Still not worthy of a thread

[Kimbo]

I’m sure I’ve been watching players collide with posts all my life, I’ve collided with a few myself in my time. The only people you could blame IMO are the Forest staff for leaving a clearly wrecked player on the pitch, but there’s no way they could’ve known how bad it was.

[Fak]

Didn't Ederson have to go off injured against us at home last season too for the same reason?

[The Butcher]

Shocked at Southgate's answer.

[Kid Icarus]

1 hour ago, Yorkie said:

 

There are risks every time you step onto the field but this is different in that it's completely avoidable. How many completely avoidable (and potentially life-threatening) injuries would need to happen before you felt differently?

 

Anyway, you're framing this as if I'm arguing it's the only reason to bin VAR on offsides. I'm not, I'm saying add it to all the other reasons. 

 

It's completely avoidable only by binning something that just like with a lot of other things in football that include risk (and I know you won't agree) has huge upsides for a downside that has a tiny amount of risk. 

 

I'm really not framing it as you're entire argument, I know you have loads of reasons you don't like VAR and I share some of them with you. Here you're saying this is another thing to throw on the pile of reasons to get rid of VAR, I'm just saying that this one thing has a really weak argument supporting it that highlights a bias more than anything else.  

[Pata]

1 hour ago, Yorkie said:

 

There are risks every time you step onto the field but this is different in that it's completely avoidable. How many completely avoidable (and potentially life-threatening) injuries would need to happen before you felt differently?

 

Anyway, you're framing this as if I'm arguing it's the only reason to bin VAR on offsides. I'm not, I'm saying add it to all the other reasons. 

The late flag might have avoided a timeline where someone or even multiple people died at City Ground later on. We don’t have all the facts here.

[duo]

4 hours ago, Froggy said:

 

What about kicks/stamps/rakes/elbows etc. that were much more common before the introduction of VAR? Deliberate attempts to injure an opponent off the ball have pretty much been eliminated by VAR as players simply won't get away with it.

 

I think blaming VAR for injuries is mental to be honest. 

What has any of that to do with this? All we are saying if they flagged early when it was obvious he was offside the injury could have been averted 

[Yorkie]

27 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

It's completely avoidable only by binning something that just like with a lot of other things in football that include risk (and I know you won't agree) has huge upsides for a downside that has a tiny amount of risk. 

 

I'm really not framing it as you're entire argument, I know you have loads of reasons you don't like VAR and I share some of them with you. Here you're saying this is another thing to throw on the pile of reasons to get rid of VAR, I'm just saying that this one thing has a really weak argument supporting it that highlights a bias more than anything else.  

 

VAR on offsides.

[Kid Icarus]

18 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

VAR on offsides.

 

But you also want rid of VAR altogether don't you?

 

 

Edited yesterday at 12:03 by Kid Icarus

[Gottlob]

The question is whether the late flag somehow compels players to crash into the goalpost or makes such instances significantly more likely. I don't think the effect is significant, but the late flag does encourage more goalmouth action, because assistant referees are told to keep their flag down in the case of a goalscoring opportunity which might then be reviewed by VAR.

 

An upturn in goalmouth action doesn't feel like a reason to scrap the late flag, instances of players crashing into the goalpost are not uncommon but severe injury seems exceedingly rare, and if you think otherwise you might make the same sort of case against the advantage rule, excess stoppage time, call for corner kicks to be replaced by throw-ins, etc.

[Yorkie]

3 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

21 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

VAR on offsides.

 

But you also want rid of VAR altogether don't you?

 

I'm at the point where I'd rather not have it than have it (altogether) because I think it's inherently flawed, but theoretically I can see the value in it being applied in limited scenarios.

 

For instance, upgrading Jackson's yellow to a red because the on-field referee was unable to see, in real time, the severity of the offence is a very good use of VAR. But the inherent flaw is how an almost identical offence was missed the week before (Enciso on Tonali), or how an identical outcome was wrongfully applied the week prior (Evanilson v Man Utd).

 

I've always been categorically against it on offsides and my view on that will never change. 

[Kid Icarus]

19 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

I'm at the point where I'd rather not have it than have it (altogether) because I think it's inherently flawed, but theoretically I can see the value in it being applied in limited scenarios.

 

For instance, upgrading Jackson's yellow to a red because the on-field referee was unable to see, in real time, the severity of the offence is a very good use of VAR. But the inherent flaw is how an almost identical offence was missed the week before (Enciso on Tonali), or how an identical outcome was wrongfully applied the week prior (Evanilson v Man Utd).

 

I've always been categorically against it on offsides and my view on that will never change. 

 

I mean fair enough, offside just seems like the odd one to pick out when it's one of the few things in football that's truly binary. We can argue about what advantage is or isn't gain, but players are either onside or they're not. Providing it's done right and quickly with automation it'll eventually ideally be like goal-line technology. Everything else is still always going to be subjective to a certain extent and cause controversy when VAR gets involved. 

[Yorkie]

I won't engage in the wider debate cos folks have heard enough from me about it. Agree to disagree. 

[joeyt]

Is there any point to linesmen/ assistant referees at the moment?

 

Other than giving throw ins and occasionally fouls 

[80]

I would be tempted to say we should keep VAR only for off ball violent conduct and diving. But it's perfectly apparent they would fuck that up as well e.g. Schar's red card against Southampton or influencing referees to just whistle for everything in the mistaken belief that VAR will correct any errors.

[Pata]

2 hours ago, joeyt said:

Is there any point to linesmen/ assistant referees at the moment?

 

Other than giving throw ins and occasionally fouls 

 

Think they help the ref a lot with their headset.

[gbandit]

Sign him up, what a top attitude 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/videos/cvg585y20l9o

[KingArthur]

On 29/04/2025 at 20:36, KingArthur said:

I think this is the right topic for this..

 

But my local Finnish team TPS plays for 2nd tier in the Finnish league, again hoping to get promoted. One of their rivals, EIF, who was relegated last season and tries to get back up straightaway, managed to fuck up gloriously. They have a quite an expensive team and are taking bit of gamble. And then this happens:

 

Their chairman makes a parent club agreement with a team in the top flight, so that they can move players after closing of the transfer window. Loan players to cover injuries etc. They pay the fee for the league and register it before the deadline 28th of February, but there are no news about this so no one notices. Last friday both teams release a statement that this kind of agreement is in place and how wonderful it is etc. 

The problem is, that this kind of agreement automatically means they cannot get promoted. It is stated in the league rules, that making this sort of deal means you are not eligible for promotion. It doesn't even matter if any player moves between clubs or not. Well, apparently they didn't know this, so now there is panic. They have deleted the announcements from their websites, but the agreement can be seen at the league web page. Then they told reporters "no agreement was signed" etc bullshit, because the deal was made, sent to the league and fee was paid. 

Season started week ago, but seems like it is over for them already.

Update in this. Today FInnish FA decided that the team that made a parent club agreement, can still get promoted cause they really didn't know about the rules and no players were exhanged between clubs. And that it would be unreasonable to make them ineligible for promotion and the 7 clubs (out of 10 clubs in the league) who protested are opportunistic and should be ashamed 

Well, most likely other teams will take this to next level, cause it only costs 220e and Finnish premierleague place is worth aroud half a million..

 

 

Edited 6 hours ago by KingArthur

[toon25]

Infantino is an absolutely pathetic human, like. Cucking himself to anyone that'll have him to boost his profile. Joining Trump's Gulf tour today, I see.