The assessment of how unfair it is really depends on your perspective. These things are only being addressed by a group of people (a committee) which isn't the same thing as to say, a group of people who know what's best to do. (As an example of how rickety that kind of assumption is to make - a similarly constituted committee awarded the World Cup to Qatar, etc, etc) It's impossible to say whether or not these issues impact matches to the same degree. Really impossible. (Yet you take it as an idiosyncratic starting point that it has been measured. It hasn't.) All that has actually happened is that things that are talked about more (offside and hand-ball rule breakage) have been decided upon as things to be addressed by VAR's designers.) All I can give about the importance of corner kick wrestling is personal experience, a view outward from the core, as it were. When I was left alone in the box and not grappled with, I was a far more dangerous proposition for defenders to try to deal with. I think I would have scored more goals or got into positions to control the ball in the area and assess dangerous options, more often had this not been the case (I'm certain of it actually). Would I have scored or assisted or landed into a dangerous position equally as many more times had all non-offside calls been reversed ... I really doubt it. Granted, that's just a personal perspective, but it is a truthful view of the matter. It just strikes me that you don't want to think that that grappling interference is important. Well, I also suppose, that another good way of looking at that would be to say that if it wasn't fulfilling some fairly important function for defenders, they wouldn't keep on doing it.
It should though, shouldn't it. After all, the goalkeeper is also only encroaching into the same no-go area (i.e., a particular rectangle).
It doesn't make sense in the origi moment. It only makes sense each and every time a scenario exists to activate a review. They abeyance comes into play. If you think that enjoyment is not encroached upon by this rubbish there is something wrong with your sensory apparatus.
These statements don't oppose each other, they show contradistinction. That point shouldn't have to be explained any clearer, but since you didn't get what its inference was - it was this: Ronaldo is such a big name and ego that refs are affected by him. Therefore, foul him in the box (in a manner that you know you would get away 99% of the time with when fouling zaq or Hobo in the box) at your peril. It will invariably be called. You know it will. The glaring foul in the Serbia game, had it been on Ronaldo, would have resulted in a penalty. We all know this. (and I keep going on about it because its glaring, not because I care about it, and you keep responding that I care about it! It exists as a thing to be analyzed. A perfect specimen item. That's all.) Now, assume that he is unknown as an ego and not a big World Superstar name, but defenders have seen him practising in the warm-ups - and you then get a situation where he is then held, every time, and he never scores the first or indeed the rest (or the majority of) of those 50+ header/overhead goals for Real and Portugal from corners, deep-free kicks, etc .... If you can't see how that speculation if made real would be unfair and affect the games, even triple-VAR-self-adjustment pills won't help ya ....
Depends on whether or not it impacts the scoreline -- for instance if the keeper was off their line but didn't save the pen, there would be no replay. No, it doesn't. Unlike you I don't want my club getting credit for bad goals, and likewise I don't want opponents scoring bad goals against my club. That feels much worse than brief stoppages, to me. I'm sure there will be a match in which there are a bunch of stoppages and many reviews... maybe even 4, 5, 6 full reviews? It could happen, at some point I'm sure it will. It probably already has, LFC and WBA had at least 3-4 reviews last season for instance. But this is the price you pay for getting more calls right and protecting the overall outcomes, which is something you don't value so I'm beyond expecting you to get it.
well, aren't you the one who is supposed to have read the rules? Either it does or it doesn't.... Or di d the geniuses forget to write that rule? Along with all the others....
No, we don't. It's not glaring, to me. It's a coming together of multiple players, it's physical but that's allowed, and considering the focus on VAR and the way it was being worked out during the WC, on that stage, it's not difficult to understand why they'd leave it as a no call. So... it's NOT glaring. Is my point. A poll of the incident at the time was basically split 50/50. So you can stop calling it an objectively glaring foul. We know YOU think it's a glaring foul and definite pen. Others disagree. Hence the no call.
What does or doesn't? I just said, it either is deemed to have an impact on the play/scoreline, or isn't. That's up to the ref to interpret.
I value it just as much as I value an honest effort by 4 officials to adjudicate. (are you going to now start to ascribe less value to the outcome of games in lower divisions that don't have VAR?? nonsense. I'm willing to bet that if we win by a bad goal it doesn't feel quite so bad tro most of us as it apparently does to you.... That's what we're in this for. To take whatever advantage fate allows and enjoy it .... Not to instantiate some application of absolute fairness.... and this ---- This is no argument at all.... ↑ ((The assessment of how unfair it is really depends on your perspective. No, it doesn't.)) Yes, is does - for the reasons pointed out and a cartload of others that could be equally referenced. It's very easily demonstrable that people can more easily score if not held onto, and that they certainly won't if firmly held onto. A 7 yr old could grasp that fact.
I'm talking about things that happen or have happened, and you're talking about things that could possibly happen according to your specific perspective... so we aren't really talking about the same thing anymore. Either way explaining it would just send us down another rathole, so it's not worth it. I just disagree, holding on corners and bad missed calls which actually, demonstrably result in badly allowed goals aren't the same kind of thing categorically for a whole host of reasons. You not seeing that or not agreeing, fine. Whatever.
That's insane. It was not a 50-50 foul, a position statement made even more ludicrous for a pollster to contend with when you see that he was fouled twice, by two different players! So, maybe it was a 25-25 - 25-25 (An aside on polls....) Polls in early 2003 in the US said that 80% of Americans thought that Iraq should be attacked for reasons of great and substantial clarity which later became opaque and unrecoverable memories. Polls rely on emotion and are wayy overrated IMO as tools to get at the Truth of anything, let alone whether someone in a football match was fouled. All polls said that Trump would lose, for example. Polls are often wrong. Certainly they are in the case of a 50-50 finding on that particular incident.... And another thing - if that incident wasn't such a big issue as you keep reminding me - why on Earth did anyone conduct a poll avbout it?? ffs??? Let's get back to real 50-50 calls though. The problem I have with the inherent unfairness (that I see) is that if you are Ronaldo or Salah you WILL get those calls. Most other players won't get them.That is mathematically and logically unfair. Fouling is determined to be going on, but the tipping point is in the referee's mind regarding star status. If one accepts those last statements to be the case then anyone in the beginning on a committee trying to come up with a set of parameters for VAR to look at in games in order to create fairness where it actually does matter (goals will result) is/was being highly disingenuous in not including this one. Which brings us again full circle - because we all know the reason why it wasn't included as VAR subject matter.... They were desperate to avoid any further straws anywhere near the camel's back....
I do see why you would think it. I just don't agree. (I also think that a lot of what VAR is fixing most people would be fine living with the opposite result of (given the law of averages). But you've all gone and gotten yourselves so worked up by the idea of rampant unfairness .... and the situation has been exxxagerrated by the really grevious instances that have opccurred in recent years, such as the Henry hand-ball against Ireland... which got everybody thinking more and more that something "had to be done" ... VAR has it's funny side though - Brazil v Venezuela yesterday...
Even if all your assertions were true, this last statement is a good thing. This is what I've been trying to tell you for a long time -- VAR doesn't attempt to tackle these things for very good reason. I've given the reasons why it wasn't included again and again, and if you'd read the principles of VAR, which are part of the rules, you might understand as well. No, it's about current technology granting the opportunity to do something. They figured out a technological system which decreases these specific kinds of bad/missed calls, and implemented it. Because they view these specific kinds of missed calls as actionable. That's why they have very specific rules outlining how and when VAR applies.
Break that down for us then. How many of those 55secs were for offside calls. When all the AR had to do was raise his flag and get on with the game. How many for erroneous PK calls that hit a players back or chest. We've seen CR7 sitting on the grass making TV motion and getting a PK review that backfired on him. Just total waste of time. 55 seconds at a time.
I don't know why it matters what percentage of the 55 average seconds was for offside calls specifically... the only time it's ever used for offside is to verify a goal, so those moments are kind of important. Either way the numbers say almost 60% of VAR time was for incidents relating to possible changing of the score... so 60% of that 55 seconds for offside rulings and pen rulings. Free kicks take on average almost 9 minutes. Throw-ins take an average of over 7 minutes. Goals kicks alone take on average almost 6 minutes. Substitutions take on average almost 3 minutes. All VAR on average takes 55 seconds. There's wastes of time all over the game.
ah - just what we need - more confusion ! different rules for different leagues / competitions !! https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/48703852 No VAR for keeper encroachment at penalties in Premier League Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) will leave such decisions to on-field officials. I guess we'll just have to get used to it. oh, what ?? WAIT!! "PGMOL could review the situation during the season." this would be bloody funny if it wasn't so ludicrous. that article has some good quotes from players: "It has never been easier, in the history of football, to score a penalty kick than it is now," "this is beyond ridiculous." "I think we're going to have this World Cup decided by VAR by inexperienced officials who haven't had the opportunity to work with this." "Football should decide this World Cup, not VAR." also the reader comments are blasting the hell out of this pen rule, and VAR in general.
I find it laughable that the pen taker can basically do a samba run-up, but the goal now isn't allowed to move an toe off the line. may as well say any foul in the area is a goal, and do away with the kick. holy christ, this whole thing pisses me off.
I have to call Total "Bullshit" on those averages. Some one eyed var freek or Donald Trump made those numbers up. FKs 9 minutes. So we've seen them at the lower end about 1 minute or less. That means the other end scale has to be totally freeking ridicules. That goes for all those numbers. 7 minutes for a throw in. Crap. That means anything between 30 seconds and 15 minutes. Then just 55 secs for var when we've seen times at 9 minutes and more. Meaning that some desisions are made in under 10 seconds. The time it takes the ref to run across the pitch to watch TV for a while. Absolute bullshit, yet you post this as the be all and end all of the argument!!!!!
LMAO I hadn't looked at those numbers but you're right. holy crap, if they were accurate each game would last about 6 fekkin hours !!! to reinforce your point, in each game you'll see throw ins that take about 10 seconds, and FKs that take about the same.
You might have been too quick. My phone thought I'd finished the message and replied before I was ready. (Bloody phones) then I added more, prolly when you were sending.
I'm pretty sure those numbers are the amount of time on average for the WHOLE game - i.e. all the goal kicks combined in a game take 6 minutes by the time the ball is retrieved, set down, and kicked by both keepers. 55 seconds is the average time added by VAR in total for a game. That's because VAR doesn't get used more than one or two times a game most likely.** Not sure why you guys think the numbers aren't correct or are made up. ** I agree that VAR sure seems to take a lot longer than an average of 55 seconds. See Dutch - Canada game today - 3+ mins in the first minute of the game.
Here's one to think on. Average stoppages in a game. Results showed that there is anaverage of 108 interruptions permatch. Throw-ins (40) and free kicks (33) were most frequent. Goal kicks (17), corner kicks(10), substitutions (4), and kickoffs (3) occurred less often. So 40 throw ins @ 7 mins. 28 minutes. 33 FKs @ 9 minutes. 297 minutes. 17 goal kicks @ 6 mins 102 mins. Quite a game so far, need I carry on?