Still not worthy of a thread

[Yorkie]

Don't see any complication here. If it's given as offside straight away he doesn't clatter into the post; it's a simple as that. Other hypothetical scenarios are irrelevant. 

[Froggy]

6 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

Don't see any complication here. If it's given as offside straight away he doesn't clatter into the post; it's a simple as that. Other hypothetical scenarios are irrelevant. 

 

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. 

[Kilcline]

11 minutes ago, Tsunami said:

Think the Forest owners using a bit deflection of his behaviour tbh. He was massively pissed off that they hadn’t won and that the player should have come off. He had no idea how serious the injury was, stating otherwise and of his primary concern being player safety, is just bollocks. He was watching his Champs League money slip through his fingers.

 

 

 

 

His Champs League money that he's probably already spent aswell!

[Yorkie]

11 minutes 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. 

 

This is on me because I didn't define it this way at first - but what I'm really referring to is 'VAR being applied to offside decisions' as opposed to VAR in totality. That's always and forever been my principal issue with it. Hopefully there's enough in my post history to quantify this position rather than have it appear as backtracking.

 

And it's not so much blaming VAR (being applied to offside decisions), but saying it doesn't happen without it.

[Froggy]

15 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

This is on me because I didn't define it this way at first - but what I'm really referring to is 'VAR being applied to offside decisions' as opposed to VAR in totality. That's always and forever been my principal issue with it. Hopefully there's enough in my post history to quantify this position rather than have it appear as backtracking.

 

And it's not so much blaming VAR (being applied to offside decisions), but saying it doesn't happen without it.

 

Aye makes sense. I've taken it that you want the whole thing scrapped because of the injury.

[54]

3 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

Aye makes sense. I've taken it that you want the whole thing scrapped because of the injury.

I want the whole thing scrapped as still doesn't get decisions right and ruins the flow of games. 

[Froggy]

19 minutes ago, 54 said:

I want the whole thing scrapped as still doesn't get decisions right and ruins the flow of games. 

 

Tricky one for me now. I think we'd have all been perfectly happy if it just never existed. 

 

But at the same time I'm still hurting from an offside winner against us 15 years ago that cost us the title.  

 

 

Edited May 15 by Froggy

[54]

Just now, Froggy said:

 

Tricky one for me now. I think we'd have all been perfectly happy if it just never existed. 

 

But at the same time I'm still hurting from an offside winner against us 15 years that cost us the title.  

Is that the one where Drogba was about 5 yards offside right in front of the lino?  

[Dr Venkman]

2 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

Tricky one for me now. I think we'd have all been perfectly happy if it just never existed. 

 

But at the same time I'm still hurting from an offside winner against us 15 years that cost us the title.  

[Groundhog63]

What is it with the "Big6"? 🤔

 

 

 

 

[Froggy]

1 minute ago, 54 said:

Is that the one where Drogba was about 5 yards offside right in front of the lino?  

 

Yes. 

 

Lost the league by a point.

[Fak]

Raul Asencio. Fucking hell. 

[Kid Icarus]

1 hour ago, Yorkie said:

Don't see any complication here. If it's given as offside straight away he doesn't clatter into the post; it's a simple as that. Other hypothetical scenarios are irrelevant. 

 

If this is the first time this has happened in 6 years surely the other scenarios are much more examples of the norm than they are hypotheticals.

 

 

Edited May 15 by Kid Icarus

[Paully]

 

https://www.facebook.com/share/v/15EFgfjjUd/?mibextid=wwXIfr

[Cf]

50 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

Tricky one for me now. I think we'd have all been perfectly happy if it just never existed. 

 

But at the same time I'm still hurting from an offside winner against us 15 years ago that cost us the title.  

 

 

 

 

You're about to get CL due to a dodgy offside decision in a game without VAR!

[Froggy]

6 minutes ago, Cf said:

You're about to get CL due to a dodgy offside decision in a game without VAR!

 

Would have smashed Leicester in the replay.

[Yorkie]

33 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

If this is the first time this has happened in 6 years surely the other scenarios are much more examples of the norm than they are hypotheticals.

 

It's not about the norm; it only needs to happen once to demonstrate there's a risk. It was always going to happen eventually and it gets routinely referred to whenever anyone's discussing this modern flagging protocol. 

 

If the flag isn't delayed there's 0% chance a player gets injured in that passage of play. If the flag is delayed, there's X% chance a player gets injured. Any aspect of the game which increases the chance of totally avoidable injuries should be binned if possible.

 

My bottom line is that it's just another thing in the cons list when it comes to VAR on offsides (as a unique concept).

[Cf]

I'd happily throw VAR into the bin but find this injury talk a bit baffling. 

 

If the flag get raised then play continues anyway. Just different play. The same amount of football gets played overall. 

 

If someone wants to argue an injury is more likely in these goal scoring situations then go ahead. 

 

I'm all for the linesman raising their flag early btw if they're confident it's offside. It's very silly that they don't. 

[Yorkie]

What's baffling? He wouldn't have got injured if the flag had been raised straight away.

 

Injuries can happen at any time in the 90 minutes but I'm obviously talking about within the context of that specific incident. 

[Kid Icarus]

40 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

It's not about the norm; it only needs to happen once to demonstrate there's a risk. It was always going to happen eventually and it gets routinely referred to whenever anyone's discussing this modern flagging protocol. 

 

If the flag isn't delayed there's 0% chance a player gets injured in that passage of play. If the flag is delayed, there's X% chance a player gets injured. Any aspect of the game which increases the chance of totally avoidable injuries should be binned if possible.

 

My bottom line is that it's just another thing in the cons list when it comes to VAR on offsides (as a unique concept).

 

I know you hate VAR Yorkie, but I think you're guilty of a huge dose of confirmation bias here.

 

There being a risk isn't enough, there's obviously some amount of risk with everything, so you would think that it's about whether the risk is significant enough to warrant a change. That risk actually resulting in a concequence only once in 6 years in a sport where there are risks absolutely everywhere with the same potential consequences doesn't strike me as a strong argument for getting rid of it.

 

I was on board with the argument that these late offside calls were dangerous, sort of presuming that they would happen, but the evidence just hasn't backed it up at all like.

 

 

Edited May 15 by Kid Icarus

[Yorkie]

12 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

I know you hate VAR Yorkie, but I think you're guilty of a huge dose of confirmation bias here.

 

There being a risk isn't enough, there's obviously some amount of risk with everything, so you would think that it's about whether the risk is significant enough to warrant a change. That risk actually resulting in a concequence only once in 6 years in a sport where there are risks absolutely everywhere with the same potential consequences doesn't strike me as a strong argument for getting rid of it.

 

I was on board with the argument that these late offside calls were dangerous, sort of presuming that they would happen, but the evidence just hasn't backed it up at all like.

 

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. 

[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.