• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

VAR: Sponsored by Chelsea

Fair is equal application to both sides.

This has the effect of changing the game by favouring fast direct football.

Who knows it might level the game more by allowing raw speed to counter highly technical football.

But I think there's also a chance it slows the game by encouraging teams to only have one tactic - defend really deep and attack on the counter.


Sent from my SM-T865 using Fapatalk
 
metalgear said:
Fair is equal application to both sides.

This has the effect of changing the game by favouring fast direct football.

Who knows it might level the game more by allowing raw speed to counter highly technical football.

But I think there's also a chance it slows the game by encouraging teams to only have one tactic - defend really deep and attack on the counter.


Sent from my SM-T865 using Fapatalk
Click to expand...
Good point. Wenger's proposal risks unintended consequences that wind up making things even more boring.
 
Baleforce said:
if that was acceptable according to the laws, then the law is an ass
Click to expand...

It really is.
I think most refs are awful, but the rules don't help them at all.

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision


Players jumps out of the was so he doesn't touch the ball.
Keeper has clear sight of the ball.

As I said, it's a stupid rule. He clearly had an impact on that goal
 
Chrissivad said:
It really is.
I think most refs are awful, but the rules don't help them at all.

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision


Players jumps out of the was so he doesn't touch the ball.
Keeper has clear sight of the ball.

As I said, it's a stupid rule. He clearly had an impact on that goal
Click to expand...
It was (or should have been!) offside because of the part of the rule I’ve underlined.

the GK doesn’t know if Akanji is going to touch it or not and only really dives when the ball passes him. So interfering
 
Gazza Dazzla said:
It was (or should have been!) offside because of the part of the rule I’ve underlined.

the GK doesn’t know if Akanji is going to touch it or not and only really dives when the ball passes him. So interfering
Click to expand...
That always used to be the rule, it's not the rule as specified above though. At no point does he obstruct the view or touch the ball.

The rule is ridiculous.
 
Gazza Dazzla said:
It was (or should have been!) offside because of the part of the rule I’ve underlined.

the GK doesn’t know if Akanji is going to touch it or not and only really dives when the ball passes him. So interfering
Click to expand...

But under those rules, it doesn't matter if the keeper is unsure. They player isn't in the keepers direct line of sight or physically stopping them from attempting to make a save.
 
This is why they need to make rules clear and simple again.

Not subjective like it is now with is he active, phase of play, did he move towards the ball, try and play the ball.

On the pitch, passed the last defender (assuming keeper is back) then offside.
 
Chrissivad said:
This is why they need to make rules clear and simple again.

Not subjective like it is now with is he active, phase of play, did he move towards the ball, try and play the ball.

On the pitch, passed the last defender (assuming keeper is back) then offside.
Click to expand...

Can't turn the clock back, be much simpler to give each team two reviews and and set time limit for decisions.
 
Chrissivad said:
This is why they need to make rules clear and simple again.

Not subjective like it is now with is he active, phase of play, did he move towards the ball, try and play the ball.

On the pitch, passed the last defender (assuming keeper is back) then offside.
Click to expand...
It's not subjective and none of what you mentioned is in the rules.

What is in the rules is:
  1. Did he touch the ball?
  2. Did he obstruct a player or their view?
If the answer to both of those is negative then he isn't offside.
 
Chrissivad said:
This is why they need to make rules clear and simple again.

Not subjective like it is now with is he active, phase of play, did he move towards the ball, try and play the ball.

On the pitch, passed the last defender (assuming keeper is back) then offside.
Click to expand...
It isn't subjective. "Everyone" wanted rid of any subjective interpretation with offside, so they removed the subjective bit, which was if a player influenced the play while being in an offside position. That was purely subjective. The rules now are as objective as they can be, but now people want the subjective part back....
So in this particular case;
Did he touch the ball? No
Did he block the goalkeepers view? No
So by the rules it's actually not offside. Don't know why Webb says its offside now.
Does the player influence the play? Yes he does. In my view the rules should rule it as offside, but as they are now, he's not, from how I understand the wording.
 
Last edited:
Kandi1977 said:
It isn't subjective. "Everyone" wanted rid of any subjective interpretation with offside, so they removed the subjective bit, which was if a player influenced the play while being in an offside position. That was purely subjective. The rules now are as objective as they can be, but now people want the subjective part back....
So in this particular case;
Did he touch the ball? No
Did he block the goalkeepers view? No
So by the rules it's actually not offside. Don't know why Webb says its offside now.
Does the player influence the play? Yes he does. In my view the rules should rule it as offside, but as they are now, he's not from how I understand the wording.
Click to expand...

Players make runs off the ball to draw opponents out of position without wanting or getting the ball, is that not interfering with play without touching the ball. Before TV made it their business to pick the bones out of everything most people accepted it as the rub of the green, now everyone study images which have created more contentious situations than I can ever remember. I think the only thing VAR has proved is how poor the refs are in decision making and understanding the rules.
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
Players make runs off the ball to draw opponents out of position without wanting or getting the ball, is that not interfering with play without touching the ball. Before TV made it their business to pick the bones out of everything most people accepted it as the rub of the green, now everyone study images which have created more contentious situations than I can ever remember. I think the only thing VAR has proved is how poor the refs are in decision making and understanding the rules.
Click to expand...
No, certainly not now. Even with previous rules it's probably not. Depends on the proximity to the play, proximity to defenders/GK etc. It would depend on the situation. A player by the sideline while the play is centrally would not be offside unless he received the ball.
IMO that was a better rule than the current one. It wasn't really any difficult to get it right, if you just have an iota of football knowledge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back