International Football General Chat

[kurtsimonw]

53 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

My only question mark would be if, for example, in that second goal that Spain scored, the French players had reacted to the linesman's flag.

I know that didn't happen here because it was clear cut. But say a player gets put through, the linesman flags and the defenders stop. Striker scores. Ref checks and it's given as onside.

 

 

But I think it's clear now it's going to happen. And to be honest I'm all for it. I'm intrigued as to the system they'll settle on but it's long overdue. As usual the football powers that be are too worried about upsetting people rather than doing what's best.

It is a legitimate concern. 

I would say simply, play to the whistle. The problem there is something that happens in the NFL all too often, a whistle happy ref blows up, a player runs in for a touchdown, but it doesn't count because the referee blew up. Even though the ref was wrong and the touchdown should be given. 

I actually think with VAR linesman are no longer needed. What would be the point of them? If a player goes through and scores, review it and see if there was an offside. If a goal doesn't come from it, surely they can just play on anyway? 

[sharkyvilla]

How can swearing at an official be a four match ban?  That's insane.

[Stevo985]

9 hours ago, kurtsimonw said:

It is a legitimate concern. 

I would say simply, play to the whistle. The problem there is something that happens in the NFL all too often, a whistle happy ref blows up, a player runs in for a touchdown, but it doesn't count because the referee blew up. Even though the ref was wrong and the touchdown should be given. 

I actually think with VAR linesman are no longer needed. What would be the point of them? If a player goes through and scores, review it and see if there was an offside. If a goal doesn't come from it, surely they can just play on anyway? 

It wouldn't surprise me if that's the next thing that's done by hawkeye (or something similar).

[Jarpie]

Finnish Fredrik Jensen scored decent goal on his debut against Austria. The game tempo wasn't that great, but finns played a bit more direct than against Turkey and surprise surprise, we played better.

 

[rodders0223]

Quote

Barcelona have described Lionel Messi's four-match international ban with Argentina as "unfair and totally disproportionate".

The 29-year-old Barca forward was suspended for directing "insulting words" at an assistant referee during Thursday's 1-0 win over Chile.

He remains free to play for his Spanish La Liga club.

In a statement, Barcelona expressed their "surprise and indignation" at the Fifa disciplinary ruling.

"The club considers the four-match suspension finally imposed on the Argentine player to be unfair and totally disproportionate," the club said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/39430769

Didn't they also try to get trending "We are Messi" when he was convicted for tax fraud?

Coupled with their own highly dubious financial practices over the years, I really despise this club. To think it is the same one I grew up watching in the days of Rivaldo and Ronaldo. Yeah, that club is dead.

 

 

[LancsVillan]

2 hours ago, Jarpie said:

Finnish Fredrik Jensen scored decent goal on his debut against Austria. The game tempo wasn't that great, but finns played a bit more direct than against Turkey and surprise surprise, we played better.

 

Good goal - yes, indeed is there ever a 'bad' goal if you support that team. However, there is no way it is 'amazing' as per the description, the keeper has it covered but for that last second bobble off the pitch

[BOF]

5 hours ago, sharkyvilla said:

How can swearing at an official be a four match ban?  That's insane.

On the face of it I agree.  And when you take into account WHO they've banned, you've got to assume they've decided to make a high profile example of respecting officials.  Of course we don't know what he said to him.  But it's hard to imagine anything that would warrant 4 games under normal circumstances.

 

But on an unrelated note, that's the international matches out of the way now

[PaulC]

15 hours ago, VillaChris said:

Yep, video technology been a massive success this game, good to see.

I never got the argument people made that there would be no natural stoppage in a game to review the calls...there's always a delay after offsides.

Sam Matterface on ITV whinging it curtails goal celebrations and adds unnecessary injury time.

I was having a discussion with my brother whether this type of video technology is good for betting, particularly the goal market. I think it will be bad.

[bobzy]

1 hour ago, rodders0223 said:

Didn't they also try to get trending "We are Messi" when he was convicted for tax fraud?

Coupled with their own highly dubious financial practices over the years, I really despise this club. To think it is the same one I grew up watching in the days of Rivaldo and Ronaldo. Yeah, that club is dead.

 

 

Do you also despite most other Spanish clubs, most Dutch clubs and a lot of the rich boys in World football right now?

[PaulC]

18 hours ago, VillaChris said:

Messi banned for 4 games for swearing at the ref after the end of the Argentina-Chile game last week. Starts immediately so he's ruled out of the trip to the mountains in Bolivia tonight.

Argentina are without I think now 8 players (Messi, Higuaín, Mascherano, Otamendi, Mercardo and Mas plus a few more) so can see them losing tonight and in Uruguay next game. If that happens their qualification will go right to the last game.

There is precedent, Neymar got a similar ban last year after the Copa America so refreshing Fifa are clamping down on this with two of the biggest names in the game.

Yes they may not make it to Russia. Russia without Messi is not want FIFA want so they maybe shooting themselves in the foot with such an extensive ban.

[kurtsimonw]

1 minute ago, PaulC said:

I was having a discussion with my brother whether this type of video technology is good for betting, particularly the goal market. I think it will be bad.

I don't think we will see much of a difference. I think there's probably just as many wrongly disallowed goals as there are goals wrongly given. Same with penalties. 

[PaulC]

9 minutes ago, kurtsimonw said:

I don't think we will see much of a difference. I think there's probably just as many wrongly disallowed goals as there are goals wrongly given. Same with penalties. 

You're probably right but it will be very annoying if you get a goal in the last minute which is given by the ref only for video technology to not give it and you have lost £500 because of it.

[BOF]

1. Man offside is called offside - Correct decision. No change with video ref.

2. Man onside is not called offside - Correct decision.  No change with video ref.

3. Man onside is called offside - This will change and it can only result in more goals, because the currently outlined scenario results in zero goals.

4. Man offside is not called offside - This is where the discussion happens.  This can play out 2 ways.  It might be that the video will always call him offside.  In that scenario we see fewer goals.  But it might be that in cases where there was doubt on the part of the linesman and he has given the benefit of that doubt to the (borderline offside) attacker, the video ref might let that go in an attempt to not completely circumvent human officiating.  So depending on the stance taken in that scenario, we either get fewer goals (as he'll now be called offside) or it will remain exactly the same as it currently is other than for blatant offsides.

We can discount scenarios 1 & 2 because they are not impacted.

Scenario 3 always increases our goals.

Scenario 4 either reduces our goals or leaves them the same in some cases.

So best case for goals scored is scenario 3 adds to them and 4 doesn't always take from them.

Worst case is 3 adds to them and 4 always takes away from them.

So we either increase or stay the same.

There is no combination of scenarios where we end up with fewer goals being scored as a result of the video ref.

[PaulC]

So with scenario 3 say its very marginal would the benefit of the doubt go to the linesman who called offside or the team that scored the goal. If its the team that score then yes I agree that we increase. But if its like cricket and it stays with the onfield decision then no difference

[BOF]

24 minutes ago, PaulC said:

So with scenario 3 say its very marginal would the benefit of the doubt go to the linesman who called offside or the team that scored the goal. If its the team that score then yes I agree that we increase. But if its like cricket and it stays with the onfield decision then no difference

Scenario 3 is an injustice which IMO would definitely go with the attacking team.  Scenario 4 may well go the same way by which I mean go with the 'wronged' (in this case defensive) team, although there's more of a discussion there I think.  Otherwise what's the point of bringing the video in at all for offsides.  It's for righting wrongs.

[kurtsimonw]

I wonder how far back they will go in regards to a goal being offside or not. If a ball is played down the line to an offside player who isn't flagged, he plays it back to the edge of the box, they switch the ball to the other flank, put a cross in and score. Is that chalked off? 

[BOF]

14 minutes ago, kurtsimonw said:

I wonder how far back they will go in regards to a goal being offside or not. If a ball is played down the line to an offside player who isn't flagged, he plays it back to the edge of the box, they switch the ball to the other flank, put a cross in and score. Is that chalked off? 

My guess, based on the practicality of implementing it, is that the video will only be for the pass immediately leading to a goal i.e. was the goalscorer offside.  If someone else is incorrectly judged to be onside then that'll still be part of the game.  For the video ref to look unprompted at anything other than the final ball becomes exponentially more complicated, cumbersome and unworkable.  That's why FIFA were extremely hesitant at ever bringing anything like this in.  Because once it's in, it can mission-creep.

[kurtsimonw]

20 minutes ago, BOF said:

My guess, based on the practicality of implementing it, is that the video will only be for the pass immediately leading to a goal i.e. was the goalscorer offside.  If someone else is incorrectly judged to be onside then that'll still be part of the game.  For the video ref to look unprompted at anything other than the final ball becomes exponentially more complicated, cumbersome and unworkable.  That's why FIFA were extremely hesitant at ever bringing anything like this in.  Because once it's in, it can mission-creep.

Last night Griezmann wasn't off, Kurzawa was (he provided the assist) 

[BOF]

Just now, kurtsimonw said:

Last night Griezmann wasn't off, Kurzawa was (he provided the assist) 

Interesting.  Then I adjust to 'scorer or assister' as they're both directly involved in the goal   I don't think it would expand to scenarios like above where the ball switches from one side to another, then assists someone and it's called back for about the 3rd or 4th previous player to touch it.  I'd be very surprised if they went to that level of scrutiny because at that point you've basically replaced the linesman entirely.  Whether that's a good thing or not is another discussion  

[Mat Kendrick's Dentist]

2 hours ago, BOF said:

On the face of it I agree.  And when you take into account WHO they've banned, you've got to assume they've decided to make a high profile example of respecting officials.  Of course we don't know what he said to him.  But it's hard to imagine anything that would warrant 4 games under normal circumstances.

 

But on an unrelated note, that's the international matches out of the way now

He had a comment to make about the ref's mother's wobbly bits! In fairness, it's about the most common Argie swear, so it sounds worse when translated.