PL Rule Changes? | Vital Football

PL Rule Changes?

And a sensible potential change

The Premier League is hoping to persuade Fifa to allow a 'margin of error' on tight offside calls, with referees' chief Mike Riley set to speak to Dutch Eredivisie bosses after they brought in a 10cm 'linesman's call'. (Mail on Sunday)
 
I know there was talk about it at PL level, but far more problematic in terms of a short term change for EFL clubs as the article points to. But not insurmountable if handled properly.
 
mike_field said:
I know there was talk about it at PL level, but far more problematic in terms of a short term change for EFL clubs as the article points to. But not insurmountable if handled properly.
Click to expand...

I really can't see that removing them from shirts will stop people betting to be honest. If we removed adverts from Vital, do we really think people would then stop?

Doubt it!
 
The Fear said:
I really can't see that removing them from shirts will stop people betting to be honest. If we removed adverts from Vital, do we really think people would then stop?

Doubt it!
Click to expand...
Didn’t stop people smoking after they banned the corporations from sponsoring events or advertising. Needs to be done though.
 
The Fear said:
I really can't see that removing them from shirts will stop people betting to be honest. If we removed adverts from Vital, do we really think people would then stop?

Doubt it!
Click to expand...

Same arguments as not advertising fags, alcohol (the few places that don't) it's about changing the culture slowly rather than glorifying it.

It won't change anything for the current generations, but if kids don't see it most won't get into it is the argument they put forward.

Again though it's what they do - remove from shirts yet still plaster stadiums is nothing but lip service.
 
The Fear said:
And a sensible potential change

The Premier League is hoping to persuade Fifa to allow a 'margin of error' on tight offside calls, with referees' chief Mike Riley set to speak to Dutch Eredivisie bosses after they brought in a 10cm 'linesman's call'. (Mail on Sunday)
Click to expand...

IMO this 'clear and obvious' idea is flawed if we're drawing lines on the pitch and there is still controversy.
 
Yeah, this is the trouble, any way they do it, it will still be argued over. 5cm, 10cm, a bit of daylight between them, give the striker the benefit of the doubt (as was the instruction at one point)

End of the day, we want entertainment and goals, not fecking graphs to see if it is or isn't going to be given.
 
10cm is 4in and as we invented the game and the pitches marked in yards, we should refer to it as inches not cm. I've marked enough pitches out in my time and the Penalty spot is 12 yards from the goal line not 10.97m.

Anyway, how do they measure the exact moment the ball travels forwards, my gues is by some nobhead moving it a frame or two at a time and guessing?
Then what about true angles we never see a view 90 deg to the pitch do we?

Anyway enough of my pedantry.

Had to laugh at Carragher when he said during the Villa v Liverpool game "I know that VAR will get every offside correct" then his beloved team get one disallowed next game that was clearly wrong to the naked eye but nor to VAR
 
Fact is you have to have a cut-off point. 10cm is more difficult to measure than 0cm, so introduces a fuzzy factor. More controversy not less. If it's 0.1cm offside it's offside. Simple rule, stick to it. It's up to players to ensure they're not offside.
 
Benefit of the doubt should go to the attacking team - it should be left to the linesmen, sorry, assistant referee to flag for offside and over-rule if it is a clear and obvious mistake.

Take a leaf out of cricket’s book, the ref has given the goal, so there has to be a clear error, otherwise we stay with the on field decision.
 
"Merd" said:
Benefit of the doubt should go to the attacking team - it should be left to the linesmen, sorry, assistant referee to flag for offside and over-rule if it is a clear and obvious mistake.

Take a leaf out of cricket’s book, the ref has given the goal, so there has to be a clear error, otherwise we stay with the on field decision.
Click to expand...

Dead right. A bit of the player has to be clearly ahead of the line. If it comes down to even probably ahead then that's not enough.
 
The Fear said:
Yeah, this is the trouble, any way they do it, it will still be argued over. 5cm, 10cm, a bit of daylight between them, give the striker the benefit of the doubt (as was the instruction at one point)

End of the day, we want entertainment and goals, not fecking graphs to see if it is or isn't going to be given.
Click to expand...

The cameras are not good enough to determine if those lines they draw are accurate, therefore there should be some leeway to compensate for this.
 
The solution to the VAR-offside business is simply to just not have this farcical microscopic line drawing bollocks and accept that level is onside which has always been the rules. It’s hardly rocket science, sometimes less is more.
 
Fulford said:
The cameras are not good enough to determine if those lines they draw are accurate, therefore there should be some leeway to compensate for this.
Click to expand...

As I said the view they show us is not parallel to the pitch therefore not a true view.
The shots I saw of the Mane offside for Liverpool the ball wasn't even in the pictures. How does that work?
It's still subjective and it's something that shouldn't be subjective. It's ruining football and now it's effecting Livarpool it might get changes
 
Villan57 said:
As I said the view they show us is not parallel to the pitch therefore not a true view.
The shots I saw of the Mane offside for Liverpool the ball wasn't even in the pictures. How does that work?
It's still subjective and it's something that shouldn't be subjective. It's ruining football and now it's effecting Livarpool it might get changes
Click to expand...
Yep I always felt that the geometry is off, at least based on what we see when they make a decision which I presume is also what they also must be seeing.
 
McParlandTheGreat said:
Fact is you have to have a cut-off point. 10cm is more difficult to measure than 0cm, so introduces a fuzzy factor. More controversy not less. If it's 0.1cm offside it's offside. Simple rule, stick to it. It's up to players to ensure they're not offside.
Click to expand...
Overall, VAR is a negative but if it's staying then l agree with you Macca. You're either pregnant or you're not.
 
Pangloss said:
Yep I always felt that the geometry is off, at least based on what we see when they make a decision which I presume is also what they also must be seeing.
Click to expand...
That's something we don't know but we assume it the same, I certainly don't see a camera running along the line parallel to the pitch. Or one above doing a plan view .

Same with horse racing the view of the tv camera isn't the same as the photo finish or it never used to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.