comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 14 seconds ago
No wonder refs get so much abuse though, considering fundamental principles aren’t even understood. This is a specific football forum too, let alone casual fans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This.
My first comment on this thread is below - absolutely spot on!
Aside from all the issues with the system being used within the game itself, so many fans, pundits and managers have absolutely no clue about it either.
Take TOOR for example.
He'll be a prime example of someone who thinks because his opinion is that the decision was wrong, it means it is definitely wrong and should be overturned.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 59 seconds ago
No wonder refs get so much abuse though, considering fundamental principles aren’t even understood. This is a specific football forum too, let alone casual fans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly.
Hopefully VAR, in time, sorts that out. I mean you can't possibly argue with VAR who knows the rules and has the same view as you in regards to handball for example, could you?
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by Alexis The King Sanchez (U10026)
posted 5 minutes ago
OK Winston. For the sake of everybody else I'll accept defeat
———
Looks like you went back on your word, TOOR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep. I'm taking a wee rest now though as I've dinner to cook and a three year old to scrape off the ceiling.
It's gonna be fun when Winston sees the World Cup and future decisions in relation to handball and tells everybody that the VAR's are wrong and he's right.
I'll remember to create and article when it happens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many people on here who display a lack of intelligence, but your levels of delusion are unrivaled.
You literally ignore everything that is explained to you - head totally buried in the sand.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 59 seconds ago
No wonder refs get so much abuse though, considering fundamental principles aren’t even understood. This is a specific football forum too, let alone casual fans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly.
Hopefully VAR, in time, sorts that out. I mean you can't possibly argue with VAR who knows the rules and has the same view as you in regards to handball for example, could you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/football/42647481
I liked this one. I was fuming at that decision also. I feel no ill will towards the referee since he came out and said he made a mistake and if VAR were in play, he wouldn't have made it. I wonder if he made the VAR list for the World Cup?
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Trying to move the conversation on from your errors, are you?
Good luck with that.
'No interpretation'.
Nope. Just showing that the referee thought the player moved his hand to the ball but admitted it was a mistake and VAR would have fixed it. But I guess you know more than the referee in regards to VAR being used for handball. There are lots more examples to come. You'll still say they were wrong though. We both know that.
Right you've sucked me back in. I'm out for a break from you. It's tiring trying to explain things to you.
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Didn't it hit him on the back?
You can keep on digging as much as you like, you know you've lost this one.
You've admitted that you believe the Pieters incident would be overturned because the referee made a clear error - and that is because there's no interpretation about whether the hand moved towards the ball or not.
That is wrong.
You've also demonstrated that you cannot distinguish between a decision that you believe to be incorrect and a decision that has a clear error.
That is the very definition that VAR uses, but you can't understand it.
If you genuinely don't believe you've been made to look a bit stupid here then I can only say that you suffer from delusion on the grandest of scales.
But as I say, I did call this in my very first post on the article.
Funny how you've proven me right, rather spectacularly. Very funny indeed.
Funny how you've proven me right, rather spectacularly. Very funny indeed.
-------------------------
Seriously Winston, nothing is funny when you are around.
Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
Fair point - appreciate my approach to this forum doesn't really fit with what most want from it.
Funny to me, though.
It was spot on and TOOR has proven it perfectly.
Sorry it's taken over your article.
Fair point - appreciate my approach to this forum doesn't really fit with what most want from it.
---------------
Your approach was to go on the attack and call out another poster for no reason, then get involved in the most mind numbingly pedantic argument since your last one. You're right, most people don't want that from this forum and i really can't see where anyone, you included, could get any joy from it.
No need to apologize, just chill out, have a beer, get a bl0wjob and don't be so hell bent on proving people wrong. Its more fun that way.
FFS you never even cracked a smile at gail
To be fair on this one, it isn’t semantics or pedantic, it is a fundamental misunderstanding of rules that does cause a lot of issues.
That NI one is completely different as that’s not interpretation, that’s the referee making an error in what actually happened rather than his assessment of it. That’s exactly what VAR will fix.
See it as two stages, then it might make more sense. The first stage is has the referee seen everything properly. The second is the assessment. The former is where the errors are made (which causes the knock on error) and what VAR is there for.
That NI one is completely different as that’s not interpretation, that’s the referee making an error in what actually happened rather than his assessment of it. That’s exactly what VAR will fix.
As was the Stoke one. He thought the player didn't bring his hand to the ball. This is obvious as he would have given a penalty otherwise. If the VAR thought he did bring his hand to the ball, and I see no reason why he wouldn't with slow motion and a better angle, he would have relayed that to the referee to watch it and decide on it.
No it isn’t, that’s a question of interpretation. It’s not just about bringing his hand to the ball, it’s whether his natural movement was doing that anyway. I’ve seen it and I wouldn’t give a penalty for it. Some might.
Slow motion isn’t always a help either, particularly with intent.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
No it isn’t, that’s a question of interpretation. It’s not just about bringing his hand to the ball, it’s whether his natural movement was doing that anyway. I’ve seen it and I wouldn’t give a penalty for it. Some might.
Slow motion isn’t always a help either, particularly with intent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a question of whether the referee made a clear and obvious error. The interpretation is about the actual handball. Handballs are open to interpretation. With a slow motion replay from the best angle you might see the referee making a clear and obvious error, as he thought the hand didn't come towards the ball. In the case mentioned I believe the VAR would have, considering the hand was below the ball when the cross came in but hit the ball when it reached him.
People are taking clear and obvious literally but in my opinion it's there to stop two people having different views debating a decision. This isn't a case of two people having different views it's a case of the VAR seeing the referee making an error when he thought the hand didn't come towards the ball and bringing his attention to it. We've already seen offsides called with a cm in it, despite it obviously not being a clear and obvious error. We've seen a handball decision changed and we will see more as VAR is brought in. It was brought in for exactly these reasons. Penalties, red cards, offsides and mistaken identity.
Watch it again from this angle and tell me if you think his hand came towards the ball. Tell me if his hand starts below the ball but comes up to meet it.
https://www.planetfootball.com/videos/watch-liverpool-denied-late-penalty-against-stoke-for-handball/
Why do you keep mentioning hand going toward the ball? That’s only the beginning consideration which the linesman would have seen anyway. It’s not that that’s the deciding factor, it’s the next bit, which is whether that movement was part of what he was doing already or the arm moved unnaturally compared to what the rest of his body, or if that was a natural movement to take the hand away from the ball.
That’s the interpretation bit.
And no, I see his hand go towards the ball but I see his knee go in that direction too so it’s a natural movement - his arm is already out way before the cross gets put in and I don’t think he’s far enough away to move.
You can interpret it differently, that’s fine.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 57 seconds ago
Why do you keep mentioning hand going toward the ball? That’s only the beginning consideration which the linesman would have seen anyway. It’s not that that’s the deciding factor, it’s the next bit, which is whether that movement was part of what he was doing already or the arm moved unnaturally compared to what the rest of his body, or if that was a natural movement to take the hand away from the ball.
That’s the interpretation bit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I'd rather not type out the full thing when we all know what is entailed in the band going towards the ball scenario.
How could it be seen as taking the hand away from the ball when his hand rose to meet it? I could see how some could say his hands were in a natural position as he was jostling sideways but that's clutching at straws for me. His arm came out and moved up towards the ball. For me it's a stonewall penalty, the commentator thought so and we see them given for those reasons often. It's rare to see a penalty waved away when the players are a distance away and the arm is away from the body and moving towards the ball. So yes there is interpretation in a handball, everybody knows that, nobody has denied that, however handballs are things VAR look at and if it's decided a clear and obvious error was made, the VAR will alert the referee to it. We've already seen it happen and we'll continue to see it happen, as it's part of the four categories of what VAR look at.
We'll surely see an incident in the World Cup. Then we'll continue to see it when it comes into English football.
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
And no, I see his hand go towards the ball but I see his knee go in that direction too so it’s a natural movement - his arm is already out way before the cross gets put in and I don’t think he’s far enough away to move.
You can interpret it differently, that’s fine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I think you're honest so that's fine, I'll just have to disagree with you.
"As was the Stoke one. He thought the player didn't bring his hand to the ball. This is obvious as he would have given a penalty otherwise."
TOOR, you must have been a nightmare at school - you just don't listen, do you?
What you've written above is complete conjecture, a fiction of your imagination.
It is just as likely that the referee would see that incident again and stand by the decision.
Your inability to understand why that 'handball' incident is a matter of opinion/interpretation, and not fact as you claim, is the basis for why you don't understand how VAR has been designed to work.
I suggest you go out and talk to a few referees about the handball law. Clearly you think you understand it, but you don't - which is why you're getting things so badly wrong.
Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
As melton said, it's not pedantic in this case.
Appreciate why it looks that way and I agreed at the time that I shouldn't have dug TOOR out at the start.
Funny though that as the debate unravelled, what I said about him has been proven true.
I'm chilled out mate - I am just a stubborn git when it comes to this forum. Doesn't mean I'm like that off of here... I would genuinely hope that people don't behave offline as they do on here!
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 18 minutes ago
"As was the Stoke one. He thought the player didn't bring his hand to the ball. This is obvious as he would have given a penalty otherwise."
TOOR, you must have been a nightmare at school - you just don't listen, do you?
What you've written above is complete conjecture, a fiction of your imagination.
It is just as likely that the referee would see that incident again and stand by the decision.
Your inability to understand why that 'handball' incident is a matter of opinion/interpretation, and not fact as you claim, is the basis for why you don't understand how VAR has been designed to work.
I suggest you go out and talk to a few referees about the handball law. Clearly you think you understand it, but you don't - which is why you're getting things so badly wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not conjecture. It's fact. If he thought the hand differently he'd have given a penalty.
You just refuse to accept it as you wanted to put that decision in your wee box that says VAR couldn't act on it, despite examples of it happening already and there will be many more to come. When this happens, will you accept you were wrong?
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
It is conjecture.
You are inventing what the referee would have thought if he saw that incident again.
It is perfectly plausible, as many people did, that he could see that incident and conclude the right decision was made.
How can you even possibly try to argue that?
You're the one trying to put this into a box of right or wrong - which is because you don't know what you're talking about.
Sign in if you want to comment
World Cup VAR
Page 9 of 17
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14
posted on 31/5/18
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 14 seconds ago
No wonder refs get so much abuse though, considering fundamental principles aren’t even understood. This is a specific football forum too, let alone casual fans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This.
My first comment on this thread is below - absolutely spot on!
Aside from all the issues with the system being used within the game itself, so many fans, pundits and managers have absolutely no clue about it either.
Take TOOR for example.
He'll be a prime example of someone who thinks because his opinion is that the decision was wrong, it means it is definitely wrong and should be overturned.
posted on 31/5/18
posted on 31/5/18
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 59 seconds ago
No wonder refs get so much abuse though, considering fundamental principles aren’t even understood. This is a specific football forum too, let alone casual fans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly.
Hopefully VAR, in time, sorts that out. I mean you can't possibly argue with VAR who knows the rules and has the same view as you in regards to handball for example, could you?
posted on 31/5/18
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 22 seconds ago
comment by Alexis The King Sanchez (U10026)
posted 5 minutes ago
OK Winston. For the sake of everybody else I'll accept defeat
———
Looks like you went back on your word, TOOR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep. I'm taking a wee rest now though as I've dinner to cook and a three year old to scrape off the ceiling.
It's gonna be fun when Winston sees the World Cup and future decisions in relation to handball and tells everybody that the VAR's are wrong and he's right.
I'll remember to create and article when it happens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There are many people on here who display a lack of intelligence, but your levels of delusion are unrivaled.
You literally ignore everything that is explained to you - head totally buried in the sand.
posted on 31/5/18
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 18 seconds ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 59 seconds ago
No wonder refs get so much abuse though, considering fundamental principles aren’t even understood. This is a specific football forum too, let alone casual fans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly.
Hopefully VAR, in time, sorts that out. I mean you can't possibly argue with VAR who knows the rules and has the same view as you in regards to handball for example, could you?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
posted on 31/5/18
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/amp/football/42647481
I liked this one. I was fuming at that decision also. I feel no ill will towards the referee since he came out and said he made a mistake and if VAR were in play, he wouldn't have made it. I wonder if he made the VAR list for the World Cup?
posted on 31/5/18
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Trying to move the conversation on from your errors, are you?
Good luck with that.
'No interpretation'.
posted on 31/5/18
Nope. Just showing that the referee thought the player moved his hand to the ball but admitted it was a mistake and VAR would have fixed it. But I guess you know more than the referee in regards to VAR being used for handball. There are lots more examples to come. You'll still say they were wrong though. We both know that.
Right you've sucked me back in. I'm out for a break from you. It's tiring trying to explain things to you.
posted on 31/5/18
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
Didn't it hit him on the back?
You can keep on digging as much as you like, you know you've lost this one.
You've admitted that you believe the Pieters incident would be overturned because the referee made a clear error - and that is because there's no interpretation about whether the hand moved towards the ball or not.
That is wrong.
You've also demonstrated that you cannot distinguish between a decision that you believe to be incorrect and a decision that has a clear error.
That is the very definition that VAR uses, but you can't understand it.
If you genuinely don't believe you've been made to look a bit stupid here then I can only say that you suffer from delusion on the grandest of scales.
But as I say, I did call this in my very first post on the article.
Funny how you've proven me right, rather spectacularly. Very funny indeed.
posted on 31/5/18
Funny how you've proven me right, rather spectacularly. Very funny indeed.
-------------------------
Seriously Winston, nothing is funny when you are around.
posted on 31/5/18
Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
Fair point - appreciate my approach to this forum doesn't really fit with what most want from it.
Funny to me, though.
It was spot on and TOOR has proven it perfectly.
Sorry it's taken over your article.
posted on 31/5/18
Fair point - appreciate my approach to this forum doesn't really fit with what most want from it.
---------------
Your approach was to go on the attack and call out another poster for no reason, then get involved in the most mind numbingly pedantic argument since your last one. You're right, most people don't want that from this forum and i really can't see where anyone, you included, could get any joy from it.
No need to apologize, just chill out, have a beer, get a bl0wjob and don't be so hell bent on proving people wrong. Its more fun that way.
FFS you never even cracked a smile at gail
posted on 31/5/18
To be fair on this one, it isn’t semantics or pedantic, it is a fundamental misunderstanding of rules that does cause a lot of issues.
That NI one is completely different as that’s not interpretation, that’s the referee making an error in what actually happened rather than his assessment of it. That’s exactly what VAR will fix.
See it as two stages, then it might make more sense. The first stage is has the referee seen everything properly. The second is the assessment. The former is where the errors are made (which causes the knock on error) and what VAR is there for.
posted on 31/5/18
That NI one is completely different as that’s not interpretation, that’s the referee making an error in what actually happened rather than his assessment of it. That’s exactly what VAR will fix.
As was the Stoke one. He thought the player didn't bring his hand to the ball. This is obvious as he would have given a penalty otherwise. If the VAR thought he did bring his hand to the ball, and I see no reason why he wouldn't with slow motion and a better angle, he would have relayed that to the referee to watch it and decide on it.
posted on 31/5/18
No it isn’t, that’s a question of interpretation. It’s not just about bringing his hand to the ball, it’s whether his natural movement was doing that anyway. I’ve seen it and I wouldn’t give a penalty for it. Some might.
Slow motion isn’t always a help either, particularly with intent.
posted on 31/5/18
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
No it isn’t, that’s a question of interpretation. It’s not just about bringing his hand to the ball, it’s whether his natural movement was doing that anyway. I’ve seen it and I wouldn’t give a penalty for it. Some might.
Slow motion isn’t always a help either, particularly with intent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a question of whether the referee made a clear and obvious error. The interpretation is about the actual handball. Handballs are open to interpretation. With a slow motion replay from the best angle you might see the referee making a clear and obvious error, as he thought the hand didn't come towards the ball. In the case mentioned I believe the VAR would have, considering the hand was below the ball when the cross came in but hit the ball when it reached him.
People are taking clear and obvious literally but in my opinion it's there to stop two people having different views debating a decision. This isn't a case of two people having different views it's a case of the VAR seeing the referee making an error when he thought the hand didn't come towards the ball and bringing his attention to it. We've already seen offsides called with a cm in it, despite it obviously not being a clear and obvious error. We've seen a handball decision changed and we will see more as VAR is brought in. It was brought in for exactly these reasons. Penalties, red cards, offsides and mistaken identity.
posted on 31/5/18
Watch it again from this angle and tell me if you think his hand came towards the ball. Tell me if his hand starts below the ball but comes up to meet it.
https://www.planetfootball.com/videos/watch-liverpool-denied-late-penalty-against-stoke-for-handball/
posted on 31/5/18
Why do you keep mentioning hand going toward the ball? That’s only the beginning consideration which the linesman would have seen anyway. It’s not that that’s the deciding factor, it’s the next bit, which is whether that movement was part of what he was doing already or the arm moved unnaturally compared to what the rest of his body, or if that was a natural movement to take the hand away from the ball.
That’s the interpretation bit.
posted on 31/5/18
And no, I see his hand go towards the ball but I see his knee go in that direction too so it’s a natural movement - his arm is already out way before the cross gets put in and I don’t think he’s far enough away to move.
You can interpret it differently, that’s fine.
posted on 31/5/18
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 57 seconds ago
Why do you keep mentioning hand going toward the ball? That’s only the beginning consideration which the linesman would have seen anyway. It’s not that that’s the deciding factor, it’s the next bit, which is whether that movement was part of what he was doing already or the arm moved unnaturally compared to what the rest of his body, or if that was a natural movement to take the hand away from the ball.
That’s the interpretation bit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because I'd rather not type out the full thing when we all know what is entailed in the band going towards the ball scenario.
How could it be seen as taking the hand away from the ball when his hand rose to meet it? I could see how some could say his hands were in a natural position as he was jostling sideways but that's clutching at straws for me. His arm came out and moved up towards the ball. For me it's a stonewall penalty, the commentator thought so and we see them given for those reasons often. It's rare to see a penalty waved away when the players are a distance away and the arm is away from the body and moving towards the ball. So yes there is interpretation in a handball, everybody knows that, nobody has denied that, however handballs are things VAR look at and if it's decided a clear and obvious error was made, the VAR will alert the referee to it. We've already seen it happen and we'll continue to see it happen, as it's part of the four categories of what VAR look at.
We'll surely see an incident in the World Cup. Then we'll continue to see it when it comes into English football.
posted on 31/5/18
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 3 minutes ago
And no, I see his hand go towards the ball but I see his knee go in that direction too so it’s a natural movement - his arm is already out way before the cross gets put in and I don’t think he’s far enough away to move.
You can interpret it differently, that’s fine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well I think you're honest so that's fine, I'll just have to disagree with you.
posted on 1/6/18
"As was the Stoke one. He thought the player didn't bring his hand to the ball. This is obvious as he would have given a penalty otherwise."
TOOR, you must have been a nightmare at school - you just don't listen, do you?
What you've written above is complete conjecture, a fiction of your imagination.
It is just as likely that the referee would see that incident again and stand by the decision.
Your inability to understand why that 'handball' incident is a matter of opinion/interpretation, and not fact as you claim, is the basis for why you don't understand how VAR has been designed to work.
I suggest you go out and talk to a few referees about the handball law. Clearly you think you understand it, but you don't - which is why you're getting things so badly wrong.
posted on 1/6/18
Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
As melton said, it's not pedantic in this case.
Appreciate why it looks that way and I agreed at the time that I shouldn't have dug TOOR out at the start.
Funny though that as the debate unravelled, what I said about him has been proven true.
I'm chilled out mate - I am just a stubborn git when it comes to this forum. Doesn't mean I'm like that off of here... I would genuinely hope that people don't behave offline as they do on here!
posted on 1/6/18
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 18 minutes ago
"As was the Stoke one. He thought the player didn't bring his hand to the ball. This is obvious as he would have given a penalty otherwise."
TOOR, you must have been a nightmare at school - you just don't listen, do you?
What you've written above is complete conjecture, a fiction of your imagination.
It is just as likely that the referee would see that incident again and stand by the decision.
Your inability to understand why that 'handball' incident is a matter of opinion/interpretation, and not fact as you claim, is the basis for why you don't understand how VAR has been designed to work.
I suggest you go out and talk to a few referees about the handball law. Clearly you think you understand it, but you don't - which is why you're getting things so badly wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's not conjecture. It's fact. If he thought the hand differently he'd have given a penalty.
You just refuse to accept it as you wanted to put that decision in your wee box that says VAR couldn't act on it, despite examples of it happening already and there will be many more to come. When this happens, will you accept you were wrong?
posted on 1/6/18
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
It is conjecture.
You are inventing what the referee would have thought if he saw that incident again.
It is perfectly plausible, as many people did, that he could see that incident and conclude the right decision was made.
How can you even possibly try to argue that?
You're the one trying to put this into a box of right or wrong - which is because you don't know what you're talking about.
Page 9 of 17
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14