Jump to content

Women's Football


54

Recommended Posts

Isn't VAR supposed to be for "clear and obvious" decisions? That was so marginal it was unreal.

 

This offsides business is absolutely wank. No advantage gained whatsoever.

 

 

If it’s offside, it’s offside, should there be an advantage? Would be like goal line technology just deciding it’s a goal if 90% of the ball crosses the line.

The whole of the ball over the whole of the line. :lol: Offside should be the same.

 

That’s not the law though.

 

You're comparing chalk and cheese anyway.

 

Not really? Offside law was used correctly. Can’t just ignore it if it’s ‘marginal’ the same way you couldn’t just give a goal if the vast majority of the ball was in.

 

Sometimes these incidents can be both onside and offside when the limbs of several players are moving at once, depending on which frame is chosen. It really is total nonsense.

 

I know you've stuck your flag passionately in the VAR camp but I firmly believe at this point anyone who says that the system as it stands is a benefit and is improving football as a spectacle is being deliberately dishonest out of stubbornness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't VAR supposed to be for "clear and obvious" decisions? That was so marginal it was unreal.

 

This offsides business is absolutely wank. No advantage gained whatsoever.

 

 

If it’s offside, it’s offside, should there be an advantage? Would be like goal line technology just deciding it’s a goal if 90% of the ball crosses the line.

The whole of the ball over the whole of the line. :lol: Offside should be the same.

 

That’s not the law though.

I know but I'm saying I'm of the opinion that it should be. I think the game would be better for it.

I don't want every single decision to be absolutely perfect, especially if it takes several minutes and 50 replays to determine whether something was or wasn't. Goal-line technology - yes. Clear and obvious errors - yes. Really subjective/too close to call decisions - hell no.

 

Think I said before, now that we’ve got the technology for offsides, the law should just change to there has to be clear daylight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Phil needs tips from Rafa not the other way around :smug:

I don't care if this is a bite, or whatever, but seriously, stop this. Its utterly annoying and repetitive, and quite frankly ruining the Football section of the site. I get banter, but this isnt that. This is just being an asshole repeating whatever point your trying to make.

 

We should be talking about what a great game of football that was, and an advert to the womens game, not your patter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair play to England and the state's. Really close. The state's begrudgingly have the extra class and experience. From watching the last world cup this is a different England team. Our defence is our worst enemy. If we can improve there in the next cycle we can beat anyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Open_C

I firmly believe at this point anyone who says that the system as it stands is a benefit and is improving football as a spectacle is being deliberately dishonest out of stubbornness.

 

Absolutely. It's fucking ruinous

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't VAR supposed to be for "clear and obvious" decisions? That was so marginal it was unreal.

 

This offsides business is absolutely wank. No advantage gained whatsoever.

 

 

If it’s offside, it’s offside, should there be an advantage? Would be like goal line technology just deciding it’s a goal if 90% of the ball crosses the line.

The whole of the ball over the whole of the line. :lol: Offside should be the same.

 

That’s not the law though.

I know but I'm saying I'm of the opinion that it should be. I think the game would be better for it.

I don't want every single decision to be absolutely perfect, especially if it takes several minutes and 50 replays to determine whether something was or wasn't. Goal-line technology - yes. Clear and obvious errors - yes. Really subjective/too close to call decisions - hell no.

 

Think I said before, now that we’ve got the technology for offsides, the law should just change to there has to be clear daylight.

"Daylight" is far more subjective than the current rule. What number of millimetres would you define as daylight now that we are measuring offside to that standard?

 

Congratulations to the US, I hope Netherlands defeats them in the Final.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Phil needs tips from Rafa not the other way around :smug:

I don't care if this is a bite, or whatever, but seriously, stop this. Its utterly annoying and repetitive, and quite frankly ruining the Football section of the site. I get banter, but this isnt that. This is just being an asshole repeating whatever point your trying to make.

 

We should be talking about what a great game of football that was, and an advert to the womens game, not your patter.

You're encouraging him.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't VAR supposed to be for "clear and obvious" decisions? That was so marginal it was unreal.

 

This offsides business is absolutely wank. No advantage gained whatsoever.

 

 

If it’s offside, it’s offside, should there be an advantage? Would be like goal line technology just deciding it’s a goal if 90% of the ball crosses the line.

The whole of the ball over the whole of the line. :lol: Offside should be the same.

 

That’s not the law though.

 

You're comparing chalk and cheese anyway.

 

Not really? Offside law was used correctly. Can’t just ignore it if it’s ‘marginal’ the same way you couldn’t just give a goal if the vast majority of the ball was in.

 

Sometimes these incidents can be both onside and offside when the limbs of several players are moving at once, depending on which frame is chosen. It really is total nonsense.

 

I know you've stuck your flag passionately in the VAR camp but I firmly believe at this point anyone who says that the system as it stands is a benefit and is improving football as a spectacle is being deliberately dishonest out of stubbornness.

Aye, both decitions today nobody would complain about if they weren’t changed through VAR. The also both (as you say) showed that at that level it’s probably not 100%.

 

The penalty especially the ref was visibly baffled as to what to give :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't VAR supposed to be for "clear and obvious" decisions? That was so marginal it was unreal.

 

This offsides business is absolutely wank. No advantage gained whatsoever.

 

 

If it’s offside, it’s offside, should there be an advantage? Would be like goal line technology just deciding it’s a goal if 90% of the ball crosses the line.

The whole of the ball over the whole of the line. :lol: Offside should be the same.

 

That’s not the law though.

 

You're comparing chalk and cheese anyway.

 

Not really? Offside law was used correctly. Can’t just ignore it if it’s ‘marginal’ the same way you couldn’t just give a goal if the vast majority of the ball was in.

 

Sometimes these incidents can be both onside and offside when the limbs of several players are moving at once, depending on which frame is chosen. It really is total nonsense.

 

I know you've stuck your flag passionately in the VAR camp but I firmly believe at this point anyone who says that the system as it stands is a benefit and is improving football as a spectacle is being deliberately dishonest out of stubbornness.

Aye, both decitions today nobody would complain about if they weren’t changed through VAR. The also both (as you say) showed that at that level it’s probably not 100%.

 

The penalty especially the ref was visibly baffled as to what to give :lol:

 

If the pen doesn’t get awarded then England complain, had the offside not been given then USA would rightfully been aggrieved.

 

The technology is there to give the correct decisions and they got it right both times.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't VAR supposed to be for "clear and obvious" decisions? That was so marginal it was unreal.

 

This offsides business is absolutely wank. No advantage gained whatsoever.

 

 

If it’s offside, it’s offside, should there be an advantage? Would be like goal line technology just deciding it’s a goal if 90% of the ball crosses the line.

The whole of the ball over the whole of the line. :lol: Offside should be the same.

 

That’s not the law though.

 

You're comparing chalk and cheese anyway.

 

Not really? Offside law was used correctly. Can’t just ignore it if it’s ‘marginal’ the same way you couldn’t just give a goal if the vast majority of the ball was in.

 

Sometimes these incidents can be both onside and offside when the limbs of several players are moving at once, depending on which frame is chosen. It really is total nonsense.

 

I know you've stuck your flag passionately in the VAR camp but I firmly believe at this point anyone who says that the system as it stands is a benefit and is improving football as a spectacle is being deliberately dishonest out of stubbornness.

Aye, both decitions today nobody would complain about if they weren’t changed through VAR. The also both (as you say) showed that at that level it’s probably not 100%.

 

The penalty especially the ref was visibly baffled as to what to give :lol:

 

If the pen doesn’t get awarded then England complain, had the offside not been given then USA would rightfully been aggrieved.

 

The technology is there to give the correct decisions and they got it right both times.

Nobody could realistically complain about either of those decisions man, howay.

 

The referee was literally scratching her head with the penalty even after watching it dozens of times :lol:

 

And Wullie’s point is right. It’s impossible to get it correct to the millimeter with current tech, especially in an acceptable timeframe. Finding the exact moment the ball leaves the foot and the exact moment the offensive player passes the defender would require far better cameras than the ones they’re using, as well as high FPS monitors and more angles. VAR will still be more accurate than not but both decitions today showed how tight it can get.

 

Regardless of any of this the main point is that this in no way made the game any more entertaining. The exact opposite tbh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...