|
|
On September 28 2020 17:16 evilfatsh1t wrote:
i dont think its a big ask to have refs try and judge whether the defender was careless and should have done better or the handball was simply unavoidable (like diers case).
refs have been making these decisions for decades and var was supposed to be brought into assist with judgment calls. if you dont trust the 1st ref to make these calls then they shouldnt be refs in the first place. and if youre gonna make var make every difficult call and leave nothing to the judgment of referees, why have referees on the pitch at all?
seems like common sense has gone out the window with the implementation of these things. though to be fair i think common sense itself is a rarity in todays society
this has nothing to do with common sense and refs "judging" intent has always resulted in tons of discussions because no decision will ever be consistent.
|
On September 28 2020 17:33 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2020 17:16 evilfatsh1t wrote:
i dont think its a big ask to have refs try and judge whether the defender was careless and should have done better or the handball was simply unavoidable (like diers case).
refs have been making these decisions for decades and var was supposed to be brought into assist with judgment calls. if you dont trust the 1st ref to make these calls then they shouldnt be refs in the first place. and if youre gonna make var make every difficult call and leave nothing to the judgment of referees, why have referees on the pitch at all?
seems like common sense has gone out the window with the implementation of these things. though to be fair i think common sense itself is a rarity in todays society this has nothing to do with common sense and refs "judging" intent has always resulted in tons of discussions because no decision will ever be consistent.
drone literally posted the perfect response to your comment immediately before you did.
its part of the game, sometimes refs might not get it right. vars job is to help refs reduce the number of incorrect calls. its job isnt supposed to turn the game into bullshit black and white game where the number of incorrect calls is zero.
so yes, it has everything to do with applying common sense to decisions. i dunno why you keep bringing up "intent" because thats not the right word to be using. no defender "intends" on blocking a ball with their hand, because if they did it would be a straight red. the refs job isnt to discern whether a handball was intentional because most of the time it isnt, the refs job is to discern whether the handball was avoidable.
|
arbitrary decisions was ok in a time where football was not a billion dollar business
Nowadays these arbitrary decisions decide between millions of profit or millions of losses. Do you not see that "you just have to accept these decision" is not possible anymore?
i dunno why you keep bringing up "intent" because thats not the right word to be using. no defender "intends" on blocking a ball with their hand, because if they did it would be a straight red. the refs job isnt to discern whether a handball was intentional because most of the time it isnt, the refs job is to discern whether the handball was avoidable
defenders grapple, hug and also use their hands if possible to stop attackers from scoring
|
On September 28 2020 17:51 sharkie wrote:arbitrary decisions was ok in a time where football was not a billion dollar business Nowadays these arbitrary decisions decide between millions of profit or millions of losses. Do you not see that "you just have to accept these decision" is not possible anymore? Show nested quote +i dunno why you keep bringing up "intent" because thats not the right word to be using. no defender "intends" on blocking a ball with their hand, because if they did it would be a straight red. the refs job isnt to discern whether a handball was intentional because most of the time it isnt, the refs job is to discern whether the handball was avoidable defenders grapple, hug and also use their hands if possible to stop attackers from scoring
this is quite possibly the stupidest justification for this rule ive ever heard.
what the fk does massive investment into the industry have to do with the application of this rule? are you implying that pl refs are easily bought and corruption is so rife within the sport that companies can manipulate results and directly profit? because if not its an even playing field either way and the return on any investment in this sport is going to be just as volatile as the investors expect it to be. if youre investing millions of dollars into football youre not gonna be so dumb to have such low assessment of risk that you think a dubious handball decision costed you your money.
also your 2nd point about defenders grappling, hugging etc has nothing to do with handball so i dont know why you even brought this point up. theres a different set of rules about that one buddy
|
No it isn't. It's actually the best justification of this rule because referees are only human. Do you want to be the person who decides if a team becomes a champion or who is relegated by judging intent (which could cost hundreds of people their jobs)? They don't want to be that, that's why referees accept VAR and rule changes which help them.
My 2nd point is that defenders definitely intend to block shots with their arms if possible
|
Norway28909 Posts
Defenders grappling, hugging, tugging, how much they 'battle', is an inherently arbitrary decision just like handballs should be, but fortunately we're not at the point where whether the referee should signal an infringement is determined by a quantified amount of seconds permitted or how many centimetres the tugged jersey is protruded by. (Or, if they were to apply the rule like how the handball rule is currently applied - literally any tugging or grappling would be a free kick or penalty. )
I'm very supportive of VAR. VAR helps referees make the decisions. But the problem with a too hard and fast ruleset is that it removes the ability for the referee to make a common sense decision (he was jumping, the hand was slightly protruding in a way he couldn't be blamed for, and someone behind him headed the ball into his arm from half a meter, also the ball wasn't going into a dangerous area but it happened to happen inside the box. this shouldn't be a penalty, but then suddenly the referee isn't allowed to make this choice because the rule is too strict in its definition.)
My point is that you can't remove the arbitrariness of referee decisions without removing the agency of the referee, and we don't want that, because suddenly they're forced to make decisions that everybody can see and agree is wrong and in conflict with the spirit of the game.
|
Norway28909 Posts
How 'big' and 'important' the game is has nothing to do with it. The goal is always trying to minimize the amount of wrong decisions. It's not like people are arguing in favor of more wrong decisions like that'd be a good thing. The problem is that too strict definitions run the risk of forcing the referee into making decisions that are clearly perceived as 'wrong' by nearly every observer. It's a problem of trying to turn something intersubjective into something objective (the best referee decision is the one that most people agree with) - which, quite frankly, is a pretty common trend not exclusive to football.
|
On September 28 2020 18:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Defenders grappling, hugging, tugging, how much they 'battle', is an inherently arbitrary decision just like handballs should be, but fortunately we're not at the point where whether the referee should signal an infringement is determined by a quantified amount of seconds permitted or how many centimetres the tugged jersey is protruded by. (Or, if they were to apply the rule like how the handball rule is currently applied - literally any tugging or grappling would be a free kick or penalty. )
I'm very supportive of VAR. VAR helps referees make the decisions. But the problem with a too hard and fast ruleset is that it removes the ability for the referee to make a common sense decision (he was jumping, the hand was slightly protruding in a way he couldn't be blamed for, and someone behind him headed the ball into his arm from half a meter, also the ball wasn't going into a dangerous area but it happened to happen inside the box. this shouldn't be a penalty, but then suddenly the referee isn't allowed to make this choice because the rule is too strict in its definition.)
My point is that you can't remove the arbitrariness of referee decisions without removing the agency of the referee, and we don't want that, because suddenly they're forced to make decisions that everybody can see and agree is wrong and in conflict with the spirit of the game.
Yeah. Right now I'm pondering whether there could be a more distinct division between strict rules and guidelines in some way. Rules would be by the book stuff and guidelines more about how to judge intend, reasonable attempt to avoid a potential foul and so on.
I could be confusing and like would get misquoted a lot and so on, but maybe there's some combination that actually works better than the current mess.
|
I don't know if anybody is responding to my point earlier, but let me clarify it further. I was mostly reacting to the specific idea put forth by Roy Hodgson and repeated in the thread by Greg_J. Intent seems at face value like a fair way of doing things, and imho that was codified more specifically as "unnatural position" in more recent rules, because intent was such a hard thing to judge, whereas "unnatural position" is clearer, although still a judgement call.
It still led to tons of discussion and dodgy calls, so clearly the rule needed further refinement. Is the current version good? I personally don't think so, but I also think it's worth trying. If you recall the rule change on passes back to the goalie, that initially led to tons of indirect free kicks in the penalty area and a lot of complaining and protesting, but players adjusted and goalies stopped picking up every single ball that entered their area. The game got a bit faster and more dynamic and it was good. So judging a rule change so fast on its immediate impact seems unfair to the rule. Players need to adjust and referees need to adjust. If it leads to referees either ignoring the rule and using even more arbitrary "judgements" that'd be bad. If players are unable to adjust and it leads to tons of penalties or defending fails as they are more afraid of touching the ball inadvertently with their hand (my guess of how this will play out) , that'd probably be bad too. But at least give people time to adjust and then evaluate this rule when defenders have trained a bit with these stricter conditions for their hands, and referees are a bit more used to it. Maybe it actually does work and leads to "fairer" games without making defenders' lives too hard.
|
One good decision I read over the weekend is to not award penalties in these "no-intent" handballs but indirect freekicks from outside the box? Then we can keep the strict rule but have a different punishment to it?
On September 28 2020 18:36 Acrofales wrote:
I don't know if anybody is responding to my point earlier, but let me clarify it further. I was mostly reacting to the specific idea put forth by Roy Hodgson and repeated in the thread by Greg_J. Intent seems at face value like a fair way of doing things, and imho that was codified more specifically as "unnatural position" in more recent rules, because intent was such a hard thing to judge, whereas "unnatural position" is clearer, although still a judgement call.
It still led to tons of discussion and dodgy calls, so clearly the rule needed further refinement. Is the current version good? I personally don't think so, but I also think it's worth trying. If you recall the rule change on passes back to the goalie, that initially led to tons of indirect free kicks in the penalty area and a lot of complaining and protesting, but players adjusted and goalies stopped picking up every single ball that entered their area. The game got a bit faster and more dynamic and it was good. So judging a rule change so fast on its immediate impact seems unfair to the rule. Players need to adjust and referees need to adjust. If it leads to referees either ignoring the rule and using even more arbitrary "judgements" that'd be bad. If players are unable to adjust and it leads to tons of penalties or defending fails as they are more afraid of touching the ball inadvertently with their hand (my guess of how this will play out) , that'd probably be bad too. But at least give people time to adjust and then evaluate this rule when defenders have trained a bit with these stricter conditions for their hands, and referees are a bit more used to it. Maybe it actually does work and leads to "fairer" games without making defenders' lives too hard.
lovely post - I agree, lets just try for a season and lets see
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Thiago played 45 minutes and is injured and misses todays game for Liverpool! Big blow considering no Henderson either.
|
On September 29 2020 03:03 Pandemona wrote:
Thiago played 45 minutes and is injured and misses todays game for Liverpool! Big blow considering no Henderson either.
Well the result indicates otherwise. Did Jota score a goal already?
Edit: seems so, just saw a clip of it passing and was not sure if it was handball or not, but have now managed to see it got up on the board.
|
I don't think missing Thiago is such a big deal against a team like Arsenal. The way Arsenal plays - or at least traditionally played before Arteta - there's always going to be enough of back and forth to score goals. Thiago surely a great option in these games too, but not such an essential player as he can be against defensive teams like Atletico for example.
|
On September 29 2020 20:23 Bacillus wrote:
I don't think missing Thiago is such a big deal against a team like Arsenal. The way Arsenal plays - or at least traditionally played before Arteta - there's always going to be enough of back and forth to score goals. Thiago surely a great option in these games too, but not such an essential player as he can be against defensive teams like Atletico for example.
Agreed, he's going to be much more essential in beating the 'weaker' teams.
|
League cup is even less interesting now during covid season than it is during a normal season.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
Poor Spurs, played Sunday, play today vs Chelsea, play Thursday against Maccabi Haifa and then Sunday vs Yanited! Jesus lol
Ok...Thiago isn't injured he has Coronavirus!
|
|
|
On September 30 2020 02:15 Pandemona wrote:
Poor Spurs, played Sunday, play today vs Chelsea, play Thursday against Maccabi Haifa and then Sunday vs Yanited! Jesus lol
Ok...Thiago isn't injured he has Coronavirus!
Yeah they really got lucky by getting the league cup game cancelled last week. Three games a week for two weeks in a row is a lot. Mourinho also totally illustrating the importance of today's game in his squad selection, obviously Son's injury(any news on that?) was really unhelpful as well.
|
On September 30 2020 02:15 Pandemona wrote:
Poor Spurs, played Sunday, play today vs Chelsea, play Thursday against Maccabi Haifa and then Sunday vs Yanited! Jesus lol
Ok...Thiago isn't injured he has Coronavirus!
Oddly enough I prefer this over an injury.
|
Lampard will soon realise being a chelsea legend counts for nothing
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
