VAR thread 2022/23

Status
Not open for further replies.
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
I understand what the guy is saying, but it's just flannel. The footballing authorities could have easily wheeled someone out to discuss the 'spirit' of the law or the 'inferred' meaning of the interfering with play element of the offside law if they'd have wanted to prove it the other way.
Click to expand...

You’ve probably inadvertently got to the heart of the problem of understanding the laws of football, when you talk about “proof” of a decision.

Unlike any other sport, the basis of so many of football’s laws are framed around an opinion on whether an incident crosses over the line of legal or foul play. Even something as basic as what is a foul, is almost impossible to put adequately into words. A player making contact with an opponent doesn’t in itself constitute an automatic offence, as in say basketball. Football is a contact sport. So almost every incident of contact becomes a matter of opinion as to whether a foul has been committed or not.

There’s a phrase constantly used throughout the explanation of the laws of the game, which the ESPN guy also frequently uses. Which is, “What would be the best decision in keeping with the spirit of how the law was intended?”

Going back to the Rashford incident, I’ve not read of a single person who believes the best decision in that case would not have been offside.

But this is where you get so much misunderstanding of the role of the VAR. And accusations that he’s just ‘backing up his mate.’ His job isn’t to also ask himself what the best decision is. His job is to judge whether the referee’s decision falls anywhere within the scope of a ‘correct’ decision. And if it does, even if he hates the decision, he cannot advise the referee that he has made a mistake.
 
Stephen230 said:
You’ve probably inadvertently got to the heart of the problem of understanding the laws of football, when you talk about “proof” of a decision.

Unlike any other sport, the basis of so many of football’s laws are framed around an opinion on whether an incident crosses over the line of legal or foul play. Even something as basic as what is a foul, is almost impossible to put adequately into words. A player making contact with an opponent doesn’t in itself constitute an automatic offence, as in say basketball. Football is a contact sport. So almost every incident of contact becomes a matter of opinion as to whether a foul has been committed or not.

There’s a phrase constantly used throughout the explanation of the laws of the game, which the ESPN guy also frequently uses. Which is, “What would be the best decision in keeping with the spirit of how the law was intended?”

Going back to the Rashford incident, I’ve not read of a single person who believes the best decision in that case would not have been offside.

But this is where you get so much misunderstanding of the role of the VAR. And accusations that he’s just ‘backing up his mate.’ His job isn’t to also ask himself what the best decision is. His job is to judge whether the referee’s decision falls anywhere within the scope of a ‘correct’ decision. And if it does, even if he hates the decision, he cannot advise the referee that he has made a mistake.
Click to expand...
There is no 'inadvertently' about it. When the authorities want to justify a decision one way or the other they will do so by careful wording of their interpretation of the deliberately loose and ambiguous LOTG.
 
SWP's back said:
I did wonder if anyone with the capacity to understand words would read it, thanks.
Click to expand...

I think this is one of those situations where nobody is going to convince the other party so we’re at risk of just cycling through the same arguments ad nauseum.

My position is that you cannot disentangle the concept of “a player’s physical ability to play the ball” and “a player’s decision making that leads to them playing the ball”. They are intrinsically linked to the extent that pretending they are not creates a lot more problems for the law. It’s a distinction that is never made in any of the text of the law or interpretations provided by refereeing bodies, but rather is something that some seem to be inferring from the wording of the law. I say some people because it is clear by the decisions given that the vast majority of referees can’t possibly be using this interpretation.

The reason it is problematic is that if somebody gets dummied by an offside player you can make the same argument. There is no physical restraint on the player preventing them from playing the ball, dummying a ball interferes with a player’s decision making only... But I think we would all accept that an offside player can’t dummy a shot at goal, that would seem absurd.

I think the wording of the law needs to clarify this, but I don’t believe at any point in time did the law “agree” with the decision given. It is just that if you offer an extremely generous interpretation of the wording, you might allow this purely on a technicality. But then if you used that same interpretation on every incident thereafter it would create chaos, and the offside rule we see used would look unrecognisable to us.

Tl;dr - I agree it is a badly written law, but this application was a crazy interpretation of it that would ruin football and so nobody else uses
 
Trevor Morley's Tache said:
There is no 'inadvertently' about it. When the authorities want to justify a decision one way or the other they will do so by careful wording of their interpretation of the deliberately loose and ambiguous LOTG.
Click to expand...

Is it possible to have laws of the game that aren’t loose or ambiguous in a contact sport like football though?

Could you word a law that covers exactly what a foul is, that covers every possible incident you’d like to be penalised, excludes every possible incident you’d like to not be penalised, and not be the slightest bit ambiguous?
 
decmancity said:
This is my thoughts on it also. I don't believe the refs are capable of running some underground betting ring that is influencing games, especially football. Sports which can be influenced directly by the players e.g. Snooker, Tennis and NFL etc I do believe have deliberate corruption.

What I am seeing is an almost cult like group of people just defending themselves and each other.
I would love to hear the conversations that happen on the mic after that tackle by Fabinho.

"What do you think mate"
"Yeah definitely a red but you were right there and should have seen it. "
"Probably right pal, shall we just ignore it and move on or im gonna look a right idiot on TV."
Click to expand...
Let's bring in Peter Walton and Dermot Gallagher - they'll defend us.
 
Stephen230 said:
Is it possible to have laws of the game that aren’t loose or ambiguous in a contact sport like football though?

Could you word a law that covers exactly what a foul is, that covers every possible incident you’d like to be penalised, excludes every possible incident you’d like to not be penalised, and not be the slightest bit ambiguous?
Click to expand...
That is what var is trying to do and as you infer, it will never work.
 
Stephen230 said:
He does explain why Ederson’s reaction to what Rashford may be about to do, is irrelevant by law.
——

The real case for discussion is about Ederson, and whether his actions would have changed had Rashford not been there. Perhaps, but Rashford doesn't impact the goalkeeper's ability to come and play the ball. He may affect his choice to do so, and how he might shape for a save, but the law doesn't discuss how a player might behave differently if the offside player isn't present; it only discusses the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

———

And no, I don’t agree with the decision. And neither does he. But he understands the laws of the game as well as anybody.
Click to expand...
Which Akanji couldn’t do.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.