Women's World Cup Thread | Page 22 | Vital Football

Women's World Cup Thread

ImpAlaska said:
Studs made contact with the upper arm. It's a direct free kick anywhere else on the pitch. Why only a dangerous kicking offence in the box?
Click to expand...

Did they? Well far from obvious what made contact with what.
And that's my issue. If it isnt blindingly obvious,,don't give it.
 
Riiiiik said:
Because they can't shut up.
Click to expand...

I fear that is because there is so much "dead time" on the pitch. It seems that a throw in requires 20-30 seconds. A corner kick more than that, penalties 2 mins, dawdling substitutions, "celebrations {you only do it when your winning}".

I remember around 1970 the Sunday cricket on TV. If Jim Laker was commentating, you wondered if the sound on your TV had failed.

Clearly there is an optimum level of prattling on.
 
Bazzzer said:
I fear that is because there is so much "dead time" on the pitch. It seems that a throw in requires 20-30 seconds. A corner kick more than that, penalties 2 mins, dawdling substitutions, "celebrations {you only do it when your winning}".

I remember around 1970 the Sunday cricket on TV. If Jim Laker was commentating, you wondered if the sound on your TV had failed.

Clearly there is an optimum level of prattling on.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't disagree but the non-stop yapping gets to me.
It's like the background music that has to be played all the time on documentaries. Sometimes you can barely hear the speech. Or maybe it's my failing hearing?:whistle:
 
buckielugger said:
Did they? Well far from obvious what made contact with what.
And that's my issue. If it isnt blindingly obvious,,don't give it.
Click to expand...

I'm not deliberately trying to be a pain. However the replays, which the ref saw, left no doubt about the contact.

It was blatantly obvious on VAR, but not in real time. Back to the original question of when VAR should be used.
 
Dreaming of McAuley said:
Don’t get why everyone seems to hate most commentators, I like the vast majority
Click to expand...

I agree with Riiiiik, but it goes deeper than that.

A commentator is useful to identify players and let you know what's happening in the areas of the pitch not covered by the camera following the ball.

For years now they've been far too ready with their opinions, which nobody needs, and perhaps worse every one of them is always searching for the bon mot. They must have pages of ad libs ready so they can shoehorn those in.

Although he intended it for cricket, they should all be forced to learn Richie Benaud's rules of commentary until they can recite them.

As for the ex-pro match summarisers sitting alongside them... that's something else I hope Jimmy Hill had to answer for when he went to meet his maker.
 
I do wonder why there is a need to tell the viewer what is happening, when they can see it for themselves in hd on a 56 inch screen. The players all have individual numbers now, and their names on their backs.
Really liked the no commentary option on I follow. Why did that disappear?
 
They got them ‘Champions 19’ t-shirts printed pretty quickly after the final whistle! That aside USA were deserved winners.
 
oldgaurd said:
Well done USA. Worthy winners for me . Its been a great tournament .
Click to expand...

Yes enjoyed the tournament and atmosphere there overall. I didn’t think the States were anything special and feel we (England) pushed them the hardest, but small margins the difference again sadly.
 
ImpAlaska said:
I'm not deliberately trying to be a pain. However the replays, which the ref saw, left no doubt about the contact.

It was blatantly obvious on VAR, but not in real time. Back to the original question of when VAR should be used.
Click to expand...

Well guess it's what you see. I genuinely couldn't see any clear offence. But all the commentators did and yourself.

VAR is still in its infancy, and I thought worked pretty well in Russia. But not so good in this tournament. Hopefully it will keep getting assessed and improved.
Maybe something along the lines of the tennis rule of three appeals might be an idea.
Perhaps each manager allowed one appeal per half? (Or another if successful?)
 
Brendan Bradley said:
I agree with Riiiiik, but it goes deeper than that.

A commentator is useful to identify players and let you know what's happening in the areas of the pitch not covered by the camera following the ball.

For years now they've been far too ready with their opinions, which nobody needs, and perhaps worse every one of them is always searching for the bon mot. They must have pages of ad libs ready so they can shoehorn those in.

Although he intended it for cricket, they should all be forced to learn Richie Benaud's rules of commentary until they can recite them.

As for the ex-pro match summarisers sitting alongside them... that's something else I hope Jimmy Hill had to answer for when he went to meet his maker.
Click to expand...


Most cringeworthy line from Mr Pearce was at the end "Liberté, Fraternité, USA"...ughh
 
buckielugger said:
W

Maybe something along the lines of the tennis rule of three appeals might be an idea.
Perhaps each manager allowed one appeal per half? (Or another if successful?)
Click to expand...

Yes!

BTW, I don't think the VAR has delayed the game too much; added time has not been excessive.
 
ImpAlaska said:
Are you deliberately trying to wind me up? LOL
Click to expand...

Given I was not replying to you, you take it as a no. I don't always agree with @buckielugger but on this occasion I was. It was clearly not a penalty as was England's v the US.

Intent is being removed from the game and the rate it is going with VAR football (the proper game played without the use of hands) will end up as a none contact sport.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.