be clear daylight is possible (and level was offside until 1990 so it can be moved) but just seems like you'd have the same issues. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Binos Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 Bin var, no issues Once every 30 years a real bad one like lampards happens But they even themselves out, 1966, anyway 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 1 hour ago, Todd_is_God said: Pulling someone's shirt is not, in itself, a foul. Like it or not that is a fact. Holding is a direct free-kick offence, clearly pulling someone's shirt involves holding. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 7 minutes ago, Fuctifano said: Obviously as I'm not a VL my preferred option is still to bin VAR, but given that's not happening I actually think I'm coming round to the opinion- which I would previously have attributed only to Yank xG types- that penalties for handball should only be given for what would currently be red card offences like Suarez vs Ghana. Everything else like the dozens of penalties a season that get awarded for a cross skiffing off someone's arm, if you're going to penalise them give an indirect free kick. You're punishing a trivial offence with an 80% chance of a goal. I know offside is a yes/no decision but with VAR its absolutely not what the law was intended for. An attacker getting a 3 yard head start on a defender to chase a through ball ? That's offside. Someone being 2 inches ahead makes no difference in 99.99999% of scenarios. I don't know how you fix this other than binning VAR tho, moving the line to be clear daylight is possible (and level was offside until 1990 so it can be moved) but just seems like you'd have the same issues. Moving the line is pointless as it doesn't actually solve anything. As you note it just moves the point at which an attacker is an inch offside, and we'd have the same "toenail" chat. It would also be more difficult for assistant referees in non VAR environments IMO. I'm not convinced offside needs solving either, that it can sometimes be incredibly marginal just needs accepting. "Being closer to your opponent's goal than both the ball and the second last defender" is a black and white decision whether we like it or not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 (edited) 3 minutes ago, craigkillie said: Holding is a direct free-kick offence, clearly pulling someone's shirt involves holding. You are wrong on this. Holding, in this context, refers to physically preventing an opponent moving. Edited June 29 by Todd_is_God 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky88 Posted June 29 Share Posted June 29 2 hours ago, Savage Henry said: As Clive and Ally were saying though, it’s the rules that are a mess. Indeed. I like Tyldesley's suggestion that the rules of football shouldn't be dictated by how the rules impact the elite level of the sport. The handball rule (and many others) as it stands are difficult to apply without a bank of monitors. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 53 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said: You are wrong on this. Holding, in this context, refers to physically preventing an opponent moving. I am going to have to ask for a source here beyond "trust me bro", because it stands contrary to what any normal human being's definition of the phrase "holds an opponent" would mean, and is also contrary to actual decisions we see made on a football pitch. If you pull someone's shirt, then you are clearly holding them. You are also likely "impeding an opponent with contact" at the same time. Nowhere in Law 12 do any of these make any specific reference to the opponent having to be within playing distance of the ball or anything like tha. In all but a very small number of cases, a foul is a foul no matter where it is on the park and no matter how close or far away the ball is. It's only going to be a yellow (or red) card offence if you prevent a player from getting to the ball, but it is still a foul even if you don't. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shotgun Posted June 30 Share Posted June 30 3 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said: According to his Wikipedia article the Musiala family left England when he was 2016 because of Brexit He must be some age now. Fair play to the auld boy. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.