Football: CL is back

[Consigliere]

That was a top game. Real Madrid ran out 5-3 winners. Madrid were much better in the 2nd half helped by Betis being quite sloppy with their passing. Credit to Betis though, they had a proper go and created numerous good chances but were not as clinical as Madrid. Benzema finally didn't fuck up a clear-cut chance.

[baxus]

13 hours ago, JordanJH1993 said:

I’m not arguing that it shouldn’t have been disallowed by VAR. I just feel sympathy with the attacking side on this one, due to the rules themselves.

If VAR wasn’t being applied, and that goal had been given, I doubt many people would have been up in arms about it, even amongst Huddersfield fans.

A couple of things:

• Feeling sympathy or not has nothing to do with it. The goal was properly disallowed. Mata was offside and that's it. VAR has finally allowed detection of these small margins and it should've been implemented YEARS ago.
• Allowing that goal would've been an honest mistake but that does not change the fact that it would've been a mistake in the first place.
• I guarantee that there would've been quite a few people up in arms about it if Huddersfield scored a goal from such a situation and that goal knocked Man Utd out of the FA Cup.

 

[Jordan La Cabra]

2 hours ago, baxus said:

A couple of things:

• Feeling sympathy or not has nothing to do with it. The goal was properly disallowed. Mata was offside and that's it. VAR has finally allowed detection of these small margins and it should've been implemented YEARS ago.
• Allowing that goal would've been an honest mistake but that does not change the fact that it would've been a mistake in the first place.
• I guarantee that there would've been quite a few people up in arms about it if Huddersfield scored a goal from such a situation and that goal knocked Man Utd out of the FA Cup.

 

How many times do I have to say 'I agree that it was offside'? You seem to be missing the point more than I am by constantly telling me he was offside as if I am trying to argue that he's not.

My problem is that I think the rule stating that such a fine margin as a protruding knee cap is enough to make a player offside is harsh, as I have said multiple times. They are the rules, and that knee made him offside, fine. I still think it is an incredibly harsh ruling, and you aren't going to change my mind on it.

You tried to defend Van Djik, the other week, when he clearly kicked Lamela in the box and Tottenham were awarded a penalty, based on one angle you saw that made it look like it wasn't a clear kick. You must have felt that 'harsh', despite the fact there was clear contact, and that any comments I read by ex-referees stated they thought that it was a penalty. By the rulebook, that was a clear penalty, but you disagreed. I am not disagreeing that Mata was offside; I am stating that I think the rules are hard on the attacker.

 

[baxus]

18 minutes ago, JordanJH1993 said:

How many times do I have to say 'I agree that it was offside'? You seem to be missing the point more than I am by constantly telling me he was offside as if I am trying to argue that he's not.

My problem is that I think the rule stating that such a fine margin as a protruding knee cap is enough to make a player offside is harsh, as I have said multiple times. They are the rules, and that knee made him offside, fine. I still think it is an incredibly harsh ruling, and you aren't going to change my mind on it.

You tried to defend Van Djik, the other week, when he clearly kicked Lamela in the box and Tottenham were awarded a penalty, based on one angle you saw that made it look like it wasn't a clear kick. You must have felt that 'harsh', despite the fact there was clear contact, and that any comments I read by ex-referees stated they thought that it was a penalty. By the rulebook, that was a clear penalty, but you disagreed. I am not disagreeing that Mata was offside; I am stating that I think the rules are hard on the attacker.

It's not "harsh" it's fair. There is no "but if it's a knee cap and it's less than <this much> offside then it's not offside". Rule clearly states what offside is. There is no gray zone there, there's no harsh calls or anything like that. There are RIGHT calls and WRONG calls. That's it. It's that simple.

I haven't said that VVD on Lamela was a harsh call, I said it was a WRONG call. And no, I haven't said I agree that it's a penalty but it was harsh I said it was NOT a penalty. And I still think that's the case.

Either way, that happened in the competition without VAR so in this discussion you can only mention it if your point is: "You see what happens when you don't have VAR? With VAR there would've been no controversy, it would've either been proved a penalty or the call would've been reverted".

If it's a penalty, it's a penalty. If it's offside, it's offside. If it's a bookable offense then it's a bookable offense*. VAR should reduce this "gray zone" to a minimum.

*"But it's a harsh call for a second yellow" is another bullshit argument I don't buy.

[Jordan La Cabra]

2 minutes ago, baxus said:

It's not "harsh" it's fair. There is no "but if it's a knee cap and it's less than <this much> offside then it's not offside". Rule clearly states what offside is. There is no gray zone there, there's no harsh calls or anything like that. There are RIGHT calls and WRONG calls. That's it. It's that simple.

I haven't said that VVD on Lamela was a harsh call, I said it was a WRONG call. And no, I haven't said I agree that it's a penalty but it was harsh I said it was NOT a penalty. And I still think that's the case.

Either way, that happened in the competition without VAR so in this discussion you can only mention it if your point is: "You see what happens when you don't have VAR? With VAR there would've been no controversy, it would've either been proved a penalty or the call would've been reverted".

If it's a penalty, it's a penalty. If it's offside, it's offside. If it's a bookable offense then it's a bookable offense*. VAR should reduce this "gray zone" to a minimum.

*"But it's a harsh call for a second yellow" is another bullshit argument I don't buy.

For the bolded: I know all that, and agree.

As I have said, I AGREE that Mata was OFFSIDE. I think it is 'harsh' in the context that if that was a Premier League game, and no VAR was being applied and the goal was given, it would have gone down as 'technically, he was an inch offside, but as it was so close, the benefit of the doubt has to be given to the attacking player' and that would have been that. The goal would have stood, and very few people would have complained about it.

The 'benefit of the doubt' is being taken away from the attacking player on these extremely tight calls, so I'd imagine if I were Mata, I would be pretty peeved that in a competition without VAR, the goal would have stood. And it would have stood not because the linesman made a terrible mistake and didn't catch that Mata was five yards offside; it would have stood because prior to VAR there was a rule that gave the striker the benefit during extremely tight calls that would be very difficult for any human to call live, such as this one. It was an error of an extremely fine margin by the linesman, one which would have gone unnoticed in the Premier League, as the striker would have been given the 'benefit of the doubt'. Only with technology could we see how Mata was an inch offside.

I would have a completely different view on it if Mata had done something in order to seek advantage, like dive to win and penalty. If that happened, and the penalty was overturned due to VAR noticing the dive, I'd have no sympathy for Mata, in that instance. I have sympathy because he had a goal taken away (YES, FAIRLY) due to the slightest 'ADVANTAGE' he gained by his knee being offside. A goal that would have been counted in a competition that didn't use VAR.

And that's where the term 'harsh' comes into it for me. I find it 'harsh' that something like Mata's goal, which would have been deemed a legitimate goal in non-VAR competition without controversy due to the 'benefit of the doubt' rule is now being ruled out because of VAR. The goal would have been legitimate in one competition, but not in another. While VAR isn't used across the board, it will take time, I would imagine, for some people to come round to the idea what would have been considered a legitimate goal in non-VAR competition, despite being offside (benefit of the doubt rule) is no longer a legitimate goal in competitions with VAR.

Once VAR is used across the board, I won't feel sympathy for a player that has a goal taken away from a tight offside, because it will be the same rules in all competitions. It's a bit like someone feeling hard done by in the Premier League because a player has clearly dived to win a penalty that the ref has given and the taker has scored. They'd feel slightly angry that if it had happened in an FA cup game where VAR was in use, the penalty would have been overturned and no goal would have been scored against the team.

And for the last time, I am not arguing against VAR, and I AGREE that Mata was OFFSIDE...

[Spockydog]

1 minute ago, JordanJH1993 said:

The 'benefit of the doubt' is being taken away from the attacking player on these extremely tight calls, so I'd imagine if I were Mata, I would be pretty peeved that in a competition without VAR, the goal would have stood.

 

The 'benefit of the doubt' was given to attackers purely because there was was no way for linesmen to make a real-time definitive call. That has now changed.

Anyway, I think ALL offside decisions should now be deferred to Hawkeye.

[baxus]

@JordanJH1993

You seem to be missing the point. It shouldn't count in any competition. When it counts, it's a mistake and it can only be harsh on the team that conceded such a goal. The whole notion of "oh, it's harsh to disallow this goal that shouldn't have counted in the first place" just does not compute in my head.

Instead of saluting how "powers that be" are trying VAR out in order to reduce the number of referees' mistakes to a minimum, you find it harsh that for once there was no mistake. My mind = blown.

[Jordan La Cabra]

4 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

The 'benefit of the doubt' was given to attackers purely because there was was no way for linesmen to make a real-time definitive call. That has now changed.

Anyway, I think ALL offside decisions should now be deferred to Hawkeye.

Yeah, which I also pointed out in the same paragraph:

8 minutes ago, JordanJH1993 said:

The 'benefit of the doubt' is being taken away from the attacking player on these extremely tight calls, so I'd imagine if I were Mata, I would be pretty peeved that in a competition without VAR, the goal would have stood. And it would have stood not because the linesman made a terrible mistake and didn't catch that Mata was five yards offside; it would have stood because prior to VAR there was a rule that gave the striker the benefit during extremely tight calls that would be very difficult for any human to call live, such as this one. It was an error of an extremely fine margin by the linesman, one which would have gone unnoticed in the Premier League, as the striker would have been given the 'benefit of the doubt'. Only with technology could we see how Mata was an inch offside.

I'm not against VAR. I think that in situations like this, it can be slightly unfair that in England we are seeing one competition have one set of rules because it has VAR and another having different rules because it doesn't have VAR.

Heck, even in the FA cup, only select games have access to VAR. If in Rochdale vs. Tottenham yesterday, someone had been as ever-so-slightly-offside as Mata was and scored a goal, it could well have counted because VAR wasn't in use and the 'benefit of the doubt' rule would have applied. It's the same for diving, handballs, red cards etc. 

It's basically two sets of rules being played in two different games, in the same competition.

 

[Jordan La Cabra]

15 minutes ago, baxus said:

@JordanJH1993

You seem to be missing the point. It shouldn't count in any competition. When it counts, it's a mistake and it can only be harsh on the team that conceded such a goal. The whole notion of "oh, it's harsh to disallow this goal that shouldn't have counted in the first place" just does not compute in my head.

Instead of saluting how "powers that be" are trying VAR out in order to reduce the number of referees' mistakes to a minimum, you find it harsh that for once there was no mistake. My mind = blown.

Ah, so you practically ignore all I say and come up with some condescending comments from up there on your high horse. My mind = not blown.

If that was an FA cup game where VAR wasn't in use - Rochdale vs Tottenham - and Kane had scored a carbon copy of Mata's offside goal, chances are very high the goal would have stood, because it was such a tight call that the linesman could hardly be blamed for getting it wrong. Hence the 'benefit of the doubt' rule.

The benefit of the doubt rule would have been applied, the offside goal would have stood, and Rochdale would have had to accept that, because there has been a rule brought into cover for the linesmen on these extremely tight offside decisions, which would have meant that despite being technically offside, the goal being given wouldn't have been a technically 'unfair' decision, due to the 'benefit of the doubt' rule. 

So, one rule for one game, and one for another. That's my problem.

[Spockydog]

nvm

[baxus]

1 hour ago, JordanJH1993 said:

Yeah, which I also pointed out in the same paragraph:

I'm not against VAR. I think that in situations like this, it can be slightly unfair that in England we are seeing one competition have one set of rules because it has VAR and another having different rules because it doesn't have VAR.

Heck, even in the FA cup, only select games have access to VAR. If in Rochdale vs. Tottenham yesterday, someone had been as ever-so-slightly-offside as Mata was and scored a goal, it could well have counted because VAR wasn't in use and the 'benefit of the doubt' rule would have applied. It's the same for diving, handballs, red cards etc. 

It's basically two sets of rules being played in two different games, in the same competition.

And yet, for a whole day, you've been complaining about the goal being correctly disallowed instead of saying how it would be a shitty outcome if the same happened in a non-VAR match.

Go figure.

1 hour ago, JordanJH1993 said:

Ah, so you practically ignore all I say and come up with some condescending comments from up there on your high horse. My mind = not blown.

If that was an FA cup game where VAR wasn't in use - Rochdale vs Tottenham - and Kane had scored a carbon copy of Mata's offside goal, chances are very high the goal would have stood, because it was such a tight call that the linesman could hardly be blamed for getting it wrong. Hence the 'benefit of the doubt' rule.

The benefit of the doubt rule would have been applied, the offside goal would have stood, and Rochdale would have had to accept that, because there has been a rule brought into cover for the linesmen on these extremely tight offside decisions, which would have meant that despite being technically offside, the goal being given wouldn't have been a technically 'unfair' decision, due to the 'benefit of the doubt' rule. 

So, one rule for one game, and one for another. That's my problem.

Yes, it would've been great if VAR was implemented across the board in every competition in the world, in every stadium, AT ONCE! It's not how it goes, it's not how it will go EVER with ANY rule change. It didn't happen when the fourth ref and/or refs behind the goal were introduced, when refs got an ear piece for easier communication, when the spray to mark the wall correct position was first used etc.).

Like all those things, VAR is being slowly implemented in order so it can be tested, unavoidable kinks (like the one with lines in this match) can be ironed out etc.

You can accept that and wait until it's fully functional and used wherever possible or you can whine about it like you seem to be fond of doing.

[Jordan La Cabra]

10 minutes ago, baxus said:

And yet, for a whole day, you've been complaining about the goal being correctly disallowed instead of saying how it would be a shitty outcome if the same happened in a non-VAR match.

Go figure.

But I haven't been complaining. If I was complaining, I would be arguing against you, saying that I think the goal should have been given. The goal has no bearing on me, as I support neither Man United or Huddersfield. My problems are two things:

• That I liked the benefit of the doubt rule, as I thought it harsh that strikers had goals disallowed for the tiniest portion of their body being offside, as I don't think it always amounts to a 'clear advantage' over the defenders. With the introduction of VAR, there is no doubt; if you have a nostril offside, you will be called offside. Fine. I just hope it is consistent.
• And the fact VAR is being used in some games in a competition and not the others.

And, it would not have been a 'shitty outcome' if the same happened in a non-VAR match because of the 'benefit of the doubt rule'. It would have been chalked off as mistake, but a mistake where the linesman is given a 'margin for error'. It is pretty much the only time people would be understanding of a mistake a linesman made, as it would be nearly impossible to call such a close offside without technology. Therefore, it would have stood as a goal, despite being offside.

15 minutes ago, baxus said:

Yes, it would've been great if VAR was implemented across the board in every competition in the world, in every stadium, AT ONCE! It's not how it goes, it's not how it will go EVER with ANY rule change. It didn't happen when the fourth ref and/or refs behind the goal were introduced, when refs got an ear piece for easier communication, when the spray to mark the wall correct position was first used etc.).

Like all those things, VAR is being slowly implemented in order so it can be tested, unavoidable kinks (like the one with lines in this match) can be ironed out etc.

You can accept that and wait until it's fully functional and used wherever possible or you can whine about it like you seem to be fond of doing.

None of the examples you use compare to VAR, least of all the evaporating spray. VAR is a bigger change in football than even goal-line technology was. For such a massive change to be implemented, it should at least be implemented in all the games in one tournament.

Man United and Huddersfield were at a disadvantage compared to Rochdale and Tottenham, in the sense that, if either of those teams scored a goal like Mata did, they would have got the 'benefit of the doubt'. I know they are completely different games, but it is still within the same competition.

Speaking hypothetically, if Tottenham had a goal allowed that was the same as Mata's disallowed goal for Man United, that would have been a clear advantage for Tottenham, due to the officials working off of a rule that allows a margin for errors in close offside calls when VAR isn't in use.

And I think this is completely different than an instance when, say, two teams playing two different games in a non-VAR match score a goal identical to Mata's and one gets called offside and the other doesn't. That's human error. But human error being accepted in one match and not another is unfair.

But it swings around the other way, of course, where VAR is the advantage in stopping teams being knocked out by their opposition scoring a penalty that they have dived to win - something that can very well happen in non-VAR matches.

It feels, in a way, like it is two sets of rules within one competition.

 

 

 

[baxus]

Yeah, I'm taking the same route as @Spockydog now.

Better late than never, I guess.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

8 hours ago, baxus said:

Feeling sympathy or not has nothing to do with it. The goal was properly disallowed. Mata was offside and that's it. VAR has finally allowed detection of these small margins and it should've been implemented YEARS ago.

Quod erat demonstrandum as they used to say in times before the VAR. There was a much closer offside goal (which was allowed to stay) in the Bundesliga a few weeks ago, which resulted in mordor (aka HSV) to salvage a point in Leipzig (hopefully it won't be enough to save them this time).  That goal however, raised the obvious question why the VAR didn't interfere. The answer to that: apparently there is atm no FIFA approved technical measure (like those lines) to aid the video refs. So the video refs only step in with more or less clear offside decissions gone wrong.

As for the referees, their safest option it would seem to me is to only call offside when they are certain. If they are wrong they will get overturned on the replay, on the other hand if they wrongly call an offside and take away an advantage they just look silly (happened in the Köln Hannover match twice this WE).

Anyway, in the Bundesliga the VAR remains in the centre of controversy. This WE alone there were a couple of dubious inactions on the VAR behalf.

In the aforementioned Köln Hannover match, the VAR should have stepped and Hannover's Sane should've been sent off (unintentional kick to the head of Terodde, intentional or not red is the right card for that).  Which would have made life easier for Köln, as Sane was the cnetrepiece in Hannover's defense (and MotM in that game (final score 1-1)).

In Hamburg the VAR should have helped the referee in no less than two situations to get two Mordor players sent off with straight red cards in their encounter against Leverkusen (Leverkusen won nonetheless 2-1). But next WE is the Northern Derby (Bremen-HSV), which is also pretty much a do or die game for mordor. And that game could have been much more difficult without Padadopoulos (their key centreback, took an attempted swing against Bailey) and Salihovic (quite an awful tackle against Volland which should have been a red a not a yellow). Ofc the match after, they will face off against Mainz in another relegation battle, given that red card is more or less an automatic 3 match ban (at least), those two decission can have a huge impact on who drops (hopefully it won't).

Similar story in Freiburg-Bremen. (final score 1-0). Abrashi's foul against Bremen's Bargfrede should have been a red card not a yellow one (horrible challenge). Then the ref missed a penalty call for Bremen in the 86th minute, which could have leveled the score (a push from Günter against Kruse). The latter not being a stonewall penalty decisson to be fair, but I guess the Bremen supporters still won't be too happy about the inaction.

[Mme Erzulie]

Don't know what's so hard to understand about Jordan's position.

The rules of any game/sport are there to make sure the game in question is played in the right spirit and that one does not gain an unfair advantage by exploiting loopholes in the system or cheating (by diving, for instance).

The rules are not the be-all and end-all of a sport. They are instruments implemented to make the game more enjoyable/fair.

The offside rule was introduced to stop teams having one (or more, I guess) player stand way behind the opponent's backline that his teammates would then lump the towards at any given opportunity. It was (rightly) seen as teams exploiting the rules of the game (at the time) to gain an unfair advantage that had nothing to do with footballing skill or tactical nous. The offside rule has done a great job in preventing this type of play.

So I find all of y'all's mindset to be slightly fascist with your slavish submission to rules. The rules are there to serve the game, not the other way around.

Don't want to keep the argument going, really, just thought everyone was being borderline deliberately obtuse. 

I also think VAR is breaking up the flow of the game in a really unfortunate way. Linesmen are overall incredibly impressive at calling offsides. If you can get a system like the goal line technology one, where the result is instant, I'm for it. The way it is now, with a two minute stop five times a game, is not good. (in my opinion (which is correct))

[Jordan La Cabra]

1 hour ago, baxus said:

Yeah, I'm taking the same route as @Spockydog now.

Better late than never, I guess.

Thank you for giving up, Baxus. As frustrating as it can be, there is a weird enjoyment I get from debating with people who have a one track mind and think they know best. If you hadn’t stopped, we’d have been here until VAR finally came into all competitions and I’d have nothing to ‘whine’ about!

 

Also, @baxus, it says a lot that you’re dragging Spockydog into it. He said very little about the whole thing. If you disagree with my points, fine. I think it is a tad playground to bring another guy into it, as if you’re in a team.

[Jordan La Cabra]

39 minutes ago, Mme Erzulie said:

Don't know what's so hard to understand about Jordan's position.

The rules of any game/sport are there to make sure the game in question is played in the right spirit and that one does not gain an unfair advantage by exploiting loopholes in the system or cheating (by diving, for instance).

The rules are not the be-all and end-all of a sport. They are instruments implemented to make the game more enjoyable/fair.

The offside rule was introduced to stop teams having one (or more, I guess) player stand way behind the opponent's backline that his teammates would then lump the towards at any given opportunity. It was (rightly) seen as teams exploiting the rules of the game (at the time) to gain an unfair advantage that had nothing to do with footballing skill or tactical nous. The offside rule has done a great job in preventing this type of play.

So I find all of y'all's mindset to be slightly fascist with your slavish submission to rules. The rules are there to serve the game, not the other way around.

Don't want to keep the argument going, really, just thought everyone was being borderline deliberately obtuse. 

I also think VAR is breaking up the flow of the game in a really unfortunate way. Linesmen are overall incredibly impressive at calling offsides. If you can get a system like the goal line technology one, where the result is instant, I'm for it. The way it is now, with a two minute stop five times a game, is not good. (in my opinion (which is correct))

I’m pro-VAR, too, but I think it is unfair use it the way they are using it in the FA cup, for select matches.

They were meant to try it out for the first time in the Liverpool vs Everton game in the FA cup third round but changed it to the Brighton vs Palace game, as The Merseyside Derby was deemed to high profile of a match to trial it. So, basically, the were scared to use in the Merseyside Derby in case they made an error but it was okay for little old Palace vs Brighton. Take of that what you will.

Until VAR is used in every single game in a competition, everything won’t be in black and white.

[ljkeane]

City down to 10 men and now Wigan are in front. League 1 teams aren’t doing too bad this round.

ETA: Heh, Wigan knock Man City out of the FA Cup. The quadruple dream is over.

[Consigliere]

I love Wigan. Always had faith in them.

[BigFatCoward]

Some of the man city players were a disgrace at the sending off. I wish it was a mandatory sending off, retrospectvely upon reviewing if necessary, for putting your hand on a referee or barging them.