Football 2020 - 2021

[ProfessorDavey]

Given the staggered start to matches, it's possible that there could be 4 different clubs to have been at the top of the Premier League this weekend.

On track for that to happen. That said for it to occur it will require Liverpool to beat Man City and I'm not confident that is going to happen later this afternoon.

[Nearly Sane]

Which they didn't. But it's an odd league now.

[Nearly Sane]

3 penalties and an o.g for Valencia v Real Madrid


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54859896

[jeremyp]

This is a nonsense


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54855596

It's not nonsense.

It's a consequence of the new handball law and VAR. He was technically off side because a part of his body that can score was in front of the offside line. The BBC report that you linked to shows exactly why the decision was correct.

I think the new handball rule is wrong and this is a good example of why, but the decision make complete sense to me given the current laws of the game.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's not nonsense.

It's a consequence of the new handball law and VAR. He was technically off side because a part of his body that can score was in front of the offside line. The BBC report that you linked to shows exactly why the decision was correct.

I think the new handball rule is wrong and this is a good example of why, but the decision make complete sense to me given the current laws of the game.

I think NS (and I) think it is a non-sense law, or actually interpretation of the law. I think we both recognise that the decision is correct under the current interpretations of the offside rule, but we think that interpretation is crazy and should be changed.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's not nonsense.

It's a consequence of the new handball law and VAR. He was technically off side because a part of his body that can score was in front of the offside line. The BBC report that you linked to shows exactly why the decision was correct.

I think the new handball rule is wrong and this is a good example of why, but the decision make complete sense to me given the current laws of the game.

And actually I'm not sure the decision was right.

If you look at the image of the Bamford 'offside' they seem to have taken a line from a point about half way between the shoulder and elbow.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54855596

Yet under the actually laws the boundary between the shoulder and the arm is defined as the bottom of the armpit.

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/2020-21-law-changes-explained

So in retrospect I think the decision was actually incorrect as well as the current interpretation of the offside rules being crazy.
 

[jeremyp]

I think NS (and I) think it is a non-sense law, or actually interpretation of the law.

I think the law was interpreted correctly, but it is a bad law.

I think we both recognise that the decision is correct under the current interpretations of the offside rule, but we think that interpretation is crazy and should be changed.

Agreed.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think the law was interpreted correctly, but it is a bad law.

Not sure it was. The rules state that the point that the offside line should have been taken was the bottom of the armpit. The images show that the point was taken much further down the arm. Actually if the point is the bottom of the armpit then it make no meaningful difference whether the arm is outstretched or not, that point is pretty well in the same position.

So stupid law and not correctly applied (from the image of the offside circulated on the media).

[ProfessorDavey]

This is a nonsense


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54855596

The more I look at this the more convinced I am that the VAR officials got it wrong.

Look at the image and you will see that they have taken their point for offside at exactly the point on the arm where there is a darker coloured ring. Look at the later picture and you can see exactly what and where that dark ring is. And anyone who thinks that is 'the bottom of the armpit' really needs a lesson in anatomy.

[jeremyp]

Not sure it was. The rules state that the point that the offside line should have been taken was the bottom of the armpit. The images show that the point was taken much further down the arm.

I don't agree. But of course we could argue all day about where the bottom of the armpit is and where the line was. I think I'd rather say there was no intent and the ball didn't actually hit him on the arm anyway and so the referee should have been given discretion to allow the goal as he would have been in previous years.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't agree. But of course we could argue all day about where the bottom of the armpit is and where the line was. I think I'd rather say there was no intent and the ball didn't actually hit him on the arm anyway and so the referee should have been given discretion to allow the goal as he would have been in previous years.

If you think your armpit ends half way between your shoulder and your elbow then you definitely need a lesson in anatomy. So I cannot see how the line take was in the correct place as from the image later in the BBC article that line around the shirt is clearly some way further down the arm than the armpit.

Regardless VAR is only supposed to be used to correct a 'clear and obvious' error by the on field match officials. In no way was the 'error' clear and obvious - indeed I don't think it was an error at all.

[ProfessorDavey]

How is it possible for a single person in a single meeting to make completely inappropriate discriminatory language about four separate and distinct groups - black people, people of South Asian origin, gay people and women. Five if you separate out the comments about black people from that about people of Africa Caribbean origin.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54894864

It is jaw dropping.

[Nearly Sane]

I think the 'coloured people' gaffe is the least there. There was a time recently when that was acceptable and the more acceptable phrase 'people of colour' is not significantly different. The rest of it is a mess.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think the 'coloured people' gaffe is the least there. There was a time recently when that was acceptable and the more acceptable phrase 'people of colour' is not significantly different. The rest of it is a mess.

Yes, I agree - I can understand why someone might have 'mis-spoken' in using an inappropriate term, albeit someone in that kind of leadership position should know better.

But his comments on gay people, women and people with South Asian vs Afro-Caribbean origin goes way beyond mis-speaking, his comments were crass stereotyping in a manner that should have no place in the FA, let alone at its highest levels. It does make you think about the broader culture in the organisation if their Chair feels able to make these comments in a formal hearing with MPs.

[jeremyp]

If you think your armpit ends half way between your shoulder and your elbow then you definitely need a lesson in anatomy. So I cannot see how the line take was in the correct place as from the image later in the BBC article that line around the shirt is clearly some way further down the arm than the armpit.

Jesus fucking christ. Give it a rest.

[jeremyp]

How is it possible for a single person in a single meeting to make completely inappropriate discriminatory language about four separate and distinct groups - black people, people of South Asian origin, gay people and women. Five if you separate out the comments about black people from that about people of Africa Caribbean origin.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54894864

It is jaw dropping.

I heard the one about coloured people and people of colour and I heard the one about young girl footballers not liking being hit hard by the ball (I'm pretty sure I didn't like it much either - in fact, I still don't) but I have not heard the insults directed at black people and South Asians. What did he say?

People of African Caribbean origin are a subset of black people, so yes, I would treat them as separate (with Afro-Carribbeans being insulted twice).

[ProfessorDavey]

I heard the one about coloured people and people of colour and I heard the one about young girl footballers not liking being hit hard by the ball (I'm pretty sure I didn't like it much either - in fact, I still don't) but I have not heard the insults directed at black people and South Asians. What did he say?

People of African Caribbean origin are a subset of black people, so yes, I would treat them as separate (with Afro-Carribbeans being insulted twice).

His comments were gross stereotyping:

On women - he said that 'young female players did not like having the ball hit hard at them' - the issue is that he is only applying it to female footballers, so your comment isn't relevant and indeed is precisely the point on the stereotyping, not implying that young male footballers also might not like it.

On gay people - he described them as making a 'life choice'.

On South Asian vs Afro-Caribbean - he said that there were "a lot more South Asians than there are Afro-Caribbeans" in the FA's IT department because "they have different career interests".

[ad_orientem]

Regardless VAR is only supposed to be used to correct a 'clear and obvious' error by the on field match officials. In no way was the 'error' clear and obvious - indeed I don't think it was an error at all.

Exactly this! If they can't do it (which looks like they can't or won't) then get rid of it. I would say that if you can't spot the error within one replay at normal speed then it wasn't clear and obvious and then get on with the bloody game.

[ad_orientem]

Am I correct in thinking that it's the VAR officals who make the final decision?

[ProfessorDavey]

Exactly this! If they can't do it (which looks like they can't or won't) then get rid of it. I would say that if you can't spot the error within one replay at normal speed then it wasn't clear and obvious and then get on with the bloody game.

I don't have a fundamental problem with VAR - indeed I think it is good on a range of aspects. My issue is with 'clear and obvious' mistakes and benefit of the doubt. In cricket for LBW decisions there is an 'umpire's call' approach for close decisions. Something similar could be adopted, but perhaps with benefit of doubt to the attacker in off-side for example. I've mentioned this a few times, but a simple route forward would be to simply make the lines they add to the still image thicker and require there to be no overlap for an offside to be called. This would, as a stroke provide benefit of the doubt and get rid of the armpit width decisions.

[ProfessorDavey]

... the referee should have been given discretion to allow the goal as he would have been in previous years.

As far as I'm aware the referee did give the goal and the line officials didn't flag it as offside. But it was ruled out by VAR who over-ruled the decision of the on-field officials. If the on-field referee is able to over-rule VAR then there isn't much point in having VAR is there?

[ad_orientem]

I don't have a fundamental problem with VAR - indeed I think it is good on a range of aspects. My issue is with 'clear and obvious' mistakes and benefit of the doubt. In cricket for LBW decisions there is an 'umpire's call' approach for close decisions. Something similar could be adopted, but perhaps with benefit of doubt to the attacker in off-side for example. I've mentioned this a few times, but a simple route forward would be to simply make the lines they add to the still image thicker and require there to be no overlap for an offside to be called. This would, as a stroke provide benefit of the doubt and get rid of the armpit width decisions.

I think I broadly agree with you. At least I welcomed the introduction of VAR. From the fans' perspective speed is an issue but that, I believe, is due to checking milimetres intsead of the "clear and obvious"
. I would argue that it's implementation goes against the spirit of the game, in otherwords, against the attacking side.

[ad_orientem]

As far as I'm aware the referee did give the goal and the line officials didn't flag it as offside. But it was ruled out by VAR who over-ruled the decision of the on-field officials. If the on-field referee is able to over-rule VAR then there isn't much point in having VAR is there?

 

VAR should be advice. "We think you might have made a mistake". "Let me check". " I was right/wrong". Should stay with the referee. Any decent referee will want to correct a mistake and will surely be seen to be good for that. But one real time replay.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think I broadly agree with you. At least I welcomed the introduction of VAR. From the fans' perspective speed is an issue but that, I believe, is due to checking milimetres intsead of the "clear and obvious"
. I would argue that it's implementation goes against the spirit of the game, in otherwords, against the attacking side.

I don't think we want to go back to the world where blatant errors occur - for example ball clearly over the line and no goal awarded, or clear offside or on-side and the wrong decision. I think VAR should sort this out, but the VAR officials perhaps need to look in super-slow motion and static frame to determine whether there is an error, but then in real time to determine whether it is a clear and obvious error from the match officials, who clearly can only make on-field decisions in real time.

[ad_orientem]

I don't think we want to go back to the world where blatant errors occur - for example ball clearly over the line and no goal awarded, or clear offside or on-side and the wrong decision. I think VAR should sort this out,...

Agreed.

...but the VAR officials perhaps need to look in super-slow motion and static frame to determine whether there is an error, but then in real time to determine whether it is a clear and obvious error from the match officials, who clearly can only make on-field decisions in real time.

Speed for me. Of course it can't be instant but this checking and checking, no.