Premier League Thread 2023/2024

[dsr-burnley]

2 hours ago, Vlad the Fox said:

Offside are black and white though, even if you don’t like the tightness of some calls it’s on or off. But tonight is why var will never work, the decisions are far too subjective, it’ll never be right, the cost, disruption and spoilt enjoyment of the game caused by var isn’t worth it for the small amount of devious it gets right. 
 

I have to say it’s an absolute joy to watch football this season without its interruptions, and I can accept a bad decision when a ref has one look. When someone has numerous looks at numerous angles and a few minutes to make a decision and still get it wrong is not acceptable, and it’s happening every week.

It isn't, though.  When the law was changed in 1990 it was specific in the laws that it was to give the forward an advantage that being level was now onside not offside, and they surely didn't mean by the odd 1/100th of an inch.  And in guidance to referees (Lancashire version at least), it was explicit that "level" meant level to normal eyesight, not to feet or knees.  The wording as close as I remember it was "I a player looks level, then he is level".

 

They had two options for offside with VAR.

 

Option 1 - apply the rule in the same was as it has been since 1990, which means a VAR check would consist only of looking at a still photo, taking 5 seconds.  If the linesman isn't obviously wrong, then he's right.

 

Option 2 - apply the rule to the nearest inch (regardless of whether technology can handle that degree of accuracy, but that's another issue.)  If they do it to the nearest inch, there are three major effects on the game.

1 - goal celebrations are delayed for up to 2 minutes while they draw their little lines.

2 - half of the goals that were previously allowed as level, are now disallowed.

3 - judgement of close offsides by a linesman is made literally impossible so he has to wait and let the game play on before disallowing goals several seconds in arrears.

 

The powers that be love VAR much more than they love football, which is why they chose option 2.

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, Asha said:

People really think Forest will go down?

 

Sure, they don't look great, but they're 6 points clear of the drop after 5 games having already played Arsenal, Man United and Chelsea away.

 

Where the hell are any of Sheff Utd, Everton, Burnley or Luton getting six points from? 

 

Forest are safe already. 

 

Even if none of these beat Derby's record, I'm convinced there will be a record low points tally required to finish 17th this year.

At risk of taking you literally, Sheff U, Everton, Burnley and Luton play 12 games against each other with a minimum of 24 points to be had.  That's 6 each.  And now that we've got one of Forest, that makes 25 minimum!  

[Dan LCFC]

Yeah they won't drop. It was stronger last year and they were weaker, and they still came 16th. It seems their luck is never ending - the fact that trio went up is luck in itself.

[Vlad the Fox]

7 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

It isn't, though.  When the law was changed in 1990 it was specific in the laws that it was to give the forward an advantage that being level was now onside not offside, and they surely didn't mean by the odd 1/100th of an inch.  And in guidance to referees (Lancashire version at least), it was explicit that "level" meant level to normal eyesight, not to feet or knees.  The wording as close as I remember it was "I a player looks level, then he is level".

 

They had two options for offside with VAR.

 

Option 1 - apply the rule in the same was as it has been since 1990, which means a VAR check would consist only of looking at a still photo, taking 5 seconds.  If the linesman isn't obviously wrong, then he's right.

 

Option 2 - apply the rule to the nearest inch (regardless of whether technology can handle that degree of accuracy, but that's another issue.)  If they do it to the nearest inch, there are three major effects on the game.

1 - goal celebrations are delayed for up to 2 minutes while they draw their little lines.

2 - half of the goals that were previously allowed as level, are now disallowed.

3 - judgement of close offsides by a linesman is made literally impossible so he has to wait and let the game play on before disallowing goals several seconds in arrears.

 

The powers that be love VAR much more than they love football, which is why they chose option 2.

With the advancement of technology, semi automated, those decisions are going to get quicker and and more accurate. But regardless of how tight the call is it is definitive and can’t favour a team unlike decisions on fouls, handballs ect which are subjective and one persons opinion is then changed by another persons opinion in the var booth and still seems to favour the greedy six (most likely subconsciously) because of the pressure they know they’ll come under if the decision is wrong. 

[goose2010]

10 hours ago, Super_horns said:

Yea but then if an obvious offside for example went against you would be pretty frustrated.

 
However some of the others decisions are far too subjective and inconsistent like handball etc.

That's where VAR should be used, Clear and Obvious. If you have to draw a line to see if someone is offside, it shouldnt be given as it isnt a clear and obvious mistake. 

 

Not one of the ones i have seen in the past few weeks have been clear mistakes. 

 

Take that handball last night. If that had been given no one would have questioned it. Not one player appealed for handball. 

 

 

[Bordersfox]

1 hour ago, goose2010 said:

That's where VAR should be used, Clear and Obvious. If you have to draw a line to see if someone is offside, it shouldnt be given as it isnt a clear and obvious mistake. 

 

Not one of the ones i have seen in the past few weeks have been clear mistakes. 

 

Take that handball last night. If that had been given no one would have questioned it. Not one player appealed for handball. 

 

 

Frank had it right on Sky.  No common sense is being applied by officials in the use of VAR.  

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, Vlad the Fox said:

With the advancement of technology, semi automated, those decisions are going to get quicker and and more accurate. But regardless of how tight the call is it is definitive and can’t favour a team unlike decisions on fouls, handballs ect which are subjective and one persons opinion is then changed by another persons opinion in the var booth and still seems to favour the greedy six (most likely subconsciously) because of the pressure they know they’ll come under if the decision is wrong. 

But that's presupposing that the "offside is level" rule was causing such large scale aggravation and accusations of favouring one team, that the disruption caused by the long delays and the rest is worth it.  I don't think that was ever true except to the extent that a section of fans who are robbed will always feel it was deliberate cheating by the ref.

 

They don't need to abolish VAR for offside, just judge it by the same laws as they use in the Championship.  Judge it by eye. based on body position and not toenails and eyebrows.

[goose2010]

5 minutes ago, Bordersfox said:

Frank had it right on Sky.  No common sense is being applied by officials in the use of VAR.  

The problem is they have set a precedent. If that doesn't get disallowed now Cooper and Forest would lose their mind. 

 

The only way they get around it is scrap it in this form and start again. 

[Finnegan]

2 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

They don't need to abolish VAR for offside, just judge it by the same laws as they use in the Championship.  Judge it by eye. based on body position and not toenails and eyebrows

 

Slight quibble, if they judged it the same way they judged in the Championship then you'd be flagged off for starting your run about ten yards onside but that's a different moan. 

 

I'm pretty vocally passionate about being pro-VAR (or at least, pro technology) when it comes to offside. But I do actually agree that we don't need to take it down to the millimeter. 

 

I'd be happy if the wording of the law essentially said that if its not immediately obvious from the freeze frame then the benefit goes to the attacker and that basically no VAR check for offside should take more than a few seconds glance. 

 

I want VAR (or "technology") for offside to stop linesmen making mistakes where people are miles off or onside and they just missed it or couldn't keep up with play. I think it's essential we have that. But I do agree that they took it far too far. 

 

I'd apply the same logic to trips for things like penalties. "Clear and obvious" was supposed to be, yes, you can clearly see the defender's foot kicks the leg" not "three pixels of his stud grazed Mo Salah's shin pad ergo Mo couldn't possibly have dived it must be a pen."

[fuchsntf]

16 hours ago, whoareyaaa said:

I don't know how they can be considered a big club they had a spell in 1985 to 1987 after that one FA Cup.

Please read.."They were "

Is what I wrote..

[filbertway]

With how much it costs to have VAR, I'm coming to the conclusion that they're looking to be as involved in the game as possible to make it seem like value.

 

Really not a fan of this re-refereeing of the game and going into absolutely minute details (which then still leads to contentious decisions)

 

For me, if you can't tell within 10 seconds of having access to replays then there's nothing clear and obvious to mention. It's absolutely suffocating the life and enjoyment out the game. It's becoming a real chore to watch games where they have VAR.

 

Wish they'd ditch it if they're not willing to use it to the benefit of the game.

[Zear0]

Now it's been introduced I can't see it ever being rolled back.  One of the problems they have is that pre-VAR,  MOTD and Sky Sports basically did the same forensic analysis of decisions and lambasted officials for getting stuff wrong.  It's infuriating when it's someone's laces offside, but if a time limit is introduced, all that will happen is analysts will say "well if they just had an extra 10 seconds they'd have spotted that".  It's still for me the lesser of two evils when applied to offside.

 

For the judgemental stuff I agree it's gone beyond the pale.  Really need to limit to absolute howlers like off the ball violent conduct and dangerous tackles.  Yesterday's handball was a joke, after seeing it a few times I couldn't say 100% it was handled.  So much for benefit of the doubt to the striker.

[pmcla26]

1 hour ago, Zear0 said:

Yesterday's handball was a joke, after seeing it a few times I couldn't say 100% it was handled.  

It clearly was controlled by Berge into his path with his bicep.

[Wortho]

1 hour ago, Zear0 said:

Now it's been introduced I can't see it ever being rolled back.  One of the problems they have is that pre-VAR,  MOTD and Sky Sports basically did the same forensic analysis of decisions and lambasted officials for getting stuff wrong.  It's infuriating when it's someone's laces offside, but if a time limit is introduced, all that will happen is analysts will say "well if they just had an extra 10 seconds they'd have spotted that".  It's still for me the lesser of two evils when applied to offside.

 

For the judgemental stuff I agree it's gone beyond the pale.  Really need to limit to absolute howlers like off the ball violent conduct and dangerous tackles.  Yesterday's handball was a joke, after seeing it a few times I couldn't say 100% it was handled.  So much for benefit of the doubt to the striker.

I think the ball might have brushed the players shirt. Supposedly, it has to has to be deliberate or seeking to gain an advantage.

I think it was very harsh.

[StanSP]

Big shame, as he's a good player in general, not just for Brentford and how they play 

 

 

[StanSP]

Sunday 6pm kick offs and more Friday/Monday night games to be added in the next TV rights package... 

[Corky]

Precisely what nobody wants.

[Super_horns]

28 minutes ago, Corky said:

Precisely what nobody wants.

But who cares about the fans…

[StanSP]

This hasn't gone down well with Villa fans at all 

 

 

[Super_horns]

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

This hasn't gone down well with Villa fans at all 

 

 

Due to the cost I guess .

 

Another money making scheme.

[foxile5]

15 hours ago, Corky said:

Precisely what nobody wants.

Actually - it would probably suit foreign fans a lot better. And that's who this is about.

 

Remember this : the plan is to Americanise the sport. This is just the groundwork. 

[purpleronnie]

3 hours ago, StanSP said:

This hasn't gone down well with Villa fans at all 

 

 

Love how they spin it as 'fan-focused' yet Hibs fans visiting the other week were faced with bans on flags, drums, etc etc...And had stewards and police on their backs from the moment they arrived.  Great fan experience that, Hibs fans were glad to get back to scotland.

[Jaspa]

Ivan Perisic has done his ACL

[EnderbyFox]

 

Ugh how annoying is it that Spurs have a thoroughly likeable manager

[Super_horns]