General officiating/rules

[StefanAVFC]

Put offside checks on a timer and if it isn’t clear after that, then stay with the onfield decision. 

[sne]

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

Put offside checks on a timer and if it isn’t clear after that, then stay with the onfield decision. 

Yeah, said it before. Even 30 seconds should be enough. If it isn't clear then it isn't clear.

[villaglint]

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

Put offside checks on a timer and if it isn’t clear after that, then stay with the onfield decision. 

I realise VAR plays quite a big part in our defensive strategy but I’d be much happier scraping VAR for offside altogether. 
 

People called for it for years in order to help stop the howlers not to enforce the rules of the game to millimetre accuracy. 

[May-Z]

[Davkaus]

5 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

Put offside checks on a timer and if it isn’t clear after that, then stay with the onfield decision. 

 

5 hours ago, sne said:

Yeah, said it before. Even 30 seconds should be enough. If it isn't clear then it isn't clear.

It should be long enough for a very basic bread and butter offside. Perhaps not if there are multiple phases to check, or subjective decisions about who is/isn't interfering with play, whether a touch is deliberately playing the ball, etc.

Some of the problem is VAR (no doubt fuelled by the recent Liverpool incident having them really, really taking their time and communicating as clearly as they can), some of it is, IMO, the ridiculous complexity of the rule.

[foreveryoung]

A full foot to be offside aswell, none of this checking for nearly 10 minutes because the dirt on the end of his boot puts him offside, neither should a trailing arm be off, it gives the player no advantage. I was saying in the match thread, there is no way you can justify a offside so small as a toe, you would have to have a 100th of a second frame from when the ball was kicked, actually touched, off his foot for the cross. You cannot see foot to the ball, it's will always be blurred, so theres no real chance of that sort of accuracy, they are fooling themselves and the fans calling a inch offside really

[villa4europe]

2 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

A full foot to be offside aswell, none of this checking for nearly 10 minutes because the dirt on the end of his boot puts him offside, neither should a trailing arm be off, it gives the player no advantage. I was saying in the match thread, there is no way you can justify a offside so small as a toe, you would have to have a 100th of a second frame from when the ball was kicked, actually touched, off his foot for the cross. You cannot see foot to the ball, it's will always be blurred, so theres no real chance of that sort of accuracy, they are fooling themselves and the fans calling a inch offside really

Just use the same set up that fifa and uefa are successfully using

Not sure why Pgmol insist on doing it different other than the arrogance of thinking they can do it better when they blatantly cant

The answer is the 3d view

[StefanAVFC]

apart from that, brilliant performance lads. 

[Zatman]

Another apology to Wolves. Maybe they can cash them in at the end of the season for points

[bannedfromHandV]

Introducing (possibly) sin bins.

In a time when referees are ruining the game (partly through their own incompetence and partly through the ridiculous parameters they’re given to deal with these days) surely the last thing you want to do is go and make another significant alteration to the rules which will see then become even more involved in the ebb and flow of a game.

 

[sne]

More nonsense from FIFA/Arsene Wenger/Saudi Arabia or whoever it is pushing this particular way of introducing opportunities for commercial breaks in football and make it more suitable for the TikTok kids and Americans.

Quote

Sin-bins are set to be introduced in professional football as part of a revolutionary crackdown on dissent and cynical fouls.

The game’s lawmakers on Tuesday agreed to test the rugby-style measure in elite competitions such as the Premier League – potentially as early as next season.

Sin-bins have worked successfully at tackling dissent for many years at grass roots and youth level and the new trials could also see them used to punish tactical fouling.

As reported by Telegraph Sport, the International Football Association Board (Ifab) also approved a global trial of another rugby union rule that would see only team captains allowed to speak to the match referee about a decision.

The trials have been fast-tracked amid dire warnings from Ifab’s leaders about player behaviour, of which they said: “This might be the cancer that kills football.”

Tuesday’s Ifab annual business meeting decided that sin-bins were key to preventing this and a protocol will now be drawn up to determine precisely how they would work.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2023/11/28/ifab-premier-league-sin-bins-tactical-foul-orange-card/

[Davkaus]

I'm surprised some associations aren't pushing back against Ifab, wanting to have more of a say in the laws

[ThunderPower_14]

Sin bins are totally unnecessary.

I do like that only the captain can speak to the ref though, the crowding of refs in football is a disgrace.

But if they breach it, just give them a yellow, they'll learn pretty quickly to cut it out.

[desensitized43]

I agree with Paul Merson. You’ll kill the game with sin bins. Teams will go full Tony Pulis with everyone behind the ball and wasting even more time than they already do. Plus it adds even more incentive to the players who exaggerate contact to try and get players carded.

I don’t get what problem this is trying to solve. We already have reviews with the VAR if it’s borderline yellow/red. Can someone tell me why we need a punishment stronger than yellow but less than red?

[JB]

The biggest problem with the sin bin idea is that it’s another thing that incompetent refs can **** up that will potentially have a very significant effect on the outcome of a game.

[fightoffyour]

1 hour ago, desensitized43 said:

I don’t get what problem this is trying to solve. We already have reviews with the VAR if it’s borderline yellow/red. Can someone tell me why we need a punishment stronger than yellow but less than red?

The kind of Rodri fouls on the halfway line to prevent a break where you've stopped a clear goalscoring opportunity before it has actually become one. Usually just a trip so they are not violent conduct but they do prevent a high chance of a goal.

47 minutes ago, JB said:

The biggest problem with the sin bin idea is that it’s another thing that incompetent refs can **** up that will potentially have a very significant effect on the outcome of a game.

But yeah this is the issue isn't. Right now Rodri hardly even gets yellows so how can we trust the refs to implement anything properly, it'll just end up with loads of Wolves players in the sin bin on current evidence.

[MrBlack]

50 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

The kind of Rodri fouls on the halfway line to prevent a break where you've stopped a clear goalscoring opportunity before it has actually become one. Usually just a trip so they are not violent conduct but they do prevent a high chance of a goal.

But yeah this is the issue isn't. Right now Rodri hardly even gets yellows so how can we trust the refs to implement anything properly, it'll just end up with loads of Wolves players in the sin bin on current evidence.

As I read your first comment I was thinking to myself... yes, that's the foul, but that one doesn't get given as a free kick so this rule change only impacts those that PGMOL aren't in bed with (see also Guimares).

[bobzy]

I just don't get the handball rule at all - and I'm not sure referees do.

We've had the one given against Livramento which, in my mind, just cannot possibly be worthy of conceding a penalty.  It's a cross which hits his chest then bounces down onto his elbow.
But then, watching the highlights of Galatasaray vs Man Utd, there's a moment where Galatasaray have a shot from about 15 yards and a covering McTominay runs across to block the shot (I guess?) which hits his left arm (he's travelled from the left, so his "trailing arm" if you like).  However, it's down by his side so no penalty?

Non-dangerous situation where the ball is hit from very close proximity, deflects onto arm from chest = penalty.  Possible goal saving block with arm from a shot that is a good 10 yards away, but arm not sticking up = no penalty.

I don't understand what the rule is trying to achieve.

 

(FWIW, I don't think not giving a penalty against McTominay is a howler or anything, but it's a much bigger penalty shout than the Livramento one should be.  Much bigger!).

[MrBlack]

1 minute ago, bobzy said:

I just don't get the handball rule at all - and I'm not sure referees do.

We've had the one given against Livramento which, in my mind, just cannot possibly be worthy of conceding a penalty.  It's a cross which hits his chest then bounces down onto his elbow.
But then, watching the highlights of Galatasaray vs Man Utd, there's a moment where Galatasaray have a shot from about 15 yards and a covering McTominay runs across to block the shot (I guess?) which hits his left arm (he's travelled from the left, so his "trailing arm" if you like).  However, it's down by his side so no penalty?

Non-dangerous situation where the ball is hit from very close proximity, deflects onto arm from chest = penalty.  Possible goal saving block with arm from a shot that is a good 10 yards away, but arm not sticking up = no penalty.

I don't understand what the rule is trying to achieve.

 

(FWIW, I don't think not giving a penalty against McTominay is a howler or anything, but it's a much bigger penalty shout than the Livramento one should be.  Much bigger!).

It's almost the reverse of the rule that "a goal can't be given if it was scored by the arm/ hand, no matter the intent".

You have to then give the attacking team the same benefit , that a penalty should be awarded if a shot is blocked by a hand, even if there was no intent.

Guess it's more tricky as you won't know what would have been a goal, but the impact of the handball should definitely be factored in.  That then just makes it more complicated and something else for them to screw up though. No winning is there?

[bannedfromHandV]

Football doesn’t need fixing.

It didn’t need VAR and it’s implementation has added very little whilst taking away a lot.

It doesn’t need sin bins, no one is asking for it, and yet it will be implemented and again will add very little whilst taking away a lot.

But I guess the powers that be have to justify their careers by making some form of impact before retirement eh.