PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Just to be clear, I do agree that some of the wording could be improved, but while its there we have to work with it and so should the pundits.
VAR
- Thread starter jofusref
- Start date
one
RefChat Addict
Pundits using lotg words has the analogy of movie actors using words in the domain of the movies they are acting in. For example doctor actors use medical words. The only people who care about it being used correctly and in the right context are real doctors. For the rest of us we just want to enjoy the movies.
As long as the masses don't try and learn medicine from movies all is good. Most people know this. Not sure the same holds true for the average fan who watches football on the telly.
As long as the masses don't try and learn medicine from movies all is good. Most people know this. Not sure the same holds true for the average fan who watches football on the telly.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Oh, if only . . . we've had two major re-writes since the language no longer made sense, including one that rewrote other language in Law 11 . . . I think I'm going to retire will still explaining that gaining an advantage doesn't mean what the words say . . .
Easy fix too.
Replace
"or
- gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:"
"These criteria also apply when the ball has:"
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
IMHO what they really should do is take the entirety of Law 11 apart and redraft it to say what it means instead of continuing to tinker at the edges of the language to get it closer to what it means. One of the things utterly missing in the text of the law is that we treat the "reset" differently on challenging an opponent than on getting the ball, as we are told that it remains an OS offense to challenge the opponent "immediately" after the opponent plays the ball. If that's what Law 11 means, there is no possible way to remotely tease that out of the language.
We would be better off with language that says something like:
A player who was in OSP at the moment the ball played by or touches a temmate may not
We would be better off with language that says something like:
A player who was in OSP at the moment the ball played by or touches a temmate may not
- Play or be touched by the ball until
- The ball is played by or touches a teammate at a time the player is no longer in OSP
- A restart takes place
- An opponent deliberately plays the ball
- Interfere with an opponent until
- The ball is played by or touches a teammate at a time the player is no longer in OSP
- A restart takes place
- An opponent deliberately plays the ball and has time to [whatever the real meaning here is supposed to be]
Steady on, at that rate we'll have the book back to the manageable size Sir Stanley Rous gave us.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Whether it'll have any effect or not I've no idea but I've previousy sent in a suggestion to the IFAB that they simply remove the phrases "interfering with play" and "gaining an advantage" from Law 11. As discussed, they serve no useful purpose and cause way more problems then they solve.
one
RefChat Addict
Talking from experience, some of those suggestions from the public do (or used to) actually make their way in to the lotg
Two big games tonight. Both decided by 'Acts of God'. Haven't seen the Leeds PK, but sounds the same as the Newcastle equivalent
The game is so far gone
I wonder what % of key match decisions have been awarded by the 'on-field assistant referee' this season, as opposed to the 'gallery referee'
As an aside, I also wonder how many idiots have gotten themselves rightly sent off in the EPL inside the first 10 mins. Note to Clarke: It a 'team game'
The game is so far gone
I wonder what % of key match decisions have been awarded by the 'on-field assistant referee' this season, as opposed to the 'gallery referee'
As an aside, I also wonder how many idiots have gotten themselves rightly sent off in the EPL inside the first 10 mins. Note to Clarke: It a 'team game'
Two big games tonight. Both decided by 'Acts of God'. Haven't seen the Leeds PK, but sounds the same as the Newcastle equivalent
The game is so far gone
I wonder what % of key match decisions have been awarded by the 'on-field assistant referee' this season, as opposed to the 'gallery referee'
As an aside, I also wonder how many idiots have gotten themselves rightly sent off in the EPL inside the first 10 mins. Note to Clarke: It a 'team game'
Clark's sending off was as clear as you will ever see and really didn't need VAR. and the penalty award was very clear under current laws. The penalty given to Leeds in the other game was even more clear, arm way above the head and leading, about as blatant as you are going to get.
I understand that you don't like VAR, but these were mistakes that VAR was brought into correct. Should the referees have got the decisions right real time, yes, probably, but they did't so a quick VAR veview is way better than the decision being wrong.
one
RefChat Addict
I think the point is that "they didn't" because there is a VAR review.
I am just guessing but I'd say a large % of the decisions corrected by VAR would have been correctly if there was no VAR. On the surface this looks ok because we think as long as the end decision is right.... But this means there would now be a lot more critical decision that are wrong (but not clearly and obviously).
I like the concept of VAR but due to poor implementation it hasn't come close to expectations it set.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I'm not sold on the argument that the ref would have got it right if he wasn't relying on VAR (with a limited exception). Refs are evaluated on the calls they get right live. So each time they correct something with VAR, they are getting dinged--but not as much as if it hadn't been corrected. So Rs still have a major incentive to get the call right in real time.
The place I am persuaded it happens is on certain send offs, particularly for SFP where it seems they would rather risk a reasonably likely VAR upgrade then take the chance on a possible VAR downgrade of the sendoff.
The place I am persuaded it happens is on certain send offs, particularly for SFP where it seems they would rather risk a reasonably likely VAR upgrade then take the chance on a possible VAR downgrade of the sendoff.
Exactly that, Kevin Friend will get an incorrect KMI for missing the handball that VAR corrected. Why on earth would he intentionally do that? He wouldn't is the answer, he just didn't see it. And it was difficult to see real time, I certainly didn't see it but as soon as the replay was shown I knew it was going to be a penalty.
Their (EPL Ref's) KMD % rate is embarrassing. I'd hazard a guess of ~50%, probably worse. VAR is 'routinely' making the big decisions and justifying its existence by doing so. 'Routinely', very little to do with 'C&O'. It seems like they're more interested in getting reaching the right decision as a team (on and off field) than they are in who makes it. Naturally, I don't for one moment accept that elite Refs are as bad as they appear. That can't be the case.
Yes, they missed things pre-VAR, but not like now. Given there's virtually no demotion from SG1, their KMI/KMD % seemingly counts for nowt
I'm not Ref Bashing BTW. I'm searching for explanation for what's really obvious. They can't be that bad
Don't agree, I don't think KMI correct decisions are any different now to what they were 5 years ago. And it is largely, give or take a few additions and retirements, the same set of referees as it was 5 years ago.
I do agree that the definition of C&O appears to vary from week to week and that does cause problems. The law changes have also contributed to KMI decisions being highlighted, especially around handball, there are situations being discussed now that wouldn't have even raised eyebrows 5 years ago.
one
RefChat Addict
I don't quite see the "major incentive". How is being dinged a major incentive? There is no promotion or relegation. I don't even know if there is a ranking within Select 1 and if that ranking matters. In either case if they are all being picked on it the impact is very minimal.