New Premier League rules

[Ham]

5 minutes ago, chiswickblue said:

If we had thick lines, then wouldn't the borderline decisions be where to draw the lines? With the current wording and without the automated technology, there is always a point of contention.

No. If the lines were clearly defined and crisp, measuring from the feet of the players would be definitive I think. 

Certainly better than the current shambles where they can manipulate where to measure from with players leaning forward.  

[Mark Kelly]

1 minute ago, Ham said:

No. If the lines were clearly defined and crisp, measuring from the feet of the players would be definitive I think. 

Certainly better than the current shambles where they can manipulate where to measure from with players leaning forward.  

Anything open to interpretation should be avoided , I agree draw the lines from the feet only , if your feet are in front of their feet , you're offside , if they aren't you're not .  Heads , shoulders , arms etc don't count,

That should be simple enough for the goons in charge of VAR to get their heads around.

I'm sure they'd still find a way to rule out every goal we score though . 

[Sciatika]

It depends on how it is used, I suppose. Take the image below. Currently, they position the blue line where they believe the last line of defence is located (i.e. the trailing defender's right shoulder). Then, they position the red line where the attacker's most forward goalscoring part is located (the player's left shoulder). They decide a player is offside if the left edge of the red line is to the right of the blue line. I think that's too fine a judgement. Now, imagine instead that the red line is thicker and offside only given If the blue line is to the left of the left edge of the red one. The gap between the defender and attacker would have to be greater to be given. I would say he is "clearly offside". Marginal calls would be eliminated, and the benefit of the doubt would be given to the attacker. 

Edited September 7, 2023 by Sciatika

[asvaberg]

Shoe/foot-wise he's offside by 40cm 🙂

That's how they decide a winner in speed-skating

[chara]

"New" rules etc...not a new thought but watching the Denmark keeper near the end of the game reminded me....he gathered an easy ball and allowed his momentum to ground himself and stayed static for (happens most games) a while running down the clock of course...nothing illegal and no different in a team playing the ball around near the end of the game keeping possession.

The time added distraction now being sort of enforced..as and when it suits the officials in seems...is supposed to counter timewasting as perceived by the officials in things such as injury "faking" or exaggerating, time wasting on fks throw ins etc..my question..how long before the overblown influence of the PG lot starts to include in game "running down the clock" tactics ?..(imho the added time opportunity for manipulation has been a blight on the game for a very long time.)

[flllerywhereru2]

On the flip side i was trying and failing to work out how the added on time was 8 minutes yesterday? I then watched the everton v arsenal game and saw 4 minuteshaving expected longer. Combine that and them seemingly letting the game be more physical again and it feels again that it's a bit of a lottery.

[paulw66]

5 minutes ago, flllerywhereru2 said:

On the flip side i was trying and failing to work out how the added on time was 8 minutes yesterday? I then watched the everton v arsenal game and saw 4 minuteshaving expected longer. Combine that and them seemingly letting the game be more physical again and it feels again that it's a bit of a lottery.

Arsenal are flavour of the month, and the league needs them to keep pace with City. They were winning = normal length of added time.

When they were losing last year, they ended up with 8 or 9 minutes every time, even before these new rules came in.

 

[Mark Kelly]

Just now, paulw66 said:

Arsenal are flavour of the month, and the league needs them to keep pace with City. They were winning = normal length of added time.

When they were losing last year, they ended up with 8 or 9 minutes every time, even before these new rules came in.

 

The teams to play out the four team race to second place behind City is already chosen too, Spurs , Arsenal , Liverpool , Newcastle , they're the sides that "they" want to do well , Brighton and Villa are outliers ,  United are the comedy relief , we are the villains of the piece .

[east lower]

15 hours ago, Mark Kelly said:

………….we are the villains of the piece .

I had kinda hoped that with a few of the old guard refs going, the ones who were in the same club as Clattenburg and Mike Dean - The Drama Queen’s VAR revelation, that we’d begin to get more equitable refereeing - it’s gotten blooming worse. 

Us losing against Forest sort of masked over one of the most one-sided refereeing performances I’d seen and we were at home, like it or not there tends to be a ‘home’ factor for most games. Coote was and is as bad for offering balanced decisions - books Stirling after less than 5 minutes and let’s Bournemouth players commit similar type fouls for 50-60 minutes before handing out a yellow. 

As someone who sees by far the majority of our games live for the whole 90+ minutes and who’s played and understands the game,  there’s a bias. Whether consciously biased or not I can’t say with any certainty but it looks like it to me, but I love a conspiracy.
 

[flllerywhereru2]

5 hours ago, east lower said:

I had kinda hoped that with a few of the old guard refs going, the ones who were in the same club as Clattenburg and Mike Dean - The Drama Queen’s VAR revelation, that we’d begin to get more equitable refereeing - it’s gotten blooming worse. 

Us losing against Forest sort of masked over one of the most one-sided refereeing performances I’d seen and we were at home, like it or not there tends to be a ‘home’ factor for most games. Coote was and is as bad for offering balanced decisions - books Stirling after less than 5 minutes and let’s Bournemouth players commit similar type fouls for 50-60 minutes before handing out a yellow. 

As someone who sees by far the majority of our games live for the whole 90+ minutes and who’s played and understands the game,  there’s a bias. Whether consciously biased or not I can’t say with any certainty but it looks like it to me, but I love a conspiracy.
 

Ha ha me too. Interesting to hear the viewpoint of a match going fan, I dont get over much these days (3 or 4 times a season) and last season was lucky to catch low profile games (Wolves, Bournemouth and Newcastle with nothing riding on it) but in Mourinhos return season i did i think around 12 games and it became a running joke about how many nailed on penalties we would not get given. We counted i think 11 over the matches i went to at a time where Hazard and Costa were a target for opposition defenders. Even allowing for our blue tinted specs thats a lot. That continued into the next season where we could not buy a penalty but there were several games where there was a clear antipathy towards the team from officials and Mourinho (who is a pain in the butt fanning the flame sometimes). We could not buy a penalty...until the game after Mourinhos sacking we get the softest of penalties....coincidence...no chance...

[flllerywhereru2]

Not that i have any sympathy for Liverpool yesterday but that Jones red was yet another example of where the new leniency re challenges is leading to these kinds of challenges. At one point yesterday there were so many challenges going in i almost jumped off the sofa and joined in

[Dwmh]

2 hours ago, flllerywhereru2 said:

Not that i have any sympathy for Liverpool yesterday but that Jones red was yet another example of where the new leniency re challenges is leading to these kinds of challenges. At one point yesterday there were so many challenges going in i almost jumped off the sofa and joined in

Refs continue to misunderstand what their No 1 job is.  Not to protect professional footballers who come with massive insurance packages.  But to protect amateur park footballers and schoolkids playing often without a ref, but who all watch and set their standards by what they see on the TV.  (our kids in some cases).

Meanwhile the media get the Respect ideas wrong.  It is not about protecting highly paid refs from a few insults (mostly by glossing over their errors and pretending refs don't make them).  It  is about protecting amateur refs reffing amateur games, and that should be about accepting that refs make mistakes but that is part of playing any game with rules and all kinds of players may be angry but have to live with it.  Public apologies for making mistakes are about the worst thing that can happen from pov of amateur refs.

[Mark Kelly]

57 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

Refs continue to misunderstand what their No 1 job is.  Not to protect professional footballers who come with massive insurance packages.  But to protect amateur park footballers and schoolkids playing often without a ref, but who all watch and set their standards by what they see on the TV.  (our kids in some cases).

Meanwhile the media get the Respect ideas wrong.  It is not about protecting highly paid refs from a few insults (mostly by glossing over their errors and pretending refs don't make them).  It  is about protecting amateur refs reffing amateur games, and that should be about accepting that refs make mistakes but that is part of playing any game with rules and all kinds of players may be angry but have to live with it.  Public apologies for making mistakes are about the worst thing that can happen from pov of amateur refs.

I agree with this but it's worth mentioning that apologising to one football club and delusional fan base and their army of supporters in the media is also an extremely bad example as well. 

One lot of players, supporters and owners don't matter but another's does. 

[Dwmh]

1 hour ago, Mark Kelly said:

I agree with this but it's worth mentioning that apologising to one football club and delusional fan base and their army of supporters in the media is also an extremely bad example as well. 

One lot of players, supporters and owners don't matter but another's does. 

Or:  the PMGOL believes the whole world is supporting one team when actually most are fed up and secretly hoping they will lose.
Now how does that happen?

[chara]

16 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

Or:  the PMGOL believes the whole world is supporting one team when actually most are fed up and secretly hoping they will lose.
Now how does that happen?

Sigh,,yet again...BUFFOONERY!..and not so secretly ...secretly not the same as unacknowledged by the media.

[Flinkers]

5 hours ago, Mark Kelly said:

I agree with this but it's worth mentioning that apologising to one football club and delusional fan base and their army of supporters in the media is also an extremely bad example as well. 

One lot of players, supporters and owners don't matter but another's does. 

Couldn’t even wait until full time to get the apology out for them and now I’m reading in Op-Eds that it’s apparently the worst decision in VAR history.

We regularly get over double the amount of cards as our opposition, although we monopolize the ball in most matches. We’re systematically fouled without any sort of action and we’re punished when we point it out. It’s gone beyond incompetence - it reeks instead of rampant prejudice.

[boratsbrother]

My one complaint about VAR is that it rules out too many goals by ridiculously tiny margins.

Fans want to see goals and excitement and they are constantly being deprived  of that by the end of a players nose being  ruled offside, goals which would have been allowed before because they would have been impossible to be given offside by the naked eye. Obviously there was the occasional terrible error by the officials, but overall I think the game was better before VAR and I'd like to see it scrapped. Keep the goal line tech though! 

[Holymoly]

15 hours ago, boratsbrother said:

My one complaint about VAR is that it rules out too many goals by ridiculously tiny margins.

Fans want to see goals and excitement and they are constantly being deprived  of that by the end of a players nose being  ruled offside, goals which would have been allowed before because they would have been impossible to be given offside by the naked eye. Obviously there was the occasional terrible error by the officials, but overall I think the game was better before VAR and I'd like to see it scrapped. Keep the goal line tech though! 

I totally agree. I thought the lines were supposed to being drawn wider this season in order to allow for the marginal decisions which could easily be negated by recalibrating the point the ball is kicked. What is the point of counting pixels on the offside line when the ball leaving the foot is a blur a couple of feet long?

Back in the day a goal was scored and the player wheeled away to the fans while they went wild. Then it became the case that players always looked at the linesman before celebrating. Now we are at the stage the ball goes in the net, the players look at the officials then sit down and have a cup of tea while VAR tries its best to rule it out. Meanwhile the supporters may as well not be there for all the enjoyment we are getting.

[McCreadie]

22 hours ago, Holymoly said:

I totally agree. I thought the lines were supposed to being drawn wider this season in order to allow for the marginal decisions which could easily be negated by recalibrating the point the ball is kicked. What is the point of counting pixels on the offside line when the ball leaving the foot is a blur a couple of feet long?

Back in the day a goal was scored and the player wheeled away to the fans while they went wild. Then it became the case that players always looked at the linesman before celebrating. Now we are at the stage the ball goes in the net, the players look at the officials then sit down and have a cup of tea while VAR tries its best to rule it out. Meanwhile the supporters may as well not be there for all the enjoyment we are getting.

Agree. It is now massively intrusive and detrimental to the enjoyment of the game. Get rid. It’s not like there will be any more mistakes as a result… Just different ones.