Still not worthy of a thread

[54]

2 minutes ago, wormy said:

What's the context? Did he mock the Declan Rice transfer strategy analysis too? 

Apparently he said this in a podcast:

 

Quote

"Never heard owt like it in my life. How does she get airtime?? Biggest load of bull I’ve ever heard."

 

[wormy]

Love it. Tbh I watch as little 'punditry' as I possibly can so the only reason I know her is constantly seeing people saying she chats non-stop shite.

[LV]

12 minutes ago, 54 said:

Apparently he said this in a podcast:

 

 

Fair comment tbh 

[LFEE]

4 hours ago, Kid Icarus said:

Come again?

Wenger’s offside proposal is exactly what you’ve asked for it seems. Player is onside if any of their body is in line so in affect daylight. So add that to the current VAR lines and it should be a doddle to verify if on or off.

[Kid Icarus]

40 minutes ago, LFEE said:

Wenger’s offside proposal is exactly what you’ve asked for it seems. Player is onside if any of their body is in line so in affect daylight. So add that to the current VAR lines and it should be a doddle to verify if on or off.

Not really, I just want the existing system but with the system that was used at the World Cup, which worked brilliantly. This system that Wenger's proposing won't make the line drawing any easier and makes it nigh on impossible for defenders to hold a defensive line/play attackers offside.

 

 

Edited July 4, 2023 by Kid Icarus

[Jaqen]

Aluko is the worst. It's always people are either jealous, don't know as much as her or are racist or misongnystic. 

 

Can't tell what's worse, getting rattled by a Paddy Kenny comment or trying to flex you work on Talksport 

 

 

 

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

1 hour ago, 54 said:

Paddy Kenny vs Eniola Aluko is not something I ever thought i'd see  

 

 

 Fucking hell. What a whopper. 

Did you know she was a sporting director? 

[LFEE]

5 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Not really, I just want the existing system but with the system that was used at the World Cup, which worked brilliantly. This system that Wenger's proposing won't make the line drawing any easier and makes it nigh on impossible for defenders to hold a defensive line/play attackers offside.

 

 

 

 

You mean the World Cup with the awful offside decision within the first few minutes of the opening game? ?
 

Wenger’s idea means you should rarely need lines but more importantly easier to define and referee.

As for defenders they will just need to defend better and it will assist stopping the stronger teams solely being able to suffocate the weaker teams up the pitch. Either way more goals which is what you want or at least I do when you go to games.

 

Don’t know for sure but also aren’t some grounds physically unable to incorporate the Hawkeye system you mention?

[Hanshithispantz]

Man City have Haaland though, they would benefit from this change more than anyone.

[Tiresias]

Could work. 

 

I still wonder just copy how cricket and tennis do it, each team gets so many challenges maybe 3, you don't lose a challenge if you are successful, adds a little bit of strategy to it and there's no longer that automatic goals scored and then wait for millimeter offside calls, only when a team actually thinks something is offside, and then it's a bit of drama. Also would mean 'Captains' have something concrete on pitch to decide

 

 

Edited July 4, 2023 by Tiresias

[Pata]

Can’t wait for people to start crying over backheel offsides if this ever becomes a thing.  I don’t like the proposal, changes the game too much and there will still be tight decisions.

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

30 minutes ago, LFEE said:

 

You mean the World Cup with the awful offside decision within the first few minutes of the opening game? ?
 

Wenger’s idea means you should rarely need lines but more importantly easier to define and referee.

As for defenders they will just need to defend better and it will assist stopping the stronger teams solely being able to suffocate the weaker teams up the pitch. Either way more goals which is what you want or at least I do when you go to games.

 

Don’t know for sure but also aren’t some grounds physically unable to incorporate the Hawkeye system you mention?

 

Most importantly it'll just bring more goals/goal scoring opportunities rather than minutes of line drawing or even seconds of the automated system. Wenger's idea is basically back to the "daylight" thinking of the 90s/early 00s. All for it. 

[Guest]

 

 

 

 

[Kid Icarus]

24 minutes ago, LFEE said:

 

You mean the World Cup with the awful offside decision within the first few minutes of the opening game? ?
 

Wenger’s idea means you should rarely need lines but more importantly easier to define and referee.

As for defenders they will just need to defend better and it will assist stopping the stronger teams solely being able to suffocate the weaker teams up the pitch. Either way more goals which is what you want or at least I do when you go to games.

 

Don’t know for sure but also aren’t some grounds physically unable to incorporate the Hawkeye system you mention?

 

Qatar vs Equador? That was offside though.

 

Wenger's idea in theory might sound easier to see, but I don't think that will at all be the case in practice. The infinitesimal line that we're scrutinising has just moved. The assistant refs decision will still be checked and they'll still delay their decision.

 

They'll just need to defend better is just ignoring the issue really. It's a huge, unfair advantage for the attacker that makes holding a defensive line almost impossible.

[Kid Icarus]

2 minutes ago, Super Duper Branko Strupar said:

 

Most importantly it'll just bring more goals/goal scoring opportunities rather than minutes of line drawing or even seconds of the automated system. Wenger's idea is basically back to the "daylight" thinking of the 90s/early 00s. All for it. 

That was never the reality like, it was never literal.

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

1 minute ago, Kid Icarus said:

That was never the reality like, it was never literal.

Daylight?

[Kid Icarus]

4 minutes ago, Super Duper Branko Strupar said:

Daylight?

As in there has to be a separation between players yeah. 

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

Ah aye, was never literal, but more the general aim. Just a musch less strict interpreation of offside and more in keeping with the point of it in the first place.

With the new suggestion you'd be looking at "is the attackers left foot/right foot/chest/head in line with a defender?" Yes means they're on, No means they're off. So you're not going to get the ludicrous situation where someone's toe being 1 inch ahead of someone's hip means they're offside and the goal is denied. Instead it'd be a goal. Much more enjoyable. Imagine how many more goals would have been scored in the previous seasons if Wenger's implementation had been used. Would be mint. 

[LFEE]

13 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

Qatar vs Equador? That was offside though.

 

Wenger's idea in theory might sound easier to see, but I don't think that will at all be the case in practice. The infinitesimal line that we're scrutinising has just moved. The assistant refs decision will still be checked and they'll still delay their decision.

 

They'll just need to defend better is just ignoring the issue really. It's a huge, unfair advantage for the attacker that makes holding a defensive line almost impossible.

But you wouldn’t want it to be as they were stood level.
 

Yes but the moving of the line will be to a place we will all agree on as none of the body will be covered by it. Currently you’ve a line that is covering contorted body’s and the dissection isn’t clear which part of the body they are judging.

 

It’s not huge. The offside traps will return and they will have to be better at it. There will be a bigger advantage to the striker. Which is great news IMO.

 

Anyway it’s a trial. Proof will be in the pudding after 12 months.

[Kid Icarus]

5 minutes ago, Super Duper Branko Strupar said:

Ah aye, was never literal, but more the general aim. Just a musch less strict interpreation of offside and more in keeping with the point of it in the first place.

With the new suggestion you'd be looking at "is the attackers left foot/right foot/chest/head in line with a defender?" Yes means they're on, No means they're off. So you're not going to get the ludicrous situation where someone's toe being 1 inch ahead of someone's hip means they're offside and the goal is denied. Instead it'd be a goal. Much more enjoyable. Imagine how many more goals would have been scored in the previous seasons if Wenger's implementation had been used. Would be mint. 

You don't think it would just change from pedantry over the first point of an attacker being offside to the last point of them being onside? So instead of arguing over an attacker's toe, we're arguing over their heel?

 

Imo the daft pedantry will still be there like, VAR's still going to check.

[Jaqen]

How many instances of offside is a player's whole body completely off?  

 

You'd now be able to be quite far ahead of the defensive line as long as the back of your trailing boot is in line with a defender. Playing a high line would be suicide. Could see a lot of teams setting up much more negatively with this in place.

 

 

[gbandit]

I’m all for giving more of an advantage to the attacking player, it’s absurd when goals get chalked off for millimetres but this is the absolute extreme

[Kid Icarus]

4 minutes ago, LFEE said:

But you wouldn’t want it to be as they were stood level.
 

Yes but the moving of the line will be to a place we will all agree on as none of the body will be covered by it. Currently you’ve a line that is covering contorted body’s and the dissection isn’t clear which part of the body they are judging.

 

It’s not huge. The offside traps will return and they will have to be better at it. There will be a bigger advantage to the striker. Which is great news IMO.

 

Anyway it’s a trial. Proof will be in the pudding after 12 months.

 

We should have learned the lesson pretty clearly from VAR that with good intentions come negative consequences or side effects. 

 

What I'm reading here is a repeat of the pre-VAR points about how this will obviously sort everything out, but in this case I think the negative consequences are much easier to spot.

 

 

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Jaqen said:

How many instances of offside is a player's whole body completely off?  

 

You'd now be able to be quite far ahead of the defensive line as long as the back of your trailing boot is in line with a defender. Playing a high line would be suicide. Could see a lot of teams setting up much more negatively with this in place.

 

 

 

You'll also get strikers trying to gain a bit more of an advantage by pushing their luck, so you can still play a high line. A lot off offsides at the moment are sheer luck. Being offside because an armpit is a millimetre ahead of a defender's shoulder for example is a pisstake. If you're still being caught offside by a millimetre or two despite the potential rule change then that's 100% on the forward. 

 

 

Edited July 4, 2023 by Optimistic Nut

[Jaqen]

21 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

 

You'll also get strikers trying to gain a bit more of an advantage by pushing their luck, so you can still play a high line. A lot off offsides at the moment are sheer luck. Being offside because an armpit is a millimetre ahead of a defender's shoulder for example is a pisstake. If you're still being caught offside by a millimetre or two despite the potential rule change then that's 100% on the forward. 

 

 

 

 

Nah I agree the current ruling is daft but things like this should be offside. Someone massive like Haaland can be a couple of yards ahead of the defender but still 'onside' now as long as the very back of his boot is trailing.