Agree with where you are coming from @eric_plant in that it is the rules rather than the perhaps the refs themselves. But referees do seem to stick together and back each other so not sure that part of your argument is too strong
This debate is not about knowledge of the laws because anyone can learn them, Knowing the laws is different to knowing the game. It’s about understanding when a player is deliberately trying to gain an advantage and when he isn’t.
This is getting boring now. You have made it clear that you disagree with me so I will leave you to carry on defending the refereeing fraternity and leave the likes of Shearer and a host of others who played at the highest level to question the penalty awarded to Germany.
Just because you don't like the Law as its been drafted doesn't mean the referee has to ignore its provisions. However in my opinion the Law needs amending.
The one thing I dislike about VAR is the slow motion / frame by frame click through that they used. EVERYTHING looks worse at slow motion. VAR should look at incidents like the referees do to give an accurate representation
That's exacerbated in this tournament too with the little graph that shows over the replay. The Germany penalty was obviously bollocks, but the same 9 frames of video over and over again with a graph that's telling you it definitely hit a hand is such a narrow slice of the full story. When isolated like that there's apparently no option. Watch 90 frames instead of 9 and it's obviously not a penalty.
In general, having ten different angles on everything for replays led to VAR, as referee mistakes were always highlighted that much more, whereas at our level we often don't realize it was a mistake until afterwards.
The foul on Stryjek away to Portsmouth in the dying embers was a good example. In real time I thought it was a perfectly good goal, and it was only upon seeing a different angle later that it was obviously a foul. It was a bit easier to be philosophical, realizing that from the referee's angle it probably was not clear. But at the PL and international level, the multiple angles make it seem like the referee should have "surround vision".
The referee will always have a snapshot impression of an incident with sometimes vision obscured completely as a player runs across his eye line. If technology exists to give him “surround vision” on key decisions, why not use it?
Two of the problems with VAR include the removal of spontaneity from celebrations and destroying the flow of the game.
For me, the offside rule was never supposed to be a scientifically forensic rule, but a common sense rule against players gaining an advantage which could be administered through referee/lino observation.
For an example, if technology improved to where we could use satellites to zoom in so close that we could tell if a single cell of a player's body was offside, would we use it? After all, they would still be offside. That is an absurd example, but it is not too far past how I feel about toe-offsides.
I haven’t seen any evidence of spontaneity of celebrations being affected in this tournament. Bit of an urban myth.
However you define the offside rule, there will always be marginal calls. Either you accept the referee essentially guessing on those calls (usually in my experience in favour of the bigger team) or you can use technology to make it as objective as possible.
PL fans are pretty unanimous that VAR has massively affected celebrations, owing to possible VAR checks being in the back of the mind at all times.
If we are going to use video replay, we should at least use it to retroactively ban players who get opposition players carded by playacting, like Doku just did to Rabiot in the France-Belgium game.
Have you asked them all / roughly 800,000 a fortnight. Or are you relying on a noisy few? Have you seen evidence that spontaneity has been affected at this tournament. Cant say I have.
I'm sure a few of the prem clubs did a survey of their fans and the match going responses were overwhelmingly negative. Pretty sure spurs published theirs.
No, I stopped at 799,999 - there is this pesky Wolves fan who keeps ducking my calls!
Joking apart, I have seen the theme again and again. Maybe some fans love the uncertainty as to whether their goal will stand, but I doubt it. Not only that, but I feel the same way whenever I have bothered to watch the PL - a goal is scored and my first reaction is "oh, I wonder if there will be a reason to chalk that off?"
It's all subjective, I suppose, so I'll do the whole 'IMO' thing, but I just don't think football was meant for five minute breaks while the Zapruder film is examined for fingers brushing a ball in the build up to a goal. I understand the desire for accuracy, but there is just as much noise and controversy with VAR, so it is hard to see how it was worth the sacrifice.
I don't like VAR, give me good "old fashioned" referees and linemen making the calls and getting a few wrong during the course of a game.
It was always someone else to blame when things didn't turn out right. Could even blame them for correctly not giving the odd penalty or free kick too.
Generally I've seen the debate at this tournament being about offsides and handballs being given when pundits think it shouldn't. However, from what I've seen, they are disputing the law rather than VAR. Although even they can't always make that distinction so it's not surprising the average supporter gets in a state too.
To be honest, I think there was a swell of support for Wolves when they tabled the motion for the removal of VAR. Technology in Sport was always going to be a struggle as there isn't any natural stoppages in the game to allow for the technology to kick in and be effectively used. Rugby, Cricket & Tennis are all stop/start sports. Also the lack of communication that is given to everyone is really poor. Having a single sentence "Potential Offside" or "Potential Red Card" does nothing to the fans in the ground as to what decision is being looked at and how close it is. The offside rulings in the PL and their VAR is a joke! When I was an official for the semi-pro games, I would have been torn a new one from the assessor if I gave an offside when I wasn't in-line with play. All of the offside decisions were made at an angle where accuracy is going to be compromised.
I'd already mentioned my views about the slow-mo when reviewing incidents and the different views that the VAR is allowed to look at and give to the on field official. In my opinion, the same view or close to should be used at full speed where the official can view it no more than 3 times. On the pitch, he has one opportunity to view an incident that lasts for no more than 0.5 seconds and most of the time, they are correct in their judgement.
Comments
And every player and manager who have played the game at the highest level agreed that it wasn’t.
Ask who do you think knows the laws of the game better?
Agree with where you are coming from @eric_plant in that it is the rules rather than the perhaps the refs themselves. But referees do seem to stick together and back each other so not sure that part of your argument is too strong
This debate is not about knowledge of the laws because anyone can learn them, Knowing the laws is different to knowing the game. It’s about understanding when a player is deliberately trying to gain an advantage and when he isn’t.
BOOOOOORRRRRIIIINNNNGGG
Sorry, thought I was in the Euro 2024 thread.
I don't disagree, but "gaining an advantage" isn't relevant as the laws are written.
Campaign for changing the laws starts now.
That is an absolute irrelevance when it comes to the handball law. Doesn't even come into the consideration
Nor offside, as it happens
This is getting boring now. You have made it clear that you disagree with me so I will leave you to carry on defending the refereeing fraternity and leave the likes of Shearer and a host of others who played at the highest level to question the penalty awarded to Germany.
Just because you don't like the Law as its been drafted doesn't mean the referee has to ignore its provisions. However in my opinion the Law needs amending.
The one thing I dislike about VAR is the slow motion / frame by frame click through that they used. EVERYTHING looks worse at slow motion. VAR should look at incidents like the referees do to give an accurate representation
That's exacerbated in this tournament too with the little graph that shows over the replay. The Germany penalty was obviously bollocks, but the same 9 frames of video over and over again with a graph that's telling you it definitely hit a hand is such a narrow slice of the full story. When isolated like that there's apparently no option. Watch 90 frames instead of 9 and it's obviously not a penalty.
In general, having ten different angles on everything for replays led to VAR, as referee mistakes were always highlighted that much more, whereas at our level we often don't realize it was a mistake until afterwards.
The foul on Stryjek away to Portsmouth in the dying embers was a good example. In real time I thought it was a perfectly good goal, and it was only upon seeing a different angle later that it was obviously a foul. It was a bit easier to be philosophical, realizing that from the referee's angle it probably was not clear. But at the PL and international level, the multiple angles make it seem like the referee should have "surround vision".
The referee will always have a snapshot impression of an incident with sometimes vision obscured completely as a player runs across his eye line. If technology exists to give him “surround vision” on key decisions, why not use it?
Because it's ruining the game?
So I am told. Seems to have worked pretty well at this tournament to me.
Two of the problems with VAR include the removal of spontaneity from celebrations and destroying the flow of the game.
For me, the offside rule was never supposed to be a scientifically forensic rule, but a common sense rule against players gaining an advantage which could be administered through referee/lino observation.
For an example, if technology improved to where we could use satellites to zoom in so close that we could tell if a single cell of a player's body was offside, would we use it? After all, they would still be offside. That is an absurd example, but it is not too far past how I feel about toe-offsides.
I haven’t seen any evidence of spontaneity of celebrations being affected in this tournament. Bit of an urban myth.
However you define the offside rule, there will always be marginal calls. Either you accept the referee essentially guessing on those calls (usually in my experience in favour of the bigger team) or you can use technology to make it as objective as possible.
PL fans are pretty unanimous that VAR has massively affected celebrations, owing to possible VAR checks being in the back of the mind at all times.
If we are going to use video replay, we should at least use it to retroactively ban players who get opposition players carded by playacting, like Doku just did to Rabiot in the France-Belgium game.
Have you asked them all / roughly 800,000 a fortnight. Or are you relying on a noisy few? Have you seen evidence that spontaneity has been affected at this tournament. Cant say I have.
I notice you have ignored the offside point.
didn’t see the Doku incident.
I notice you've ignored Shev's question in order to pretend that he's ignored something he hasn't.
I don't understand how anyone can have watched a few of the games which have been blighted by horrible VAR interventions and not been pissed off
I'm sure a few of the prem clubs did a survey of their fans and the match going responses were overwhelmingly negative. Pretty sure spurs published theirs.
No, I stopped at 799,999 - there is this pesky Wolves fan who keeps ducking my calls!
Joking apart, I have seen the theme again and again. Maybe some fans love the uncertainty as to whether their goal will stand, but I doubt it. Not only that, but I feel the same way whenever I have bothered to watch the PL - a goal is scored and my first reaction is "oh, I wonder if there will be a reason to chalk that off?"
It's all subjective, I suppose, so I'll do the whole 'IMO' thing, but I just don't think football was meant for five minute breaks while the Zapruder film is examined for fingers brushing a ball in the build up to a goal. I understand the desire for accuracy, but there is just as much noise and controversy with VAR, so it is hard to see how it was worth the sacrifice.
Which question have I ignored?
I don't like VAR, give me good "old fashioned" referees and linemen making the calls and getting a few wrong during the course of a game.
It was always someone else to blame when things didn't turn out right. Could even blame them for correctly not giving the odd penalty or free kick too.
Generally I've seen the debate at this tournament being about offsides and handballs being given when pundits think it shouldn't. However, from what I've seen, they are disputing the law rather than VAR. Although even they can't always make that distinction so it's not surprising the average supporter gets in a state too.
To be fair, you'd need to watch football to know that
Amazing that Dev manages to get people interacting though. Even after all this time
To be honest, I think there was a swell of support for Wolves when they tabled the motion for the removal of VAR. Technology in Sport was always going to be a struggle as there isn't any natural stoppages in the game to allow for the technology to kick in and be effectively used. Rugby, Cricket & Tennis are all stop/start sports. Also the lack of communication that is given to everyone is really poor. Having a single sentence "Potential Offside" or "Potential Red Card" does nothing to the fans in the ground as to what decision is being looked at and how close it is. The offside rulings in the PL and their VAR is a joke! When I was an official for the semi-pro games, I would have been torn a new one from the assessor if I gave an offside when I wasn't in-line with play. All of the offside decisions were made at an angle where accuracy is going to be compromised.
I'd already mentioned my views about the slow-mo when reviewing incidents and the different views that the VAR is allowed to look at and give to the on field official. In my opinion, the same view or close to should be used at full speed where the official can view it no more than 3 times. On the pitch, he has one opportunity to view an incident that lasts for no more than 0.5 seconds and most of the time, they are correct in their judgement.