England

[Gallowgate End]

I think Walker is a liability and shouldn't be near the England team.  I also think he's Man City's worst player

 

 

I couldn’t believe how bad he was last night surprised he didn’t get dragged off.

[Paully]

http://twohundredpercent.net/nations-league-england-deserves/

[AyeDubbleYoo]

He’s been poor.  Think Man City need proper first team competition for the fullback positions. Both Mendy and Walker are talented but shouldn’t be comfortable #1s.

 

This post is about a team that spent £150m on fullbacks.

[Yorkie]

That VAR decision has really pissed me off on reflection. Regardless of what concerns you might have about its application (refs being weirdos/consistency/disruption of the spectacle) - there's no frigging way Lingard gained an advantage there. It was a completely unnecessary decision. That was a goal good enough to win any game. And I'm talking here as a neutral here tbh, I wasn't arsed about the result at all last night.

 

wasn't he like literally a hair offside though?

 

That's precisely what I'm saying. Is being 'a hair' offside really an infringement? I don't think it is. He hasn't gained an advantage on anyone.

 

I'm not saying the goal should have stood for the reason that 'it looked pretty'. I'm saying the use of VAR is overzealous in that situation because - with it being so inconsequentially marginal - there isn't sufficient enough reason to disallow it. We used to go by 'giving the benefit of the doubt to the attacker', which had largely worked for over a century.

 

If Newcastle had lost to a goal like that I wouldn't be crying injustice.

[Norseman]

The rules are pretty clear though. He was in an offside position as the ball was played to him, thereby he was interfering with play as he received the pass. Doesn't matter if he was 10 yards offside or 1 inch. It is still an offside offence in this case.

[James]

He’s been poor.  Think Man City need proper first team competition for the fullback positions. Both Mendy and Walker are talented but shouldn’t be comfortable #1s.

 

This post is about a team that spent £150m on fullbacks.

 

Not sure I’d want Walker in goal either

[Unbelievable]

That VAR decision has really pissed me off on reflection. Regardless of what concerns you might have about its application (refs being weirdos/consistency/disruption of the spectacle) - there's no frigging way Lingard gained an advantage there. It was a completely unnecessary decision. That was a goal good enough to win any game. And I'm talking here as a neutral here tbh, I wasn't arsed about the result at all last night.

 

wasn't he like literally a hair offside though?

 

That's precisely what I'm saying. Is being 'a hair' offside really an infringement? I don't think it is. He hasn't gained an advantage on anyone.

 

I'm not saying the goal should have stood for the reason that 'it looked pretty'. I'm saying the use of VAR is overzealous in that situation because - with it being so inconsequentially marginal - there isn't sufficient enough reason to disallow it. We used to go by 'giving the benefit of the doubt to the attacker', which had largely worked for over a century.

 

If Newcastle had lost to a goal like that I wouldn't be crying injustice.

 

Surely this is black and white thing, like goal line technology? You wouldn't say it would be alright to count as a goal a fantastic shot that just didn't completely pass the line because the goalkeeper would have never been able to get to it either way? Lindgard was offside, fractionally, and the goal was correctly ruled out. I would be crying my eyes out if Newcastle ever lost a final to a fractionally offside being allowed because the player in an offside position "didn't gain an advantage" by doing so. They would have to change the rules for that argument to hold, and rather than becoming an objectively measurable thing it would become completely subjective as to what constitutes an advantage and what doesn't. The argument makes no sense to me. As for "advantage to the attacking player", that never worked before VAR either, and has essentially been replaced by the much more accurate VAR for instances like these. I still despise VAR as a concept, but for offsides, comparable to binary true or false decisions like goal line technology, it works as intended and actually makes the game a bit more fair.

[ToonArmy1892]

That VAR decision has really p*ssed me off on reflection. Regardless of what concerns you might have about its application (refs being weirdos/consistency/disruption of the spectacle) - there's no frigging way Lingard gained an advantage there. It was a completely unnecessary decision. That was a goal good enough to win any game. And I'm talking here as a neutral here tbh, I wasn't arsed about the result at all last night.

 

wasn't he like literally a hair offside though?

Is being 'a hair' offside really an infringement?

 

[Interpolic]

Perplexed that James Maddison hasn't even had an opportunity for England yet given our creative problems centrally. 

 

Really rate him and would give us something different to what we have, unlike most of the midfielders that actually get selected.

[Yorkie]

That VAR decision has really pissed me off on reflection. Regardless of what concerns you might have about its application (refs being weirdos/consistency/disruption of the spectacle) - there's no frigging way Lingard gained an advantage there. It was a completely unnecessary decision. That was a goal good enough to win any game. And I'm talking here as a neutral here tbh, I wasn't arsed about the result at all last night.

 

wasn't he like literally a hair offside though?

 

That's precisely what I'm saying. Is being 'a hair' offside really an infringement? I don't think it is. He hasn't gained an advantage on anyone.

 

I'm not saying the goal should have stood for the reason that 'it looked pretty'. I'm saying the use of VAR is overzealous in that situation because - with it being so inconsequentially marginal - there isn't sufficient enough reason to disallow it. We used to go by 'giving the benefit of the doubt to the attacker', which had largely worked for over a century.

 

If Newcastle had lost to a goal like that I wouldn't be crying injustice.

 

Surely this is black and white thing, like goal line technology? You wouldn't say it would be alright to count as a goal a fantastic shot that just didn't completely pass the line because the goalkeeper would have never been able to get to it either way? Lindgard was offside, fractionally, and the goal was correctly ruled out. I would be crying my eyes out if Newcastle ever lost a final to a fractionally offside being allowed because the player in an offside position "didn't gain an advantage" by doing so. They would have to change the rules for that argument to hold, and rather than becoming an objectively measurable thing it would become completely subjective as to what constitutes an advantage and what doesn't. The argument makes no sense to me. As for "advantage to the attacking player", that never worked before VAR either, and has essentially been replaced by the much more accurate VAR for instances like these. I still despise VAR as a concept, but for offsides, comparable to binary true or false decisions like goal line technology, it works as intended and actually makes the game a bit more fair.

 

I can't dispute anything you're saying; as you say, when it comes to the rulebook - offside is black and white, you're either offside or not. I'm speaking from a fundamentally anti-VAR point of view, and with concerns about how far the technology will encroach, and what implications it will indirectly have on a number of cherishable aspects of the game.

 

The only way that call is made in the good old pre-VAR days is if the linesman takes a complete punt - there's no way he can literally observe that the attacker is offside.

 

Which is why I stand by:

 

That VAR decision has really p*ssed me off on reflection. Regardless of what concerns you might have about its application (refs being weirdos/consistency/disruption of the spectacle) - there's no frigging way Lingard gained an advantage there. It was a completely unnecessary decision. That was a goal good enough to win any game. And I'm talking here as a neutral here tbh, I wasn't arsed about the result at all last night.

 

wasn't he like literally a hair offside though?

Is being 'a hair' offside really an infringement?

 

 

... that. If it is so, so, so marginal that it's impossible to make a decision without forensic equipment, then I am of the opinion that the attacker should get the benefit of the doubt, and it's a goal.

 

If Lingard is a hair behind the imaginary offside line, rather than a hair in front of it - as he was - does the result change? Of course not.

 

It's difficult to argue with your point about goal line technology, which I'm actually in favour of, but feel the technology should have stopped there.

[GeordieDazzler]

[Wullie]

Your whole body should have to be offside for it to be called.

[Raconteur]

I remember they trialed a system where there had to be "clear daylight" between the attacker and the defender for him to be offside. It was scrapped because it gave too much advantage to the attacker, but better than some of the shite decisions you see these days.

[jackyboy]

I always thought that if it was really tight (the offside position I mean) then advantage went to the attacker

[triggs]

Just heard on the ramble that some English fans chose to queue in the non-EU security area of the airport in Portugal

[Unbelievable]

I always thought that if it was really tight (the offside position I mean) then advantage went to the attacker

 

That was before VAR. Why give benefit of the doubt when you can check and remove all doubt?

[Wullie]

Because that's not the point of the rule. It was introduced to stop goal hanging, it's not there to police the exact position of somebody's toenail when watched in 4K resolution.

 

In a few years time we'll have an atomic camera looking along the line at the molecules of Raheem Sterling's knee.

[triggs]

It is the point of the rule now though

[ToonArmy1892]

You would think in this day and age they could measure it exactly, not using fucking lines on a screen.

[Astroblack]

I mean, I'd prefer it to the minute detail. We'd be raging if someone scored against us and they were fractionally offside.

[ToonArmy1892]

I mean, I'd prefer it to the minute detail. We'd be raging if someone scored against us and they were fractionally offside.

 

Yup, it simply must be that way.

[Wullie]

It is the point of the rule now though

 

The offside rule is there for a different reason now? I don't think so. It's just policed far too rigorously, and that is solely because camera technology has improved and TV now controls the game in a way it didn't before. TV used to be there to show the game, not to referee it.

[ToonArmy1892]

It is the point of the rule now though

 

The offside rule is there for a different reason now? I don't think so. It's just policed far too rigorously, and that is solely because camera technology has improved and TV now controls the game in a way it didn't before. TV used to be there to show the game, not to referee it.

 

Are you saying VAR shouldn't be used for offsides?

[triggs]

It is the point of the rule now though

 

The offside rule is there for a different reason now? I don't think so. It's just policed far too rigorously, and that is solely because camera technology has improved and TV now controls the game in a way it didn't before. TV used to be there to show the game, not to referee it.

I probably didn't phrase that well or expand on what I meant enough. I agree that the overall point of the rule is to stop goal hanging. However, I think that it has to be policed rigorously because defenders and coaches work so hard on their defensive line and it would be unfair to them if there was leeway given to attackers when they were offside. It seems very unfair when you get a decision like last nights but I just think that's the way it has to be

 

I also think the full body having to be past the last man for offside to be called would lead to much deeper defensive lines which would be a step backwards IMO

[Unbelievable]

It is the point of the rule now though

 

The offside rule is there for a different reason now? I don't think so. It's just policed far too rigorously, and that is solely because camera technology has improved and TV now controls the game in a way it didn't before. TV used to be there to show the game, not to referee it.

I probably didn't phrase that well or expand on what I meant enough. I agree that the overall point of the rule is to stop goal hanging. However, I think that it has to be policed rigorously because defenders and coaches work so hard on their defensive line and it would be unfair to them if there was leeway given to attackers when they were offside. It seems very unfair when you get a decision like last nights but I just think that's the way it has to be

 

I also think the full body having to be past the last man for offside to be called would lead to much deeper defensive lines which would be a step backwards IMO

 

 

In this case, with the advance of technology objectively fairer decisions can be made. I’m far less sold on the use of VAR for penalty decisions for minor infractions like ball to hand or a small tug on a shirt though, as there is (still) too much subjectivity involved. But if we must have VAR to then decide to discard it for such black and white easy decisions seems well odd to me.