Kaizero

Nations League play-off is after the Euro 2020 qualifiers. Aye but the finals for Group A is in the summer. The finals for the nations league not the playoffs mate So if we won it we could still potentially have to play those teams again in order to qualify through a tournament that we have already won against opponents we have already played and beaten? Well we could have to play in playoffs to get to the euros if we don’t qualify for the euros yes. The nations league as a tournament and as a back foot to the euros are 2 separate things It also decides the seeding for the euro qualifiers A massive success I would say One of the main reasons they listed for creating it was to give teams a chance to qualify for the Euro’s. They have made it theoretically possible that you could win the tournament and still not qualify. True still way better than meaningless friendlies though, created quite a few exciting games and the players seemed up for it Means we're guaranteed one of Georgia, FYR Macedonia, Kosovo or Belarus will make the Euros. I'm all for that.

Nations League play-off is after the Euro 2020 qualifiers. Aye but the finals for Group A is in the summer. Added more to my post

Nations League play-off is after the Euro 2020 qualifiers. Teams that won their groups in the NL and fail to qualify through the Euro Qualifiers get another chance in the NL play-offs. If teams that won their group qualify through the Euro Qualifiers, the spot in the NL play-offs go to other teams. The NL "winners" tournament are independent of the play-offs for the Euro.

Revisionist history, these were your actual standpoints: Much more leading, clearly implying VAR will be used as a tool to aid big clubs. Which is what people have discussed as a result of your posts. No. Clearly pointing out that it could be. Which was my original comment, supported by the other two standpoints. Again, what people have been discussing is how unlikely the exploitation would be, because of you pointing it out - which you did.

Revisionist history, these were your actual standpoints: Much more leading, clearly implying VAR will be used as a tool to aid big clubs. Which is what people have discussed as a result of your posts.

Are you completely pig ignorant? I have already stated that I'm not talking about players abusing it. The FA preferring the big clubs aren't news, but saying they actively make refs give them decisions is a bit of a conspiracy theory. Rather, it's the refs bending over to the pressure of standing up against the big clubs, if anything, to create the perceived big club reffing bias - it will be incredibly harder to do after VAR is implemented as VAR isn't as subjective. Again with the fantasist accusations. Where have I claimed that referees are doing anything at the behest of the FA? Favoring big clubs. The FA pays for the service, going by the above point, the FA favours big clubs and could, according to you, abise VAR to favour the big clubs. Every post since then has been following up on these two standpoints, giving arguments why they cannot abuse VAR this way. Nobody's saying you've said anything other than what you've said, but the argument has moved forward to use examples of why the things you have said are dumb. You've just taken two comments and made an assumption. And a wrong assumption at that. My whole point is based around the fact that VAR gives them this opportunity. And we're arguing why that's not an opportunity that's neither realitsic or would be utilized by anyone. Whereas instead of engaging in the discussion you just keep saying you've not said the stuff that's led to the discussion, when you have. It's pointless. What is pointless is you making claims about what I've said, when even your own evidence demonstrates you're full of shit. The main issue here is that instead of specifying what you meant when faced with apparent misunderstanding, you just keep re-iterating you didn't mean what - everyone - assumes you meant. It's extremely non-contributive, not to mention disruptive for actual discussion in this thread. Well if people's assumptions are wrong then I'm going to correct them. If they continue to persst with those assumptions that is on them. You haven't corrected them. You've just said they're wrong without giving any reason as to why, which makes it easy to assume you're more interested in being flippant rather than actually wanting to participate in discussing the subject at hand.

Are you completely pig ignorant? I have already stated that I'm not talking about players abusing it. The FA preferring the big clubs aren't news, but saying they actively make refs give them decisions is a bit of a conspiracy theory. Rather, it's the refs bending over to the pressure of standing up against the big clubs, if anything, to create the perceived big club reffing bias - it will be incredibly harder to do after VAR is implemented as VAR isn't as subjective. Again with the fantasist accusations. Where have I claimed that referees are doing anything at the behest of the FA? Favoring big clubs. The FA pays for the service, going by the above point, the FA favours big clubs and could, according to you, abise VAR to favour the big clubs. Every post since then has been following up on these two standpoints, giving arguments why they cannot abuse VAR this way. Nobody's saying you've said anything other than what you've said, but the argument has moved forward to use examples of why the things you have said are dumb. You've just taken two comments and made an assumption. And a wrong assumption at that. My whole point is based around the fact that VAR gives them this opportunity. And we're arguing why that's not an opportunity that's neither realitsic or would be utilized by anyone. Whereas instead of engaging in the discussion you just keep saying you've not said the stuff that's led to the discussion, when you have. It's pointless. What is pointless is you making claims about what I've said, when even your own evidence demonstrates you're full of shit. The main issue here is that instead of specifying what you meant when faced with apparent misunderstanding, you just keep re-iterating you didn't mean what - everyone - assumes you meant. It's extremely non-contributive, not to mention disruptive for actual discussion in this thread.

Are you completely pig ignorant? I have already stated that I'm not talking about players abusing it. The FA preferring the big clubs aren't news, but saying they actively make refs give them decisions is a bit of a conspiracy theory. Rather, it's the refs bending over to the pressure of standing up against the big clubs, if anything, to create the perceived big club reffing bias - it will be incredibly harder to do after VAR is implemented as VAR isn't as subjective. Again with the fantasist accusations. Where have I claimed that referees are doing anything at the behest of the FA? Favoring big clubs. The FA pays for the service, going by the above point, the FA favours big clubs and could, according to you, abise VAR to favour the big clubs. Every post since then has been following up on these two standpoints, giving arguments why they cannot abuse VAR this way. Nobody's saying you've said anything other than what you've said, but the argument has moved forward to use examples of why the things you have said are dumb. You've just taken two comments and made an assumption. And a wrong assumption at that. My whole point is based around the fact that VAR gives them this opportunity. And we're arguing why that's not an opportunity that's realistic, or would be utilized by anyone even if it was. Whereas instead of engaging in the discussion you just keep saying you've not said the stuff that's led to the discussion, when you have. It's pointless.

Are you completely pig ignorant? I have already stated that I'm not talking about players abusing it. The FA preferring the big clubs aren't news, but saying they actively make refs give them decisions is a bit of a conspiracy theory. Rather, it's the refs bending over to the pressure of standing up against the big clubs, if anything, to create the perceived big club reffing bias - it will be incredibly harder to do after VAR is implemented as VAR isn't as subjective. Again with the fantasist accusations. Where have I claimed that referees are doing anything at the behest of the FA? Favoring big clubs. The FA pays for the service, going by the above point, the FA favours big clubs and could, according to you, abise VAR to favour the big clubs. Every post since then has been following up on these two standpoints, giving arguments why they cannot abuse VAR this way. Nobody's saying you've said anything other than what you've said, but the argument has moved forward to use examples of why the things you have said are dumb.

This sort of change would need to be implemented at FIFA level. I've been saying for years that the rules of the game need updating. Almost every other team sport reviews it's rules to keep pace with tactical developments, so why not football? If I were King FIFA, my new rules would include: 1) 30 mins per half with clock stopped every time play stops - would completely eliminate time wasting overnight. 2) Scrap offsides completely - goalhanging (the reason offsides were brought in) was an archaic issue and won't be an issue in the modern game due to the need for all players to be involved in all phases of the game. Would also open up more space on the pitch and get rid of contentious offside decisions completely. 3) Get rid of the penalty box. Take a free kick from the point of foul instead - currently a penalty kick is way too valuable and leads to players preferring to take a tumble rather than try and shoot. Also means that defending as an art is dying. 4) Goal line tech in all professional games. 5) TV Officials in all televised games. Rather than VAR, have an official to give advice on all requested decisions. 6) Red card for simulation. Simulation includes exaggerating contact - would encourage players to play the game and combined with TV officials, should all but eliminate diving. However, the game flat refuses to evolve, and the fact that goal line technology took an age to bring in and VAR is somehow being implemented badly gives me no hope of change. As a result, games will be one long diving fest, with timewasting, simulation and dodgy penalties continuing to win the day. Have you thought of a name for this new sport you've invented? Football? Without offsides or pels it would still be football... Maybe we should just carry on what we're doing for no other reason than because it's what we've always done? Tactics have changed massively and there are some seriously cynical ways to exploit the rules. Either football changes or it continues to be the pathetic shitfest it has become. No offside makes the game a completely different sport. Its a ludicrous suggestion Not to mention it's been a rule since the inception of association football. Very wrong. Not only was it non-existent in the early days of football, it's been amended several times including notably recently with the inactive player rule. http://www.sidelinesoccer.com/history-of-the-offside-rule The link you used literally says it's been implemented since the esrly days of association football (1863) ffs Minor adjustments to a rule is not the same as removing the rule entirely. Before the FA made the "actual" rules of football, schools had their own version of the offside rule - bit they still had the offside rule.

This sort of change would need to be implemented at FIFA level. I've been saying for years that the rules of the game need updating. Almost every other team sport reviews it's rules to keep pace with tactical developments, so why not football? If I were King FIFA, my new rules would include: 1) 30 mins per half with clock stopped every time play stops - would completely eliminate time wasting overnight. 2) Scrap offsides completely - goalhanging (the reason offsides were brought in) was an archaic issue and won't be an issue in the modern game due to the need for all players to be involved in all phases of the game. Would also open up more space on the pitch and get rid of contentious offside decisions completely. 3) Get rid of the penalty box. Take a free kick from the point of foul instead - currently a penalty kick is way too valuable and leads to players preferring to take a tumble rather than try and shoot. Also means that defending as an art is dying. 4) Goal line tech in all professional games. 5) TV Officials in all televised games. Rather than VAR, have an official to give advice on all requested decisions. 6) Red card for simulation. Simulation includes exaggerating contact - would encourage players to play the game and combined with TV officials, should all but eliminate diving. However, the game flat refuses to evolve, and the fact that goal line technology took an age to bring in and VAR is somehow being implemented badly gives me no hope of change. As a result, games will be one long diving fest, with timewasting, simulation and dodgy penalties continuing to win the day. Have you thought of a name for this new sport you've invented? Football? Without offsides or pels it would still be football... Maybe we should just carry on what we're doing for no other reason than because it's what we've always done? Tactics have changed massively and there are some seriously cynical ways to exploit the rules. Either football changes or it continues to be the pathetic shitfest it has become. No offside makes the game a completely different sport. Its a ludicrous suggestion Not to mention it's been a rule since the inception of association football.

Are you completely pig ignorant? I have already stated that I'm not talking about players abusing it. The FA preferring the big clubs aren't news, but saying they actively make refs give them decisions is a bit of a conspiracy theory. Rather, it's the refs bending over to the pressure of standing up against the big clubs, if anything, to create the perceived big club reffing bias - it will be incredibly harder to do after VAR is implemented as VAR isn't as subjective.

Players can still feign injury even when VAR is introduced. They cannot however make VAR come into action.

No more susceptible to corruption than refs being paid to do betting scams, with the exception that the world is literally watching how these decisions would be given compared to it normally only being the ref knowing why. This meaning VAR would be harder to use for corruption than the situation preceding VAR. Except I'm talking about the FA/SKY using it to give an advantage to the top teams. But like I say, the powers that be would never do such a thing. How? You keep saying this, but you also keep not saying how they would use VAR to do this. If you're thinking they'll use VAR to stop the game to review incidents in added time when a big team is leading, the only thing that will do is review the incident VAR wants to review. Compared to using subs to waste time, the time VAR stops the game gets added on. If it doesn't, there'll be an uproar. The added time at the WC showed that VAR actually helped getting a more realistic amount of added time.

There's not, season lasts 10 months - there's only four international breaks across them.

No more susceptible to corruption than refs being paid to do betting scams, with the exception that the world is literally watching how these decisions would be given compared to it normally only being the ref knowing why. This meaning VAR would be harder to use for corruption than the situation preceding VAR.

It can't be exploited by either team, only the officials on the pitch in conjunction with those in front of the screen can bring the use of VARS. Not sure what your point is really in regard to delaying the game, for the gain of whatever team that might be. Same reason players on the leading side will feign injury, to interrupt the flow and reduce the pressure. You've never seen a game where the losing side are hammering the oppositon, but then they have a long injury and the game just fizzles out? As for who can abuse it, I'm pretty sure those paying for the service will be able to do whatever they like. I’m pretty sure you don’t have a clue what VAR is 5 mins to go leading team being bombarded, balls into the box, bit of a shirt tug, ball to hand, slightest touch on an attacker in the box, there are many ways VAR could end a game five minutes early. The game is only stopped if the VAR team think the wrong decision was made or if the ref needs help. Did you watch the World Cup? Where have I contradicted this? The point is the VAR team have the ability to stop the game. Yes, in order to make the correct decision when a mistake is made by the referee The VAR team ask the ef to look at something that they have seen, theref does not have to change his mind. And? That will take at most 2 minutes and if the ref doesn’t add the time on then that’s his fault Plus, as we know from the WC, the ref can choose to ignore the VAR team.

Had the same thought, but Nations League may not have extra spots for the World Cup, so it'd only be relevant to tank on purpose every second Nations League.

It was 100% the best thing about the World Cup. Rules actually were enforced.

He's very large in the Arrowverse fandom. He's essentially made for life through that, and has free access to starring in those shows. There's no need for him to put himself in a show like this either for money/attention like the others, is what I'm saying. Might I suggest that your expertise is secondary on this occasion. You may not.

He's Brazilian, bound to have his career go bust in his early 30s for some reason.

He's very large in the Arrowverse fandom. He's essentially made for life through that, and has free access to starring in those shows. There's no need for him to put himself in a show like this either for money/attention like the others, is what I'm saying.

John Barrowman feels far too big time for that fucking show, and that's saying a lot about how shit the rest of the "celebs" are

Amazing news.

except they've looked completely incompetent defensively and now the attacks stopped working. Considering the investment made they've been very shite. Not sure on Ranieri, he's a good manager but not sure he's the ideal choice to come in mid-season to try and get something resembling organisation out of that defence They've got money to do stuff in January.