The very very circular VAR Thread

Of course it was reviewed, those decisions are always reviewed.

VAR is not merely technology, to usscouse's point... he's right. But "technology" alone will not decrease the bad calls that change the outcome of matches because of the nature of the calls in question. That will only come from rules changes, which need to be interpreted every time by someone. So fine, if you don't care about more calls being spotted and corrected, that's okay. You can watch recordings of matches from the 1980s. The rest of us will enjoy the games that are called more correctly.

People wrote very similar articles about the initial large changes to the offside rule. I'm sure there were probably a bunch of dudes bitching about changing the keeper/passback rule, too. Hell, if they were old enough they were whining about keepers wearing gloves and those "whippersnappers" wearing neon boots. People love complaining!

 

I'm all for changing rules that have a measurably beneficial effect. The back pass was a great change. The offside rule has been effed about with too much - to arrive at this point where it now needs some more mucking about with to get it more sensible (IMO). How are teams supposed to defend a line when they don't know which of the more advanced opposing shirts isn't going to bother to get going to

Back to our other discussion of the changed rule with the forward kick-off. I can think of one good reason for it to have not been changed - since your argument for it rests on the case that it can't possibly make any difference to anything. Just for this scenario I say it should have been retained. In a cup final or knockout play-off when a team scores late in stoppage time to come to within a goal of the other team, if the kick off has to be played forward to another player on your team inside the centre circle (as was the case), it allows for the chasing team to immediately gather into a press situation where they can pressure the ball and maybe win it back and mount one final attack. Allowing the other team to just hoof the ball immediately back to their goalkeeper pretty much kills off the chance of a quick overturning of possession.

So - on that basis - for the exciting good of the game, that one could have been left alone.

 

No, it’s a pointless stupid rule. The winning team can just have a teammate right next to kickoff and “hoof it back to the goalkeeper” — your situation, in which a team scores and needs the ball back and goes into a press and is benefitted by the pass forward rule? That’s not a real situation that can happen... there is basically zero benefit gained by the defending team due to the pass forward at kickoff rule, the most “benefit” they get is an extra .07 seconds reaction time before the guy sends it back to keeper. That’s why it’s stupid, and now gone.

The “measurable beneficial effect” of VAR is games are called more accurately overall, especially on a long enough timeline. This is obvious and has been stated here many times. That’s why it’s inevitable. But they do need to nail down the communication rules and transparency better... which is what will happen before it’s in the prem.

 

I’ve wondered the same thing Sam...but I’d prefer just the opposite...I’d prefer that the ref never left the field to review the play - that is what the VAR guys are for...it just prolongs the break from the game...

 

Haha

I see your point and agree to a certain extent...(I do want them to get it right)... maybe that is why I am against VAR as a “whole”...I do think the ref on the field should have ultimate “control” over the game...but I really don’t want the 2-5 minute delays while he goes off the field to have another look...I’m pretty sure that is where we are headed...once they start throwing commercials into the VAR timeouts though...

 

I have to disagree with your logic about that rule not killing the best chance of a team chasing a game late on:
You hardly ever see any kick off receiving player get around a ball and hoof it back in the manner you are suggesting that it is easy and quick to achieve. That's because it isn't. It's because the 2nd player to touch the ball (under the old rule) is by definition behind it. To get it going backward he would have to circumnavigate its position and then hoof it. All of this while being charged at by the opposition since the moment of the first player's touch. Other opposition players are also streaming into the defensive half. Kicking a ball loosely to get it back as far as possible in that situation is essentially kicking it blind with respect to knowledge of putting it near where an attacking runner might be. Mostly (from what I've seen over the years, the ball ends up being passed back to an open player a little bit behind the 2nd kick-off player, and already the opposition are pressing.
So, given that as I said, the 2nd player to touch the ball has to take the time to circumnavigate it to play it back over any great distance, the scenario I stated was quite valid for not changing the rule, because it DOES affect the game in this (albeit rather minimal) manner.

Of course, as I said, in general, there was no damn need to change the rule anyway.
Here's one: When the crowd is whistling like crazy players sometimes can't hear the ref's whistle. In big tournament sport the money is there to install a loud stadium speaker buzzer controlled by a ref's hand-button that honks instead of a whistle. The crowd can't duplicate that. Under your methodology of fixing the game that kind of thing should be instituted. Under my view I say, leave it alone, we'll get by with not hearing the whistle occasionally.

 

The rule does nothing; pinging the ball back to a CM so that THEY can then "hoof it to the keeper" in your very specific, very ludicrous proposed scenario doesn't give the team that needs to score again some "opportunity" to somehow press and possibly win the ball back because it was tapped forward. This is a painfully silly point. But I do love that you're sticking up for the forward pass rule because it gives the losing team in a very specific situation a half-a-second advantage... but you dismiss VAR despite it demonstrably catching more bad calls, which is simply a greater reason to exist than your half-second-advantage-for-desperate-teams-in-stoppage-time thing. That's very interesting.

Your other point, about a "speaker-honk" or whatever, is predictably completely unnecessary in the game and thus not analogous to VAR at ALL. There are no real overall issues, despite perhaps a handful of incredibly rare edge cases, in which players don't know what's happening or can't hear the ref's whistle. It's really not a problem, not a relevant issue to fix, and pretending it is something which impacts the game illustrates either your obtuseness, or an inability to actually compare things honestly -- VAR has fixed numerous calls in the World Cup already, and in terms of net value it's way ahead of the game despite some of its "misses" and a few moments of controversy. How many times have there been real issues that significantly impacted the match because of "whistle confusion" in the same competition? Oh, never? Okay. So once more, your point is well off-topic/irrelevant.

Anyways, agree to disagree all over.

 

I don't. I think this is one of the elements of VAR that should definitely be ironed out.

But the reality remains sometimes there is confusion on the pitch due to the nature of a 50/50 call, sometimes players complain. This will not go away with VAR, the commentators complaining afterward will not go away either. What will happen, as has happened in the World Cup, is more calls -- not all, but more than without VAR -- will be gotten correct because the tech will spot something that human eyes do/can not.

Could say the exact same thing about the linesmen calling an offside that the ref didn't see.

 

IT takes quite a bit longer to pass the ball to a person who has to move forward, turn and then pass it back to someone else who is reasonably near (say 10 - 15 meters), who then also must execute some kind of turn to allow him to whack it back to the keeper safely, than the instantaneous miracle you are describing. A team with a couple of players like Salah and Mane could conceivably create a panicky possession situation in this few moments.

I repeat - it is not inconceivable.

True - it was all that I could conceivably come up with to refute the assertion that there is no possible effect that that particular rule change could have on any game.
But It is a possible effect, however painful a scenario you feel it to be.
Given that, why change the rule? Either it's inconceivable, or it isn't.

(Yes, it's obvious that I ********ing hate that particular rule change. Really annoyed by it. I don't like FiFa messing with the parameters of the game I enjoy when it isn't in some manner necessary. I'll grant you that stuff like VAR can easily be claimed as necessary. But this cosmetic cr@p I am absolutely against. Even if it conformed for me to the absolute idea that it could have no possible effect on the game's outcome I would still object. Surely there's an aesthetic value that underlies the spectacle that could (and should) be left alone for it's own sake)

 

That was not meant as being a change example analogous to VAR. It was meant as a change like the kick-off change (insofar as to its being near droolingly, idiotically pointless).

 

Yes, obviously.

No significant advantage is granted by this proposition of yours, in which a pressing team that's chasing a game in extra time that needs 2 goals, and scores 1, and then could possibly benefit from some pair of idiots that take 3-4 seconds to kick the ball back to their keeper while they rush in to try and press to win the ball back to start another attack or whatever. Saying or suggesting it was changed for no reason is being almost purposefully obtuse.

That said, I always am willing to listen to a sound, logical argument, and if you have one for keeping the passback rule or for keeping out VAR in the long-term, I remain open to them.

Getting rid of a rule that does practically nothing is not the same as changing a rule that works perfectly fine for no reason. Those are categorically different things.

 

It's a discussion board. Don't like it, don't comment. I'm not just going to let his bad argument/s stand because it bores you. Sorry. Unfollow the thread if it's so unbearable.

It's winding down now anyways.

 

I agree. They are categorically different.

However (VAR aside - which I have agreed is a thing that people are not wrong for reasonably trying to implement, once they decide to try - I wouldn't), as far as the other rule changes go, my bringing up the possibility of the three incapable idiots possibly not getting the ball back to their keeper safely before a team with a front five of mane, salah, mbappe, theirry henry and ronaldo maraude at full speed into their half, speaks directly to the chink in the reasoning for your allowing the rule change.
Which is displayed in your sentence above.
To meet the criterion it should do absolutely nothing. It does, as you state "practically nothing".

 

It's hardly a completely bad argument. btw / I'm not sure you ever answered the bit about (In the interest of fairness and not giving a possessing Spanish type team an advantage) if supposing they decided to have the referee kick the ball up in the air and let both teams challenge it, instead of having kick-offs...

I recall your answer as being something along the lines of "players play the game, not referees, so that wouldn't work" and I pointed out that it works just fine for a drop ball situation, so that's not an answer to rectifying the disadvantage that a possession team gets by giving them the ball from such a whimsical thing as a coin toss.

Just as with the issues with VAR, I don't really care enough about this to want to see this rectified, but I would have assumed that you would. And there's the answer. I prefer kick-offs. They have no intrinsic meaning, just as having to do them kicking the ball forward has no intrinsic meaning......

 

What's the reason to implement the change, for the ref to "kick the ball up in the air?"

The fact that there is no reason is common sense enough to not do that. You can't just throw something out that isn't relevant, and is a pointless, ridiculous change, and compare it to VAR or the changing the pass-forward rule, which are changes that were both for really good reasons (but are categorically different changes). That's what makes a bad argument.

Actually, it doesn't... first of all there's no chink in my argument, because my argument is that this rule doesn't have any real impact on the game as a whole, and that is objectively true, which is why it's gone. Secondly, "practically nothing" might as well be nothing since we aren't talking about mathematical proofs or something that is exact. To you, any dumb edge case you can come up with is enough of a reason to give something some utility, and thus makes changing it "arbitrary". But that's simply not a sensible point of view, and the proof of that is these extreme edge cases you've brought up.

So since the pass-forward rule does almost nothing it's a perfectly reasonable thing to excise from the game. Almost is enough in certain extreme cases, and your example is incredibly extreme. That's what makes it a bad argument.

 

Another 50/50 call in the final. To me, it's a pen that was called correctly only because of VAR, but to many others it should never be called. People were wildly split on whether this is a pen or not on social media; unfortunately the nature of the 50/50 play and the difficulty getting everyone to agree about them will persist, with or without VAR.

This ref used a tool to take a look, and got the call correct IMO. And France were a worthy champion and deserved the win on the day. Great tournament in the end.

 

What's the reason to implement the change, for the ref to "kick the ball up in the air?"

The fact that there is no reason is common sense enough to not do that.

I already said the reason -
It gives both teams the same chance of winning the ball? At the start of the game when no one is tired....
Yes, flimsy it is - but it is a reason. It's not anything that could be deemed as having a pressing need to be changed.
But neither was the forward kick rule. That was (notwithstanding your argument that it was meaningless as was) it did at least have historical meaning, which is also something.

But what exactly happened? Did you see my question on the actual world cup thread?

Is there a specific rule that says in the case of a possible hand-ball missed call by the ref that they (VAR refs) are supposed to alert him, but that they are not allowed to in the case of any other kind of penalty area foul that he didn't see?

 

we have determined this part before I know, but the first bit.. what's the case there?

 

It should be made painfully clear at this point all reasons are not created equal. But I agree, that is technically a reason. It's just not a good enough reason to change the way things are. Unlike VAR and the pass-forward kickoff rule.

I just went and read it. Why don't you just go read the rules? You have all these questions about VAR but won't just go inform yourself, it's mind-boggling.

No, VAR can point out to the ref just about anything that they feel he missed that is a "clear and obvious error" in certain situations, which includes penalties, goals scored, card assignment, and I think straight reds. VAR is not specific to "a handball" or a specific KIND of infringement which may result in a penalty.

So what happened is the ref missed the handball, VAR said "hey this was a handball", and after the ref heard their explanation he wanted to take a look. He took a long look, including the double take of his, and he ruled a pen.

And as RB said in the WC thread, these are handballs they've been calling all cup. Hand in awkward position... some will say it's a tough call but his hand moves right into the path of the ball. It happens quickly, and so I do think it's very unlucky, but not terribly harsh. That's just me personally, I get why people are really split over this call -- an ESPN poll had something like 52% pen and 48% no pen, and that was dozens of thousands of people. So it's one of those calls that's impossible to get right for everyone.