socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Somewhat like when they mad a GK coming off the line a caution—it just made it less likely it would be called.
Watching them speak at that meeting sent shudders through me. Collina's legacy will be that of a man made wealthy by the puppet role he's chosen to fill. There's a nauseating disconnect between the way he refereed and the disingenuous ideas he now holds about the game. He should be ashamed of himself. Then there's Mark Bullingham championing the success of temporary dismissals. If he thinks dissent is better now that it was when I started refereeing, then he's either so far removed from reality, or he too is being disingenuous. And the best ideas they have to fix VAR essentially amount to 'doubling down'
No matter, I think it's growing on a majority of people in this country, that the game has never been in a worse state in so many respects, not least because VAR is constantly taking the headlines away from the football. The game is rotten to the core by money and as we've seen with other sports, it will probably implode in some way and it won't bother me in the slightest when it does
No matter, I think it's growing on a majority of people in this country, that the game has never been in a worse state in so many respects, not least because VAR is constantly taking the headlines away from the football. The game is rotten to the core by money and as we've seen with other sports, it will probably implode in some way and it won't bother me in the slightest when it does
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
OT but City’s 5in6 and 115in10 are perhaps the implosion already. It’s possible top flight football has already stopped being a sport as we know it - due to failures of governance. TalkVAR is just a minor SNAFU.
Murri O
Well-Known Member
What sh#ts me about this is the the refs already have the tools at their disposal to deal with this but they don't.
Worse still they tolerate it at the highest level which is seen by literally billions of people who think that sort of behaviour is fine at grassroots.
10 in the bin for a tactical foul is just going to throw up 'If you sent him for 10 for that ref then he has to go' etc etc.
More bullsh#it incoming.
Just use your f#$@king cards and put a few of these idiots on notice.
Bit of a rant but woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
Worse still they tolerate it at the highest level which is seen by literally billions of people who think that sort of behaviour is fine at grassroots.
10 in the bin for a tactical foul is just going to throw up 'If you sent him for 10 for that ref then he has to go' etc etc.
More bullsh#it incoming.
Just use your f#$@king cards and put a few of these idiots on notice.
Bit of a rant but woke up on the wrong side of the bed.
Kes
I'll Decide ...
Don't agree. The notion of making the body/barrier unnaturally bigger is still based on the assumption that it's deliberate or cheating and therefore still handball.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
As written, it really isn’t. Deliberate is one category and making oneself unnaturally bigger is a different category. While “biggering” certainly evolved as a concept that it was a way players would try to hide their deliberate handling, I think it escaped that origin both as written in the current HB provision, as applied in (at least many) competitions, and as thought about in this idea that unintentional HB DOGSO would be a caution instead of a send off.
I do think it is mucked up. I think the origin of “biggering” made sense, as it was a way to discuss sneaky actions by players. And I th8nk it should have stayed that way. But I don’t think it has. (I recall discussions when the current HB language first came out about whether IFAB considered biggering as deliberate—which mattered as applied to OS as it would determine whether a biggering HB offense reset OS (so that advantage could be played on a subsequent goal by a player who was otherwise OS. I don’t believe there was clear guidance that ever came out.)
