To hate VAR or to hate the LOTG? That is the question [R]

EruditeHobo · Mar 7, 2020

Today in LFC match, first goal against Wilson seemed pretty clearly to foul Gomez to get to the ball, but was actually an instance — as mentioned during the broadcast — of the ref deciding it wasn’t a foul and essentially dismissing VAR. So, arguably a bad call, but under the rules refs can dismiss VAR.

Mane dove for a pen late in the game, pretty clear, VAR rightly gave nothing in agreement with the ref.

Ake looked a fraction offside for a late chance by Bournemouth but Wilson completely screwed up the chance by getting ball stuck under his feet, and they didn’t score. Would have been interesting if they had converted, I suspect we would have been subjected to another armpit offside if they’d actually taken a look at it. Either way, no goal so no need for VAR; no harm no foul in this particular case.

zaqualung · Mar 7, 2020

EruditeHobo said: ↑

Today in LFC match, first goal against Wilson seemed pretty clearly to foul Gomez to get to the ball, but was actually an instance — as mentioned during the broadcast — of the ref deciding it wasn’t a foul and essentially dismissing VAR. So, arguably a bad call, but under the rules refs can dismiss VAR.

Mane dove for a pen late in the game, pretty clear, VAR rightly gave nothing in agreement with the ref.

Ake looked a fraction offside for a late chance by Bournemouth but Wilson completely screwed up the chance by getting ball stuck under his feet, and they didn’t score. Would have been interesting if they had converted, I suspect we would have been subjected to another armpit offside if they’d actually taken a look at it. Either way, no goal so no need for VAR; no harm no foul in this particular case.
Click to expand...

Man - your perspective is beyond acute about this kind of rubbish..... (that's a kind of compliment, I suppose....)

by the way, I bolded the best thing you've ever said!!!

EruditeHobo · Mar 9, 2020

Seems a fairly acute discussion to begin with.

zaqualung · Mar 10, 2020

burning247 said: ↑

Another thread title suggestion: "The VAR Thread: We're Now Literally Talking About Shit"
Click to expand...

Incidentally it took me all of about 3 or 4 days after Hobo suggested keeping out of alleyways in SF to come upon this delightful sight.... I just forgot to send it to e-mail to snip it here ....

One of SF's many little "alleyways" known as Mission Street!!
Delightful....
CoronaVirus is gonna be helll here - if you can't even get them to be sanitary at this level....

zaqualung · Mar 11, 2020

Also -Having a few late night minutes to while away… to musingly (or amusingly) answer this stuff…..

EruditeHobo said: ↑

That's why they outline what things like "influence play" mean, with multiple scenarios addressed within the rules. Because it's a complex game and these things need definitions. That's what rules do.

The problem for that kind of thinking is that these rules don't give very good definitions about this particular issue, and officiating hasn’t gotten in the habit of reacting to the obvious. That's the point here. They don't take into account the actuality of real interference or influencing of play, merely a few sample geometric scenarios based on vectors! (You might think that they do, but that doesn't miraculously make it so simply when you are not thinking it through far enough.) A clever footballer (such as Ruud Van Nistelrooy who used to do this) can really bend these rules to his advantage with the help of any speedy team mate. But as far as you are concerned, he just had to make sure not to get into any direct line of sight whilst engaging in his off-side but not interfering with play shenanigans,and it was fine by your (seeming) analysis. (See the argument we were having about the Sterling-Jesus thing early this season for perfect the exemplification of this.)

If you haven't read the rules, I'm not sure how credible your opinion on them can be, in general. I'm not saying that to be a dick, but at this point I feel like it's fair to assume you just haven't read the rules for much of anything. You've seemed almost proud of that fact in the past. If I'm wrong let me know.

(Is this an attempt to elevate VAR to the status of meaningful things where a person like me might want to study rules and parameters, rather than just comment on outcomes. Because, there is a difference, as I’ve pointed out before. My disinterest in the mechanics of VAR (and all such garbage) is probably directly relatable to my knowledge of other interesting things in the nature of the world. This states nothing about my willingness to understand rules. It speaks only of my opinion of particular necessity. On a side note – I’d doubt very much that the growng groundswell of opinion in the first half of the season was only by those of the audience who had read the complete VAR rule-book. Does that invalidate their opinion – or is it just me?)

Anyway, that said: Very credible on this one, I'd say. As - my opinion on what interferes with a goalkeeper (or defender) trying to do what they are trying to do is (at least) as credible as anyone writing these said rules (like Filipo Inzaghi - alex ferguson would have back in the day categorized me as a player as having been born off-side). This kind of knowledge is rather difficult to impart to an apparatchik sitting at a desk contemplating the words to write to define his rule. I suppose we could assume that the apparatchik had played a bit, but given some of the decisions they make, one wouldn't want to bet money on that.

Furthermore, this thing (or kick) you have about reading all rules as an absolute pre-requisite before attaining the acceptable status to address any subject, is indeed useful if you want to be terpsicheorean (i.e. to dance about the issue without confronting its nub). You are (to my observation here) a man who gets some very odd enjoyment in his type of reading material, and rule books obviously lead your eye at the library in the same way that other sections lead other people to their excitements. I don’t understand it, but each to his own. Anyway, my view is that there are a great many things where it is sensible and advisible to know the exact rules concerned, such as before driving a vehicle on a public highway, or being on parade ground with the military, or dispensing medicines, or writing textbooks for physics students, etc.... However, the degree of importance between knowing exact specifics of rules with regard to the formulating of an opinion on what rules might be actually needed for the working of a situation is not always instantiated by a necessary logical connection; rather, this depends on the subject at issue. I can, for example, both tell that there are hungry people in the world, and suggest better ways of getting them adequate food, without actually having read all the fine print of the current rules with regard to doing that. Do you perhaps know why this is? Because the rules may be wrong, misguided, foolish, etc. One can actually come to this conclusion by looking at their outcome (shock, horror), and then analyzing them for what might need to be changed (irrespective of what is) for a better outcome. It's not a revolutionary way of thinking, merely a sensible one, if you want to have a chance of fixing things.

Sure, I'll grant you, that learning the rules by heart before-hand won’t generally do you any harm, but it is, as with a lot of what you have posited in this interminable thread, often unnecessary.

But here's no way to write a good law using the word "interference",

(I disagree, because you say “good”. Good is the wrong word, it requires extraneous judgment for its meaning - I say "write a working functional rule". We leave whether it’s good or bad to the spectators, after the fact. Incidentally, my suggestion is only a reaction to the problem created by the change to the off-side rule however many years ago it was.

which as you suggest could mean just about anything, without an attempt to clearly define interference. Which is actually what the current rules do. If you like ambiguity and interpretation, I do not understand you saying you want more interpretation by refs yet also don't like the way some refs interpret the current rule? That really makes no sense to me, seems very contradictory and very selective.

I never said I don';t like the way that some refs interpret the current rules. My argument is about augmenting referees natural capabilities (I'm generally not in favour of it, except in the obviously useful case of the ball crossing the goal-line, which is a definite scenario that the human eye will generally not catch. ------nor do I see it as generally necessary.) That’s the key to all this: necessity.

That said VAR certainly puts a microscope on the the VAR-relevant rules, I agree with you about that. I don't think it's a good thing because I'm a "VAR-addict", I think it's good because it's good at pointing out clearly where improvements can happen in the game... and on the cutting edge of the rulebook, since VAR is only dealing with potentially game/score-altering incidents.

Happy trails, Hans.
Click to expand...

EruditeHobo · Mar 13, 2020

I mean, I personally don’t care what your disinterest level is re: VAR — if you want to know what you’re talking about, read and understand what they are going for with the principles/laws. If not... well hey, do whatever you want!

I don’t understand your point about clarification within the rules... if you complain about refs interpretations, which you’ve done a lot in this thread, you can’t then call for them to not assist the refs with tech and rule changes in order to increase the chance they do a better job. That’s inconsistent and when you hold those two positions it’s confusing.

That contradiction is part of the reason why specification is better, in terms both of fans understanding the calls and also even refs calling the game... specificity leads to clearer standards. Which is why that’s exactly the direction they’re going in — did you see the new handball law going into effect next season?? Because once it goes in, in two years they’ll have gone from “handballs should be deliberate”, whatever that means, to 1. “any ball which comes off an attackers arm cannot directly result in a goal” and 2. “handball can only result from contact with arms beyond the line drawn by the uniform sleeve”. Specific af, means clearer for refs and for fans.

Also if you could give me an example of “real inference” which somehow excludes what Sigi does in the example we are talking about, I’d love to hear it! Because bringing up something else which isn’t specifically defined, like the token phrase you’ve used here, doesnt clearly illustrate any problem with the current rules as far as I can tell.

StiltonFC · Mar 14, 2020

EruditeHobo said: ↑

“handball can only result from contact with arms beyond the line drawn by the uniform sleeve”.
Click to expand...

short sleeve or long sleeve?

EruditeHobo · Mar 14, 2020

StiltonFC said: ↑

short sleeve or long sleeve?
Click to expand...

The answer is short sleeves, technically... defining that area to clearly differentiate between shoulder and arm. Doesn’t technically mean you have to be wearing a short sleeved uniform.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/football/51689916

EruditeHobo · May 8, 2020

The prem has the ability to do away with VAR in order to finish the season more easily/quickly! Supposedly it is unlikely they will do so, but it’s one of the powers afforded by the latest IFAB decision.

They also can use 5 subs a match, but only have 3 substitution windows.

These rule changes do not apply to any season competition that doesn’t complete before December 31, 2020.

EruditeHobo · May 16, 2020

Guys... it’s been a long wait, and I know we all forgot how much we loved this thread, and on that note I have great news:

We are BACK IN BUSINESS!!!!

EruditeHobo · May 16, 2020

RBL v Frieburg match... very close offside in stoppage time. Initially given which would have meant Freiburg stole the 3 pts at the end. VAR review took it away.

Looks like a good call to me but is somewhat related to the much moaned-about “armpit offside”. More clear than a couple of the very close toe and shoulder offsides that have been called in the prem.

newterp · May 16, 2020

EruditeHobo said: ↑

RBL match... very close offside, looks like a good call to me but is definitely somewhat related to the much moaned-about “armpit offside”.
Click to expand...

didnt you like how fast they decided?

EruditeHobo · May 16, 2020

Yeah they are clearly better at this than the prem... are they equally fast on the super close calls is the question? I just don’t watch BL enough to know.

EruditeHobo · May 16, 2020

Very happy to have some weekend matches back... I hope players/staff don’t get sick and they can keep this going.

EruditeHobo · May 17, 2020

Bayern match... ball headed back across goal to Muller I think, he was Just ahead of the ball and this another close call ruled out by VAR.

Seemed like a close but correct call.
Didn’t take too long, not much longer than an ordinary (with fans/celebrations) goal, celebration, restart.

newterp · May 17, 2020

I thought it was a very good call. Look really offside in realtime and the replay - the VAR view showed it was closer than it looked.

EruditeHobo · May 17, 2020

I agree, looked more obvious in real time which was weird.

Not sure to credit this as “officials got this one wrong and VAR fixed it”... BL linespeople could just be better re: holding their flags and letting VAR sort it out.

The Freiburg goal seemed like it would have stood if not for VAR, but it’s hard to say.

Wingtips1 · May 23, 2020

Wolfsburg absolutely hosed by the ref reviewing an on-field incident and giving a red card to Klaus.
Absolute sh*te call - the players came together, the defender slips in ahead of Klaus and his foot lands directly on the defender in the natural course of his progression movement.
The decision should be rescinded by the administrators.

EruditeHobo · May 23, 2020

I was just coming to post about this, it’s a really tough call. Looks kind of like he’s not even looking at the opponent, seems very plausible it was 100% accidental... but that’s the system! Give the ref a 2nd look at he was convinced it was too dangerous. I think this is more an outright ref error, not sure why he was so convinced by the replay.

I feel like it won’t be rescinded just because of the specific circumstances... but we will see.

EruditeHobo · Jun 8, 2020

US youngster Adams had some incidental contact in the box against Paderborn... ref didn’t give it, VAR didn’t give it, looked like it would have been a quite harsh pen.

EruditeHobo · Jun 8, 2020

Bauer - Bayern, another close offside... taken away by linesman/ref, granted by VAR. Gives Bauer opening goal.

Looks a fair enough call for me, but no one being reasonable would throw a huge fit either way. Very close.

newterp · Jun 17, 2020

The Sheffield - Aston Villa game......WHAT THE ********???

That's 2 points lost towards a CL position for Sheff, and 1 pt to AV gained to avoid relegation.

Catastrophic. Diabolical. Unbelievable.

(I understand that HawkEye must share some blame here).

SamScouse · Jun 17, 2020

Couldn't agree more. "Best league in the world" looking like incompetent amateurs.

bayred · Jun 17, 2020

This one falls into the category of You Cant. Make This Sh*t Up. Complete cluster. Blades have every right to be livid.

EruditeHobo · Jun 17, 2020

They should be pissed off... but it’s a freak occurrence, can’t plan for things like this I don’t think. There’s a reason it’s happened 1 time in 9000 incidents, so the man said.

beach ball 2.0