• ****Join the YF Fantasy EFL League: HERE. ****

How comes?

The BBC ''force-feed'' (?) any football they actually have the TV rights for, be it the womens world cup or the FA cup, or even MOTD for that matter and why not, every other channel does the same.
 
mooro said:
My problem is how the use of VAR is changing the implementation of this rule (and others).
Accuracy and consistency are all very well, but not if they come at the price of losing the spirit and flow of the game.
Click to expand...

By "Interpretation" in this context you really mean "ignoring of". So what you dont like is the rule. VAR, spirit, flow wouldnt even have been involved if the rule wasnt "wrong".
 
The problem is that the rules (e.g. the handball rule) are being changed to pander to VAR. I know of no natural jumping in which your hands stay firmly by your sides (except when pogoing or Irish dancing perhaps!) - so to say that if the ball hits your hand when it's anywhere other then within a couple of inches from your hip then it is deliberate hand ball is plainly daft. And the reason it's been brought it is because in slow motion every single handball LOOKS terrible. But a plain and obvious mistake by the ref in every case - no. And in the WWC, VAR is being over-used. After every goal to see if a player 30 seconds ago who didn't touch the ball was offside, or if there was a marginal foul somewhere? As thegrumpyporter says, it kills the spontinaity completely.
But my major reservation about VAR is that we are getting to a situation where the rules and conditions under which the game is played are now different at different levels. It used to be that the game was the same whether it was a cup final at Wembley or a Sunday League game and that accessibility was exactly what made it so universal. Once you introduce a system where that is no longer the case, you are on a very rocky road IMO.
 
Jerome'SAle said:
By "Interpretation" in this context you really mean "ignoring of". So what you dont like is the rule. VAR, spirit, flow wouldnt even have been involved if the rule wasnt "wrong".
Click to expand...
Disagree - it is not the rules that I dislike, it is the means by which they are adjudicated(implemented) and how that affects the interpretation(outcome). It is all about the grey area of doubt and whether it is really in the best interests of the game to micro-analyse these to the nth degree to get the 'corrrect' outcome, or whether it is better to allow a natural buffer zone (typically that which used to come from using a human in real time) to maintain the flow, feel and spirit of the game.

My main beef is with offside, where a player was judged to be onside if he was, visually, level. This refers to the lino, and to the players themselves, even the crowd, who were able to judge whether they were more or less level or one was ahead of the other. It was an approximate measurement, but was one that all parties involved had a reasonable chance to judge.
Using VAR means that, while precise, it is no longer possible for the players in particular to judge out there on the pitch, unless they consciously hang back a certain distance to be sure they are behind the defender. So, the use of VAR has tipped the balance towards the defender, as an attacker can no longer rely on being level.

A practical (OK, longwinded, but an attempt to show my point) example, using three people, a wall and a tape measure.
One person acts as a defender, a second then acts as an attacker and stands in the best position they would stand to be 'level' to the human eye, and therefore onside (using the wall as the goal line). The third person acts as lino/VAR. They position themselves so that they can 'look across the line' (parallel to the wall) and then judge from where he is stood whether you are indeed level.
Next, get the lino to mark the floor at the nearest point to the 'goal' for each of the two players and then measure this using the tape measure to get the exact distance from the wall. The defender should stay in the same position, but the attacker has a decision to make - he should stand in the position in which he would feel comfortable taking a £100 bet that he was onside, using the tape method.
It would be a brave man, who wouldn't edge backwards.

In other words, the basic rule is fine, it is just that the way it is adjudicated/implemented changes the outcome, in a way that I feel is detremental to the game.

And as others say, VAR is only ever going to be used in a small (if significant) number of the games played in this country every weekend, and I think the rules, and their implementation, have to remain such that it is reasonable to expect the players to be able to judge whether they are breaking those rules or not as they are playing the game.
 
ZeroTheHero said:
The problem is that the rules (e.g. the handball rule) are being changed to pander to VAR. I know of no natural jumping in which your hands stay firmly by your sides (except when pogoing or Irish dancing perhaps!) - so to say that if the ball hits your hand when it's anywhere other then within a couple of inches from your hip then it is deliberate hand ball is plainly daft. And the reason it's been brought it is because in slow motion every single handball LOOKS terrible. But a plain and obvious mistake by the ref in every case - no. And in the WWC, VAR is being over-used. After every goal to see if a player 30 seconds ago who didn't touch the ball was offside, or if there was a marginal foul somewhere? As thegrumpyporter says, it kills the spontinaity completely.
But my major reservation about VAR is that we are getting to a situation where the rules and conditions under which the game is played are now different at different levels. It used to be that the game was the same whether it was a cup final at Wembley or a Sunday League game and that accessibility was exactly what made it so universal. Once you introduce a system where that is no longer the case, you are on a very rocky road IMO.
Click to expand...

The handball rule was changed for clarity and to allow defenders to have their arms by their sides (natural silhouette) and not behind their backs as they were doing. It is supposed to help defenders. It's a big jump to say that's it's their because of VAR.

Again, whether what they've done is correct or not is unrelated to VAR.

The comment about different levels is the reason VAR was refused for so long but it makes no sense. Many sunday games have no qualified referee or linesmen or floodlights. Do we take those away from the professional game so that it is the same game at all levels?
 
Jerome'SAle said:
The comment about different levels is the reason VAR was refused for so long but it makes no sense. Many sunday games have no qualified referee or linesmen or floodlights. Do we take those away from the professional game so that it is the same game at all levels?
Click to expand...
Sunday games aren't played at night - no technology (floodlights) needed there. They aren't used in daylight on any games. The refs and linesmen may not be qualified at that level - but there ARE refs and linesmen at lower level games. There is NOT and will never be VAR down there. And (as we are seeing at the WWC) VAR is being used in a way that is making the whole experience quite different. Even the Prem have said that any VAR will not be used for the 'does the keeper have a foot on the line' rule (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48703852) - so I am not quite sure where that leaves us. It's being used to check that in one form of the game but not another one? And VAR STILL doesn't remove subjectivity - how was that German player not given offside when she was blocking the keeper from seeing the shot?
 
ZeroTheHero said:
Sunday games aren't played at night - no technology (floodlights) needed there. They aren't used in daylight on any games. The refs and linesmen may not be qualified at that level - but there ARE refs and linesmen at lower level games. There is NOT and will never be VAR down there. And (as we are seeing at the WWC) VAR is being used in a way that is making the whole experience quite different. Even the Prem have said that any VAR will not be used for the 'does the keeper have a foot on the line' rule (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48703852) - so I am not quite sure where that leaves us. It's being used to check that in one form of the game but not another one? And VAR STILL doesn't remove subjectivity - how was that German player not given offside when she was blocking the keeper from seeing the shot?
Click to expand...

They dont play night games because there are no floodlights, not the other way round.

If your going to be pedantic then it would be easy to implement VAR at this level. Just need a sub to video the game with a mobile phone. Its no less valid than using the teams substitutes to run the line and referee, which is what happens round here. Without cards for discipline of course.
 
I'm not quite sure what your point is really. Yes, you could have people with mobile phones at 'park' matches - but that's pretty absurd isn't it? Which sort of proves the point that you won't end up with VAR everywhere, even at the lower reaches of professional/elite level football! As for the floodlights, it is not an integral part of the game. Play during the day, you'd only use them at night. But VAR would be being used for EVERY game at the top level, and that's the difference.

Here's a scenario and a question: In a couple of years time the Prem have been using VAR for that time, but we (OUFC) have not. I don't think that's outlandish. We get drawn against a Prem team in a cup game. There are now two options. If VAR isn't being used in the cup then we are playing under conditions that we are used to, if it is then the Prem team are playing under conditions they are used to. (Watching the WWC I think you'd be hard pressed to say that the games haven't been changed by VAR!). Is that fair? And how much more difficult are we making referee's lives by potentially asking them to switch from VAR to non-VAR matches from week to week?

Of course, the influence of VAR would be much less if it were reined back to how it was being used previously (i.e. 'clear and obvious mistakes' and matters of fact - offsides for example) but in the WWC it is being used as a safety blanket by (poor) refs.
 
tonyw said:
Oh come on.

It's the Women's World Cup. The pinnacle of women's football every four years. And it's being played at a time when there's no senior men's football going on this side of Egypt and precious little in the way of interesting transfer activity. Everyone's on their holidays.

One month every four years women's football dominates the BBC football news; 47 months every four years men's football dominates the BBC football news. And you're complaining that the women's game is getting too much exposure?!?
Click to expand...
As context it’s all over Fox Sports 1 and other US tv channels too
 
ZeroTheHero said:
I'm not quite sure what your point is really. Yes, you could have people with mobile phones at 'park' matches - but that's pretty absurd isn't it? Which sort of proves the point that you won't end up with VAR everywhere, even at the lower reaches of professional/elite level football! As for the floodlights, it is not an integral part of the game. Play during the day, you'd only use them at night. But VAR would be being used for EVERY game at the top level, and that's the difference.

Here's a scenario and a question: In a couple of years time the Prem have been using VAR for that time, but we (OUFC) have not. I don't think that's outlandish. We get drawn against a Prem team in a cup game. There are now two options. If VAR isn't being used in the cup then we are playing under conditions that we are used to, if it is then the Prem team are playing under conditions they are used to. (Watching the WWC I think you'd be hard pressed to say that the games haven't been changed by VAR!). Is that fair? And how much more difficult are we making referee's lives by potentially asking them to switch from VAR to non-VAR matches from week to week?

Of course, the influence of VAR would be much less if it were reined back to how it was being used previously (i.e. 'clear and obvious mistakes' and matters of fact - offsides for example) but in the WWC it is being used as a safety blanket by (poor) refs.
Click to expand...

Point is you said we cant have VAR because it cant be implemented at all levels.

I said the game is already different at all levels because you dont even get refs at all levels. You equated a substitute without cards or a whistle doing his best being the same ball game as a UEFA qualified ref with 5 other impartial officials.

You say it cant happen because difficult for teams to play under different rules. But again I say that's already happening. Prem teams playing without 4th and 5th assistant referees in EPL but not in Europe, for example.

The elite level may as well be a different sport to the didcot pub league mate. Its done
 
Well we obviously aren't going to see eye to eye on this, so I'll leave it there.
 
battman said:
If you read the article, it makes some salient points. But with your blinkered view you probably didn't spot them.
Click to expand...
Not blinkered, realistic. I am failing to see how womens football is better than mens, in any context. Feel free to change my mind
 
LeftSideBoy said:
Not blinkered, realistic. I am failing to see how womens football is better than mens, in any context. Feel free to change my mind
Click to expand...

But the article you quoted doesn't say it's better. It says it's:

a) Cheaper
b) Has more goals
c) Has less cheating
d) Not just dominated by Europe and South America, and
e) More gay-friendly.

Not sure that any of those points are false....many of them are objectively true.
 
The article certainly over sells the point. Being cheaper doesn't make it better, it just means it's cheaper. In that case, the Conference is better than the Premier League because it's cheaper, has more goals, has less cheating, you can have a beer and watch the game, you can change ends, etc, etc.

Women's football is different than men's, so celebrate it for what it is.

Cynically, if it was better, it wouldn't need an article to say it's better
 
Gary Baldi said:
The article certainly over sells the point. Being cheaper doesn't make it better, it just means it's cheaper. In that case, the Conference is better than the Premier League because it's cheaper, has more goals, has less cheating, you can have a beer and watch the game, you can change ends, etc, etc.

Women's football is different than men's, so celebrate it for what it is.

Cynically, if it was better, it wouldn't need an article to say it's better
Click to expand...
The article isn't drawing an overall conclusion. It's giving 5 areas in which the womens game is more accessible than the mens.

There's nothing in there to need to get particularly defensive about.
 
beyondthefourth said:
The article isn't drawing an overall conclusion. It's giving 5 areas in which the womens game is more accessible than the mens.

There's nothing in there to need to get particularly defensive about.
Click to expand...
The game is more accessible if you perceive men's football = premier league and internationals. If you go to lower league football (hello), then you can apply the same areas. Or follow a non-English national team.

Genuinely, celebrate it for what is it without trying to justify it's existence against the men's game or compare it. Longer term, it will make the women's game unique and stand aside from the men's game. And it is getting there. Just a bit naive from the BBC
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom