This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
VAR this weekend
Visit the current forum | Forum Rules
 Nicholas91  The Democratic Republic of Kent 13 Feb 23 2.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CrazyBadger
VAR should be withdrawn until the issue is identified and resolved. For such high profile, and high stakes matches to be officiated in such a way is ludicrous. A computer system with such flaws would be rolled back in any other environment.
It is quite amazing that over £100 million can be spent on individual players but then an official, with access to technology, can go 'Ooops, I drew the line in the wrong place for the offside' within the same sport.
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
Teddy Eagle  13 Feb 23 2.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
|
|
 becky  over the moon 13 Feb 23 3.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Give them time....
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
 grumpymort  US/Thailand/UK 13 Feb 23 3.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Everyone knows that referees have a very tough job, made tougher by players' constant attempts to con them, but, as Spiderman said VAR has the advantage of repeats, different angles, slow motion, etc and yet still get it wrong.
I don't believe this I expect other factors are at play. The other strange one is why is a person drawing lines the computer system should be able to do this and if the three people are not happy can move it. I don't trust any of the system it's full of corrupt people which is why they hide them away and do not have to come out to public with a proper report.
|
|
| Spiderman Horsham 13 Feb 23 3.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
Watch us get diddly squat in the reverse fixture. The powers that be will look after their pal Mr Barber
|
|
| Spiderman Horsham 13 Feb 23 4.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by grumpymort
I don't believe this I expect other factors are at play. The other strange one is why is a person drawing lines the computer system should be able to do this and if the three people are not happy can move it. I don't trust any of the system it's full of corrupt people which is why they hide them away and do not have to come out to public with a proper report. The system used at the WC seemed impressive, with all the money in the game, you have to wonder why those in charge haven’t purchased it already.
|
|
| Teddy Eagle 13 Feb 23 4.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Spiderman
The system used at the WC seemed impressive, with all the money in the game, you have to wonder why those in charge haven’t purchased it already. Cricket does it well too.
|
|
| Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 13 Feb 23 4.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Spiderman
The system used at the WC seemed impressive, with all the money in the game, you have to wonder why those in charge haven’t purchased it already.
|
|
| Spiderman Horsham 14 Feb 23 9.03am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Willo
That’s nothing to do with the Premier League, which is surely what we are discussing
|
|
| YT Oxford 14 Feb 23 9.37am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Dubai Eagle
The interfering with play thing has always been something that irks me - clearly if an attacking player is on the field of play in the opponent's half then he is interfering with play, either directly to receive the ball or indirectly by running interference, giving the player with the ball an option or hoping for a rebound - in any event the defending team has to make efforts to nullify this attacking threat or option - To me there is some allowance that could be made where an attacker is laying on the floor with injury sustained from a previous attack, provided that player isn't laying in such a position to influence the attack, i.e inside the 6 yard box. Clarify the rules & get rid of the subjectivity of is he interfering with play or not - Re. your first paragraph...the Brighton player "nearer to us" than the guy who stuck the ball in was yards offside. How can it be claimed that he's not interfering with play, when he's a clear attacking option (ie the scorer could have let the ball run on to him) and therefore likely to (or actually did) distract the attention of the goalkeeper and/or defenders. The Liverpool goal in the FA Cup tie against Wolves exposed the fallacy of the way offside is applied. The defender leapt to intercept a high/long ball because he knew a Liverpool player beyond him was likely to receive it. He could not possibly have known that that player was yards offside, so he had to go for it. Because the ball glanced off his head, that player miraculously becomes "not offside". It's absolute nonsense.
Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes) |
|
| Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 14 Feb 23 9.47am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by YT
Re. your first paragraph...the Brighton player "nearer to us" than the guy who stuck the ball in was yards offside. How can it be claimed that he's not interfering with play, when he's a clear attacking option (ie the scorer could have let the ball run on to him) and therefore likely to (or actually did) distract the attention of the goalkeeper and/or defenders. The Liverpool goal in the FA Cup tie against Wolves exposed the fallacy of the way offside is applied. The defender leapt to intercept a high/long ball because he knew a Liverpool player beyond him was likely to receive it. He could not possibly have known that that player was yards offside, so he had to go for it. Because the ball glanced off his head, that player miraculously becomes "not offside". It's absolute nonsense. Law 11 : A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
|
|
| Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 14 Feb 23 9.56am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Spiderman
That’s nothing to do with the Premier League, which is surely what we are discussing My 'Link' was in response to a comment that such communication was not "On the table", and I am suggesting that it could well be introduced in the PL based on its trial in the FIFA Club World Cup. Edited by Willo (14 Feb 2023 9.58am)
|
|
| Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 14 Feb 23 10.14am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Willo
Law 11 : A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent. That rule needs to be changed as it is too ambiguous. A defender attempting an interception which was intended for an offside attacker is different to deliberately playing the ball. The wording presumes a defender is aware an opposition player is offside, in which case they might opt not to play the ball, which is defiant of logic. Edited by Nicholas91 (14 Feb 2023 10.15am)
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
| Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 14 Feb 23 10.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Nicholas91
That rule needs to be changed as it is too ambiguous. A defender attempting an interception which was intended for an offside attacker is different to deliberately playing the ball. The wording presumes a defender is aware an opposition player is offside, in which case they might opt not to play the ball, which is defiant of logic. Edited by Nicholas91 (14 Feb 2023 10.15am) Currently "Deliberately" is interpreted as making a conscious effort to make contact with the ball and doing so, and if the ball is diverted into the path of an opposition player who is in an offside position and the players scores the goal is awarded. If the Law is changed to to redefine "Deliberate" depending on circumstances, this could cause further complications and of course further controversy. In the Wolves game, the defender might not have even seen the attacker behind him and if so this is no different to a player playing a 'Blind' backpass to the goalkeeper which is intercepted by an attacking player in an offside player who runs through and scores. Perhaps IFAB in time will amend the LAW giving it far more thought than I have at present !! Edited by Willo (14 Feb 2023 10.46am)
|
|
| CrazyBadger Ware 14 Feb 23 11.23am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Nicholas91
That rule needs to be changed as it is too ambiguous. A defender attempting an interception which was intended for an offside attacker is different to deliberately playing the ball. The wording presumes a defender is aware an opposition player is offside, in which case they might opt not to play the ball, which is defiant of logic. Edited by Nicholas91 (14 Feb 2023 10.15am) Surely a defender attempting an interception is him attempting to play the ball?
"It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one" |
|
| Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 14 Feb 23 11.24am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Willo
Currently "Deliberately" is interpreted as making a conscious effort to make contact with the ball and doing so, and if the ball is diverted into the path of an opposition player who is in an offside position and the players scores the goal is awarded. If the Law is changed to to redefine "Deliberate" depending on circumstances, this could cause further complications and of course further controversy. In the Wolves game, the defender might not have even seen the attacker behind him and if so this is no different to a player playing a 'Blind' backpass to the goalkeeper which is intercepted by an attacking player in an offside player who runs through and scores. Perhaps IFAB in time will amend the LAW giving it far more thought than I have at present !! Edited by Willo (14 Feb 2023 10.46am) Not the word 'deliberately' the phrase 'playing the ball'. It suggests intent that is made upon knowledge of whether or not a player is onside or not. If an attacker is offside then there may be no need to play the ball however a defender cannot be in full knowledge of this as a fact and therefore cannot make an informed decision. Even with technology the officials cannot get it right so I don't understand why there is an expectation of the player to behold this information. If a player elects to attempt to intercept a ball destined and intended for an offside opponent the offside should precede the playing of the ball in the decision making. If a player intercepts a backpass they are by definition not offside as an opponent has played the initial and critical action affecting the ball, not a teammate. Edited by Nicholas91 (14 Feb 2023 11.27am)
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
| CrazyBadger Ware 14 Feb 23 11.32am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Nicholas91
Not the word 'deliberately' the phrase 'playing the ball'. It suggests intent that is made upon knowledge of whether or not a player is onside or not. If an attacker is offside then there may be no need to play the ball however a defender cannot be in full knowledge of this as a fact and therefore cannot make an informed decision. Even with technology the officials cannot get it right so I don't understand why there is an expectation of the player to behold this information. If a player elects to attempt to intercept a ball destined and intended for an offside opponent the offside should precede the playing of the ball in the decision making. If a player intercepts a backpass they are by definition not offside as an opponent has played the initial and critical action affecting the ball, not a teammate. Edited by Nicholas91 (14 Feb 2023 11.27am) so what your Saying is as the intention of the passer is to pass to the offside player, it should be ruled Offside, regardless of the 'active' Status of the receiving player?
"It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one" |
|
| Nicholas91 The Democratic Republic of Kent 14 Feb 23 11.35am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by CrazyBadger
Surely a defender attempting an interception is him attempting to play the ball? A ball destined for what could be deemed to be an onside attacker. In the event the initial play is a ball to an offside attacker. This is not allowed. A defender cannot know whether or not an attacker is onside and therefore cannot make the informed decision. The 'offside pass' is illegal before anything the defender does.
Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!! |
|
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2025 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.