A real pain in the butt - here we are trying to enjoy the moment of high drama when Korea scored and the waiting gets prolonged (even though the refs in the sky box) must be able to tell the ref on the field that the ball hit a German = so not off-side, but no - that's not enough - he has to trot over and look at it himself ....what would be wrong with having the ref agree without always having to go take a look himself.....
They can. It's expressly in the rules of VAR. Yes, agreed... the nature of the incident suggests he lost his head in general. It is a false dichotomy in terms of a discussion of addressing the way players are punished. There are multiple other outcomes that might improve things that have nothing to do with the false choice of "ref does job correctly" or "ref abdicates his responsibility". That's fine. Many, many, many other times you have made such an insinuation about these VAR rules, that they don't do a specific job or are arbitrary or whatever. I personally have listed the purpose of VAR many times, for you then to assert that they are arbitrary. They aren't, just as when a ref misses a fairly obvious red card offense -- or when 10 refs miss 10 reds -- that doesn't then make the rules about what constitutes a sending off "arbitrary". Should things be ironed out, absolutely. That's in large part what this kind of tournament can help define. Until then, we'll just have to deal with an extra 2 minutes per match and a majority of close calls made correctly. Oh, darn. Yes, this is clear. You don't care that many more calls will be made correctly, and I do. That's one of the absolute most important things, more important than entertaining matches, more important than players feelings, more than the "cosmetics" or aesthetics as you say... more important than everything but the actual health and safety of participants. #IMO Because it's a ********ing stupid rule that accomplishes absolutely nothing. What's the argument for keeping it? The same sentiment as this other crap, "it's the way it's been". Well that's not good enough.
Again - this is also a misunderstanding - what I'm saying is arbitrary is not VAR but rather the making of the decision to only apply VAR to certain types of fouling. The fact that it's designers refuse to prescribe its usage to overturn calls that the refs didn't see or put much heed to, such as the silliness surrounding corner kicks. That is arbitrary decision making about enforcing the rules. Picking and choosing. Yes, ii's for the benefit of everyone's general sanity, I will admit, but arbitrary nonetheless. If that is the case why do you then tell me you don't really care about all the fouls that don't get called at corner kicks. VAR could fix it. All that would be lost is time. Time isn't as important as (and I quote you here: " the absolute most important things, more important than entertaining matches " You seem to want to have it both ways. (I don't really care about those corner kick tomfooleries either btw, so there's no dichotomy in my application of this view. I only bring them up in order to make a point.)
One final thing - Alan Shearer here (in the end of the 2nd minute) says VAR was brought in to eliminate the Maradona Handball and the Thierry Henry handball. Based on what you are saying, surely it can't do this under the present rules. If the ref did not see these things then he can't be overruled - you just said? Right. They can call him about a dangerous or violent play but not about a standard foul? So Shearer is actually wrong here, yes?
Why have a minute's silence for anyone or anything? Accomplishes absolutely nothing. But what harm does it do? Maybe some player should demand they get on with the game so he can get home later a minute earlier. Or maybe they could just leave things that are okay alone. Why have the players wearing shorts - it accomplishes nothing either - another silly rule. Some will want to for the coolness factor. Some, like me, would rather wear trainers. Why have corner flags? Do they have any purpose other than for birds to perch on? Why paint the goals white if there is a cheaper color paint available? Why have a referee's uniform? Let them wear whatever they like, so long as its different from the teams, what does it matter? Or, again, things could just be left alone that are harmless..... We have an investment in keeping the rules we grew up watching insofar as they aren't a hindrance to anything else. in fact, why have kickoffs with possession. Why not have the ref just kick the ball up into the air..... That would be fairer.
This is not a thing, VAR doesn't do this. I don't know what the ******** you're talking about. How can VAR only apply to things "the ref didn't see" when VAR has been used in this tournament to overturn a bad penalty called by a ref and correctly change the recipient of a card which was given by a ref? What are you talking about? That quote is in reference to major blown calls that change scorelines, not foul/physicality in general. Regardless of that, I've said many times in this thread: corner kicks are an ugly grey area of the game that needs addressing. VAR isn't the solution because of the nature of the problem. If you have some ideas how to address it, I'd discuss them. This is wrong. This is the problem when you don't read the rules and try commenting on something. VAR doesn't automatically overrule the ref. Hand of God is for sure reviewable, dunno about the quality of the video at the time... Henry in WCQ is also reviewable under the rules, and due to overwhelming evidence and the egregious nature of the incident (and quality of tech, the commentators knew it was a bad goal to allow at the time) I have little doubt it would have been disallowed.
Why change the pass-back rule, zaq? Why use electronic scoreboards? Why use magic spray? Why have a 4th official at all? Why build big massive stands, shouldn't it be a small community game? Why put the games on TV at all? Predictably, you are asking the wrong questions. You can change anything with no reason... the question is, what is the REASON for changing something when you change it?
Well, that's the point. In this case - there's no concrete reason, other than that it can be changed. What other reason was there? All those things have a pretty good reason for someone changing them to this current state from whatever they were before. But there's no reason that I can see in the functionality of the game that the particular annoying rule change I am referring to was made, other than just that it could be made. as to the other stufff.... Deceased people are unaware of the respect. So it is utterly pointless. But I have nothing against it. It's a cultural thing. As (used to be) starting Association football with a forward pass inside the circle. Why change it just because it is meaningless the way it's done? There's no need to change it. btw/Black goals would stand out wayyyyy more than white. Yellow would also totally stand out. Also - and there's no disputing this one, either color would help to totally differentiate the joined white areas where the white posts meet the white lines on the pitch. Surely, with your interest in getting to clarity you would be in favor of (or at least could not be against this). It would probably actually be somewhat better for safety also as it would help sliding players see the object clearer to avoid collisions... I think this is my last comment on this. (Other than to do with my question below)
Because games are played by the players, which gives that rule one more use than the "kickoffs must go forward" rule. They are until there's a need to play a hop-ball.... So - Same difference.....
There are not any other outcomes. Not to belabor the point too much, but what you say is incorrect insofar as the discussion is referenced - so I added a bit.... So, that said - within any given game at this point in time there are only two choices..... Given a situation where a referee is insulted. He has two choices only. What can or could be done to change this situation from the outside is not relevant, insofar as that one of his choices already gives him the power to effect a punishment should he choose to. Sure we could give him a third option, or a fourth and a fifth, but as to any actual footballing incident we can reference he did not have these options and therefore demonstrably chose to act in punishment or to let it slide. This was his (flawed or not) choice, not yours, not mine, not determinism. He is not a 6 yr old. He knows what he should do. Of course there's always a possible other option that can be designed (just like my zany black or yellow goals). The criminal justice system could decide that instead of only custodial sentencing and probation they would offer a third option of freedom if you donate a kidney or an iris, etc ... They don't, but they could. Based on that, are we now supposed to consider this possibility and all others in any discussion of the merits of custodial sentencing vs probations????
The reason to change it is that it is honored not in spirit, only in terms of letter of law... which makes it a bad rule! So since there's no reason for it to exist, if we are talking about the passback rule, it was changed... unlike ALL the other stuff you mentioned, including changing the color of the goal. White works fine and stands out just fine. It's doing its job. What job was the passback rule doing? It was doing nothing, so it doesn't work fine... it's pointless considering the way the modern game is played. See the difference? I was talking about something else, in which a "ref does job" or "ref doesn't do job" is a false choice. "Use current rules or you aren't doing your job" aren't the only two options when it comes to player punishment OVERALL. That's all I'm saying. If we were talking about two different things, that's fine. But that's what I'm talking about. Yeah I'm fine with this. But the point remains punishment remains difficult with only these two options, well-illustrated by delaynomo's comparison to death for jaywalking, and that dilemma makes it perfectly logical to look for ways to improve the way refs can dish out punishment for the betterment of the game overall. You don't have to like it... but that doesn't make your suggestions for illogical/pointless changes relevant. They aren't relevant. Wanting to improve punishment or limit missed big calls is logical; taking the ref out of a uniform or taking away corner flags is NOT logical. See the difference? There's lots wrong with judicial/correctional systems... I think any logical improvements should be considered, and in a more elevated society I think they would be. Since we are talking about a game that isn't caught up in the incredibly complicated entanglements and political red tape of the prison system, those considerations should be even more forthcoming IMO.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/44633816 The introduction of VAR (video assistant referees) has added to the excitement of this World Cup, bringing drama to games where there may otherwise have been none. The new technology has certainly had an impact at both ends of the pitch, contributing to more penalties having been awarded in the group stages in Russia than in the entirety of any of the previous 32-team World Cups, as illustrated in the below graphic. There have been 24 penalties awarded during the group stage of Russia 2018, already more than in all of the previous five completed tournaments Love it or hate it, you can't deny that VAR has kept things interesting.
https://www.independent.co.uk/sport...sion-latest-video-jonathan-liew-a8422916.html A very good piece in the Independent. It starts a bit slow - description of how cricket changed to adapt to VAR-type rules - but sidesteps the totally-tedious "is it good, or is it bad??" stuff to look ahead at changes VAR could make to the game overall. very interesting. here's a sample: My tentative prediction is that VAR will quickly erode two of football’s tacit conventions: that non-violent infringements off the ball almost always go unpunished, and that the benefit of the doubt in penalty-box challenges generally goes to the defending team. Grappling in the penalty area will eventually ebb away; it will become harder to impede the run of an attacking player in the area; and so over time, the cross and especially the set piece – such a lucrative source of goals during this World Cup – will grow exponentially in importance. It may, indeed, become the key method of scoring, much as it is in field hockey. But of course, it won’t stop there. With the corner becoming such a potent weapon, attacking teams may start actively trying to win them. The traditional winger could make a resurgence. Defending teams, now hyper-wary of giving away corners or close-range free-kicks, may in turn seek to defend deeper and in greater numbers, favouring the block and the interception over the tackle and 50-50 challenge. Long-ball football could come back into fashion, as teams seek to induce panic in the area and perhaps win a cheap penalty. In the medium term, however, expect defenders to adapt and thrive, developing new and more sophisticated ways of deterring danger without necessarily winning the ball outright. Meanwhile, it’s possible to see more handballs being given, as the traditional benefit of the doubt enjoyed by defenders gives way to the gradual realisation that virtually no defensive stance in the history of the game could ever be described as a “natural position”. And indeed, replaying any incident in slow motion strips it of context, magnifies every split second, marries the granular cross-examination of detail with the heft of real-time motion. Slowed down by a factor of 12, even the most simple of shoulder barges begins to look like a violent assault. What about ethics? It was originally thought that VAR might help eradicate diving; the evidence so far, in all but the most obvious cases, suggests the opposite. Given that the rules do not distinguish between degrees of contact, players now have an incentive to exaggerate any contact as much as possible. The mass, hectoring appeal also appears to be in the ascendant, with players surrounding the referee after every contentious incident making those cute little box gestures, and will continue unchecked until the introduction of the sort of team-based referral system seen in cricket or American football. Of course, none of this might come to pass. Or all of it. Or some of it. The point is that football is embarking on a journey whose destination we can’t possibly know yet. In basketball, the introduction of the three-second defensive violation rule in 2001-02 ended up having a profound impact on the centre position, hastening the decline of the traditional 7ft ‘big man’. In Formula One or rugby union, meanwhile, incessant rule tweaks – each often a direct reaction to the last – have become an ingrained part of the sport’s culture, a kitsch annual ritual, like the Hollywood actor who has had so many facelifts that nobody can remember what they originally looked like. Is VAR good or bad for the game? In many ways, it’s a moot point. The lesson of all sport – of the world, really – is that the thread of technological progress only ever unravels in one direction. And if all this seems bewildering, discomforting, even a little sinister, then relax: as the game adapts, so do we, effortlessly, instinctively. Today’s tumult will become tomorrow’s second nature. Today’s lava flow is tomorrow’s rich soil. And for all the short-term drama and disgruntlement in the short term, one day we may realise that technology has given us the greatest of gifts: a chance to see football not the way we have been conditioned to see it, but the way it really is.
What a long winded bunch of f **kin gobblegoop. Only matched by posts from hobo and Zaq. Several times they called it "Technology". 4 people watching telly and giving their "Subjecive Opinion" Is not technology!!! Yes it's new, and for people who don't really understand football it might be exiting. Like it or not it's been foisted on us. Warts and time wasting and all. After the games I'd like to see how much time was wasted while this "Technology" upheld the refs call on the pitch.
erm, a bit of an over-reaction there scouse mate? it isn't gobbledygook at all - it's pretty reasonable analysis / prognostication. rule changes have long-term effects as teams make adjustments. what's wrong with saying that? you can disagree with their predictions but at least it's not a "VAR is great--no it is pure crap!" debate. their example: if VAR is gonna seriously reduce (forget "eliminate") wrestling at corners, what will the result of that be? (apart from putting Skrtel out of a job that is). right now, a low % of goals come as a direct result of a corner. will that % go up? quite possibly, either due to less impeding or VAR-given pens. not an unreasonable thing to think about .... and if that does happen, getting more corners will = more goals so teams will try to do that? OK so now we need to debate the living bejesus out of this for a few hundred pages. Over to you ....
seeing all the pens saved yesterday raises an obvious question .... how long will it be before a goalie leaving the line and saving a pen will be outlawed by VAR? now THAT would raise the noise level related to VAR!
Not me. I'm satisfied with my subjective opinion of their subjective opinion. I've said that Var is in. That it's NOT technology. That withholding offside calls is causing injuries and gaining penalties. No, I've said what I need to say. Except that if someone had decided to follow football just from this World Cup then the Saaker 101 you hear from fox may help.
no it's not "technology" per se, but I don't think the semantics really matters. I haven't seen many (any?) offside calls being withheld, but I haven't watched that many games tbh. I don't get Fox coverage, or if I do I sure as hell don't watch it. why the hell commentators feel the need to fill every goddamn second with their prattle is beyond me. thank god for the mute button. spoilsport.
what's the point of it all really, Harry Kane fouls a guy, gets fouled back and gets a penalty (reviewed, I think? - I don't know anymore). The only possible call there should be a free out, surely.....