Don’t be such a patronising berk, TOOR.
I’ve read the history of the law and I’d wager I did so long before you did - you sound like someone who has just done it and suddenly thinks he’s the most informed person in the country.
Perhaps you can clarify who ‘they’ is in your statement.
Because the reality is that with any rule change, there is a variety of opinion.
I’m not calling you a liar for that, but I am suggesting you’re implying something that didn’t happen - that being there was the same sort of resistance to other changes as there is to this and now everyone agrees it was the right thing.
A couple of google searches you did earlier doesn’t change that.
TOOR thought he could get away with just making something up about how people have opposed every change to the offside rule... apparently proving that this change will be a success eventually.
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 2 hours, 11 minutes ago
comment by CutMeAndIBleedRed (U7593)
posted 47 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
The answer surely...(or answers) are
1. get the fackin ref (or the fourth official who does next to fack all) looking at the monitor
2 Bin Stockley park entirely if it's deemed surplus to requirements from above.
3 Update the offside rule to give the attacker more advantage, maybe use a line the width of a football to determine an offside call
4 Clarify what handball is & what the right course of action is
Simplistic maybe...but that's what people want
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1) i was really against this at the start - because i thought it would be far more simple to just have another ref says its hand ball, its a red, its offside etc. But ive changed my mind - i want the ref to decide marginal red cards, hand balls and offsides using the monitor and his feelings for the actual game.
3) This makes no difference!! You are just moving the line to a balls width away!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about utilising the 4th official...?
It would both keep the decision at the ground, where the ref can confer with him, & utimately see the end of Stockley park
point 4 would make a difference in two ways...
A) It would make it more obvious as an offside call as there will be clear day light between the defender & the attacker (i.e. about a foot, or a football width)
B) It gives the advantage to the attacker...which after all is what we come to watch football for..goals
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any comments on these points...just wondered
Sheriff, the real puzzle with offside is how you can fix the big errors that actually affect play without stopping the game for every error, no matter how tiny, including many that have no impact on play whatsoever.
I don’t think there’s an answer to that - seems to be all or nothing.
Best suggestion I’ve seen is an ‘umpires call’ type approach.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
Sheriff, the real puzzle with offside is how you can fix the big errors that actually affect play without stopping the game for every error, no matter how tiny, including many that have no impact on play whatsoever.
I don’t think there’s an answer to that - seems to be all or nothing.
Best suggestion I’ve seen is an ‘umpires call’ type approach.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you elaborate on this empires call thing I'm well aware of it in cricket obviously
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
Sheriff, the real puzzle with offside is how you can fix the big errors that actually affect play without stopping the game for every error, no matter how tiny, including many that have no impact on play whatsoever.
I don’t think there’s an answer to that - seems to be all or nothing.
Best suggestion I’ve seen is an ‘umpires call’ type approach.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you elaborate on this empires call thing I'm well aware of it in cricket obviously
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yeh, just based on the cricket idea.
A very quick line across the pitch and if it’s so tight that it requires zooming in, fiddling around with lines etc then that’s umpires call and the decision stays.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
Sheriff, the real puzzle with offside is how you can fix the big errors that actually affect play without stopping the game for every error, no matter how tiny, including many that have no impact on play whatsoever.
I don’t think there’s an answer to that - seems to be all or nothing.
Best suggestion I’ve seen is an ‘umpires call’ type approach.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you elaborate on this empires call thing I'm well aware of it in cricket obviously
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yeh, just based on the cricket idea.
A very quick line across the pitch and if it’s so tight that it requires zooming in, fiddling around with lines etc then that’s umpires call and the decision stays.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Umpires call gets overturned in cricket though...if proved so
I still like the idea of the bigger line i.e. football width.. very easy to see very easy to call
I certainly think the fourth official could be used better
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 30 minutes ago
Don’t be such a patronising berk, TOOR.
I’ve read the history of the law and I’d wager I did so long before you did - you sound like someone who has just done it and suddenly thinks he’s the most informed person in the country.
Perhaps you can clarify who ‘they’ is in your statement.
Because the reality is that with any rule change, there is a variety of opinion.
I’m not calling you a liar for that, but I am suggesting you’re implying something that didn’t happen - that being there was the same sort of resistance to other changes as there is to this and now everyone agrees it was the right thing.
A couple of google searches you did earlier doesn’t change that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say there wasn't a variety of opinion. I said there has always been people who have been dramatic and said it was the end of the game due to a rule change. I compared your comment to that.
I don't know why you have to go on the attack everytime somebody dares to have a different opinion to yours. Can you not just agree to disagree, just once?
I'll start us off - I accept your well made opinion, understand it but respectfully disagree. So let's agree to disagree? How about it?
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 3 hours, 17 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
There's nothing that can be done to fix the offside situation imo.
As soon as we opted to go down the technology route, we changed the game (for the worse) forever.
People will get used to it, though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They said that when they changed the offside rule in the 20s and 30s and 40s etc, you get the point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain what you meant by this comment then TOOR.
And no, I don’t think you remotely understand the alternative view.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 3 hours, 17 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
There's nothing that can be done to fix the offside situation imo.
As soon as we opted to go down the technology route, we changed the game (for the worse) forever.
People will get used to it, though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They said that when they changed the offside rule in the 20s and 30s and 40s etc, you get the point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain what you meant by this comment then TOOR.
And no, I don’t think you remotely understand the alternative view.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case we are done. I'll agree to disagree.
You can’t explain your comment without contradicting yourself, so you run away.
Pathetic.
If that's what you need to tell yourself. As I said, I'll agree to disagree. If you need to get the last word in, as usual and claim people are running away as they can't go on for days with you, go ahead. I certainly won't be part of it. I learned my lesson a long time ago.
I'll accept your opinion, respectfully disagree and move on.
Enjoy.
Except you haven’t accepted my opinion, TOOR.
You made a spurious claim about how there are always objections to changes in the law at first, implying that eventually those objections go away.
When called out on it, you play the ‘we’ll agree to disagree card’ instead of admitting that you lied and tried to dismiss my opinion with that lie.
And then to try and mask what you’ve done, you bring up ‘the last word’, which is just childish nonsense.
Yet again I’m left wondering why you use forums, TOOR. You’d be better off writing a blog with no option for people to reply.
Of course, the big point that TOOR misses with this is that it isn’t a change to the law that people object to, it’s how the law is enforced.
VAR is fixing problems that no one thought needed fixing, simply because it has to in order to be ‘fairly’ applied.
The law was written in such a way that officials could easily make a decision when managing the game. Technology has meant that officials now have to take that definition down to the minutest detail, and this is why there is a problem - not necessarily the law itself.
TOOR
As you have identified, the offside rule has changed several times over the years - does that sound like a rule that works as intended and improves the game? This latest development is different though. In the past, rule changes have been about making the game fairer and adding clarity (or attempting to!) to existing rules.
VAR is different - it is about HOW we apply rules and referee the game in general. Before VAR we were reliant on a ref and a linesman and their split second sight and interpretation of an incident. What VAR now gives refs, is the ability to review an incident in far more detail and in slow time. For rules like off side, hand ball and fouls, it mean we are NOW able to look at these and apply things like gaining an advantage and intent far more easily than without and therefore make the game fairer and more enjoyable for all, which is the point of these rules in the first place.
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 16 hours, 3 minutes ago
comment by CutMeAndIBleedRed (U7593)
posted 47 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
The answer surely...(or answers) are
1. get the fackin ref (or the fourth official who does next to fack all) looking at the monitor
2 Bin Stockley park entirely if it's deemed surplus to requirements from above.
3 Update the offside rule to give the attacker more advantage, maybe use a line the width of a football to determine an offside call
4 Clarify what handball is & what the right course of action is
Simplistic maybe...but that's what people want
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1) i was really against this at the start - because i thought it would be far more simple to just have another ref says its hand ball, its a red, its offside etc. But ive changed my mind - i want the ref to decide marginal red cards, hand balls and offsides using the monitor and his feelings for the actual game.
3) This makes no difference!! You are just moving the line to a balls width away!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about utilising the 4th official...?
It would both keep the decision at the ground, where the ref can confer with him, & utimately see the end of Stockley park
point 4 would make a difference in two ways...
A) It would make it more obvious as an offside call as there will be clear day light between the defender & the attacker (i.e. about a foot, or a football width)
B) It gives the advantage to the attacker...which after all is what we come to watch football for..goals
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would be more than happy for the forth official to view the monitor as he is there and part of the actual game. It would also avoid the ref having to traipse across the pitch to view the monitor which was my objection to them using the monitors in the first place.
The issue with any line is there will always be the issue with tiny amounts off side no matter where its drawn. Next time you watch a game, apply the gain an advantage logic to offside decisions - ive done it many times and dont think its every very difficult to do.
Sign in if you want to comment
Wenger's Rubbish Idea
Page 7 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 25/2/20
Don’t be such a patronising berk, TOOR.
I’ve read the history of the law and I’d wager I did so long before you did - you sound like someone who has just done it and suddenly thinks he’s the most informed person in the country.
Perhaps you can clarify who ‘they’ is in your statement.
Because the reality is that with any rule change, there is a variety of opinion.
I’m not calling you a liar for that, but I am suggesting you’re implying something that didn’t happen - that being there was the same sort of resistance to other changes as there is to this and now everyone agrees it was the right thing.
A couple of google searches you did earlier doesn’t change that.
posted on 25/2/20
TOOR thought he could get away with just making something up about how people have opposed every change to the offside rule... apparently proving that this change will be a success eventually.
posted on 25/2/20
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 2 hours, 11 minutes ago
comment by CutMeAndIBleedRed (U7593)
posted 47 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
The answer surely...(or answers) are
1. get the fackin ref (or the fourth official who does next to fack all) looking at the monitor
2 Bin Stockley park entirely if it's deemed surplus to requirements from above.
3 Update the offside rule to give the attacker more advantage, maybe use a line the width of a football to determine an offside call
4 Clarify what handball is & what the right course of action is
Simplistic maybe...but that's what people want
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1) i was really against this at the start - because i thought it would be far more simple to just have another ref says its hand ball, its a red, its offside etc. But ive changed my mind - i want the ref to decide marginal red cards, hand balls and offsides using the monitor and his feelings for the actual game.
3) This makes no difference!! You are just moving the line to a balls width away!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about utilising the 4th official...?
It would both keep the decision at the ground, where the ref can confer with him, & utimately see the end of Stockley park
point 4 would make a difference in two ways...
A) It would make it more obvious as an offside call as there will be clear day light between the defender & the attacker (i.e. about a foot, or a football width)
B) It gives the advantage to the attacker...which after all is what we come to watch football for..goals
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any comments on these points...just wondered
posted on 25/2/20
Sheriff, the real puzzle with offside is how you can fix the big errors that actually affect play without stopping the game for every error, no matter how tiny, including many that have no impact on play whatsoever.
I don’t think there’s an answer to that - seems to be all or nothing.
Best suggestion I’ve seen is an ‘umpires call’ type approach.
posted on 25/2/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
Sheriff, the real puzzle with offside is how you can fix the big errors that actually affect play without stopping the game for every error, no matter how tiny, including many that have no impact on play whatsoever.
I don’t think there’s an answer to that - seems to be all or nothing.
Best suggestion I’ve seen is an ‘umpires call’ type approach.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you elaborate on this empires call thing I'm well aware of it in cricket obviously
posted on 25/2/20
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
Sheriff, the real puzzle with offside is how you can fix the big errors that actually affect play without stopping the game for every error, no matter how tiny, including many that have no impact on play whatsoever.
I don’t think there’s an answer to that - seems to be all or nothing.
Best suggestion I’ve seen is an ‘umpires call’ type approach.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you elaborate on this empires call thing I'm well aware of it in cricket obviously
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yeh, just based on the cricket idea.
A very quick line across the pitch and if it’s so tight that it requires zooming in, fiddling around with lines etc then that’s umpires call and the decision stays.
posted on 25/2/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 16 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
Sheriff, the real puzzle with offside is how you can fix the big errors that actually affect play without stopping the game for every error, no matter how tiny, including many that have no impact on play whatsoever.
I don’t think there’s an answer to that - seems to be all or nothing.
Best suggestion I’ve seen is an ‘umpires call’ type approach.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you elaborate on this empires call thing I'm well aware of it in cricket obviously
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yeh, just based on the cricket idea.
A very quick line across the pitch and if it’s so tight that it requires zooming in, fiddling around with lines etc then that’s umpires call and the decision stays.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Umpires call gets overturned in cricket though...if proved so
posted on 25/2/20
I still like the idea of the bigger line i.e. football width.. very easy to see very easy to call
posted on 25/2/20
I certainly think the fourth official could be used better
posted on 25/2/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 30 minutes ago
Don’t be such a patronising berk, TOOR.
I’ve read the history of the law and I’d wager I did so long before you did - you sound like someone who has just done it and suddenly thinks he’s the most informed person in the country.
Perhaps you can clarify who ‘they’ is in your statement.
Because the reality is that with any rule change, there is a variety of opinion.
I’m not calling you a liar for that, but I am suggesting you’re implying something that didn’t happen - that being there was the same sort of resistance to other changes as there is to this and now everyone agrees it was the right thing.
A couple of google searches you did earlier doesn’t change that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't say there wasn't a variety of opinion. I said there has always been people who have been dramatic and said it was the end of the game due to a rule change. I compared your comment to that.
I don't know why you have to go on the attack everytime somebody dares to have a different opinion to yours. Can you not just agree to disagree, just once?
I'll start us off - I accept your well made opinion, understand it but respectfully disagree. So let's agree to disagree? How about it?
posted on 25/2/20
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 3 hours, 17 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
There's nothing that can be done to fix the offside situation imo.
As soon as we opted to go down the technology route, we changed the game (for the worse) forever.
People will get used to it, though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They said that when they changed the offside rule in the 20s and 30s and 40s etc, you get the point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain what you meant by this comment then TOOR.
And no, I don’t think you remotely understand the alternative view.
posted on 25/2/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 29 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 3 hours, 17 minutes ago
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 38 minutes ago
Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
There's nothing that can be done to fix the offside situation imo.
As soon as we opted to go down the technology route, we changed the game (for the worse) forever.
People will get used to it, though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They said that when they changed the offside rule in the 20s and 30s and 40s etc, you get the point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Explain what you meant by this comment then TOOR.
And no, I don’t think you remotely understand the alternative view.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case we are done. I'll agree to disagree.
posted on 25/2/20
You can’t explain your comment without contradicting yourself, so you run away.
Pathetic.
posted on 25/2/20
If that's what you need to tell yourself. As I said, I'll agree to disagree. If you need to get the last word in, as usual and claim people are running away as they can't go on for days with you, go ahead. I certainly won't be part of it. I learned my lesson a long time ago.
I'll accept your opinion, respectfully disagree and move on.
Enjoy.
posted on 26/2/20
Except you haven’t accepted my opinion, TOOR.
You made a spurious claim about how there are always objections to changes in the law at first, implying that eventually those objections go away.
When called out on it, you play the ‘we’ll agree to disagree card’ instead of admitting that you lied and tried to dismiss my opinion with that lie.
And then to try and mask what you’ve done, you bring up ‘the last word’, which is just childish nonsense.
Yet again I’m left wondering why you use forums, TOOR. You’d be better off writing a blog with no option for people to reply.
posted on 26/2/20
Of course, the big point that TOOR misses with this is that it isn’t a change to the law that people object to, it’s how the law is enforced.
VAR is fixing problems that no one thought needed fixing, simply because it has to in order to be ‘fairly’ applied.
The law was written in such a way that officials could easily make a decision when managing the game. Technology has meant that officials now have to take that definition down to the minutest detail, and this is why there is a problem - not necessarily the law itself.
posted on 26/2/20
TOOR
As you have identified, the offside rule has changed several times over the years - does that sound like a rule that works as intended and improves the game? This latest development is different though. In the past, rule changes have been about making the game fairer and adding clarity (or attempting to!) to existing rules.
VAR is different - it is about HOW we apply rules and referee the game in general. Before VAR we were reliant on a ref and a linesman and their split second sight and interpretation of an incident. What VAR now gives refs, is the ability to review an incident in far more detail and in slow time. For rules like off side, hand ball and fouls, it mean we are NOW able to look at these and apply things like gaining an advantage and intent far more easily than without and therefore make the game fairer and more enjoyable for all, which is the point of these rules in the first place.
posted on 26/2/20
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 16 hours, 3 minutes ago
comment by CutMeAndIBleedRed (U7593)
posted 47 minutes ago
comment by Sheriff JW Pepper (U1007)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
The answer surely...(or answers) are
1. get the fackin ref (or the fourth official who does next to fack all) looking at the monitor
2 Bin Stockley park entirely if it's deemed surplus to requirements from above.
3 Update the offside rule to give the attacker more advantage, maybe use a line the width of a football to determine an offside call
4 Clarify what handball is & what the right course of action is
Simplistic maybe...but that's what people want
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1) i was really against this at the start - because i thought it would be far more simple to just have another ref says its hand ball, its a red, its offside etc. But ive changed my mind - i want the ref to decide marginal red cards, hand balls and offsides using the monitor and his feelings for the actual game.
3) This makes no difference!! You are just moving the line to a balls width away!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What about utilising the 4th official...?
It would both keep the decision at the ground, where the ref can confer with him, & utimately see the end of Stockley park
point 4 would make a difference in two ways...
A) It would make it more obvious as an offside call as there will be clear day light between the defender & the attacker (i.e. about a foot, or a football width)
B) It gives the advantage to the attacker...which after all is what we come to watch football for..goals
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would be more than happy for the forth official to view the monitor as he is there and part of the actual game. It would also avoid the ref having to traipse across the pitch to view the monitor which was my objection to them using the monitors in the first place.
The issue with any line is there will always be the issue with tiny amounts off side no matter where its drawn. Next time you watch a game, apply the gain an advantage logic to offside decisions - ive done it many times and dont think its every very difficult to do.
Page 7 of 7
6 | 7