Newcastle United v AFC Bournemouth

Toronto John said:
Man, what a mind-numbing read. Not the actual debate, which is quite neat, but the minutiae of the detail. I've made myself read this thread from top to bottom because I think it's important, but if it happened again tomorrow, I still wouldn't have a clue.

Observation - way back when VAR was coming on, I mentioned how "replay" in MLB, NHL and NFL was taking something away from the game. But, none of those have had the teething problems and indeed the worsening of the situation like we have in football.

It doesn't apply to this very situation, but watching all the shirt-pulling, hugging and goalkeeper blocking out on dead ball kicks and corners, I wonder if there has ever been consideration of a restricted area - something like a "d" from one goal post to the other and coming out 3 yards - that could not be infringed by the attacking team until the ball is put in play. Just neophyte musing.
Click to expand...
SDD in full throttle trying to prove a point
 
red_house said:
Before I get a life where does it say this out of curiosity ? The ball is heading in their direction and lands two seconds later.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't it simply say challenging an opponent if the ball wasn't relevant?

We know that it is possible to move towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball without challenging for the ball because it says so in the law. This would involve all of their movements and actions aimed at getting the ball... looking at it, etc. as you describe. These things don't constitute challenging for the ball because it is possible to do them before challenging for the ball as the law states.

As I say, what possible scenario does that law refer to if not this?
 
Toronto John said:
Man, what a mind-numbing read. Not the actual debate, which is quite neat, but the minutiae of the detail. I've made myself read this thread from top to bottom because I think it's important, but if it happened again tomorrow, I still wouldn't have a clue.

Observation - way back when VAR was coming on, I mentioned how "replay" in MLB, NHL and NFL was taking something away from the game. But, none of those have had the teething problems and indeed the worsening of the situation like we have in football.

It doesn't apply to this very situation, but watching all the shirt-pulling, hugging and goalkeeper blocking out on dead ball kicks and corners, I wonder if there has ever been consideration of a restricted area - something like a "d" from one goal post to the other and coming out 3 yards - that could not be infringed by the attacking team until the ball is put in play. Just neophyte musing.
Click to expand...

Corners and set pieces are a complete nightmare to referee. In fairness I think they always have been. VAR has not helped in the slightest imo.
 
I reiterate.
Look at the manhandling of Christie in this passage of play.
Far worse than what happened to Schär ( who was offside btw. ).

Failing to see how the foul on Schār overrides the foul on Christie.
If I was being generous to Newcastle, it’s six of one, half a dozen of the other, so no action necessary, other than to correctly call it offside.

All of this other ******************************** is completely ignoring the fact that Christie was being massively fouled at the same time, which seems to have been conveniently completely ignored in the VAR review.

I wonder why ?
Confirmation bias ?
 
thegazzyb said:
I reiterate.
Look at the manhandling of Christie in this passage of play.
Far worse than what happened to Schär ( who was offside btw. ).

Failing to see how the foul on Schār overrides the foul on Christie.
If I was being generous to Newcastle, it’s six of one, half a dozen of the other, so no action necessary, other than to correctly call it offside.

All of this other ******************************** is completely ignoring the fact that Christie was being massively fouled at the same time, which seems to have been conveniently completely ignored in the VAR review.

I wonder why ?
Confirmation bias ?
Click to expand...
I believe VAR sees what it wants to see. You always hear VAR are looking at this passage of play. Then no foul.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Why wouldn't it simply say challenging an opponent if the ball wasn't relevant?

We know that it is possible to move towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball without challenging for the ball because it says so in the law. This would involve all of their movements and actions aimed at getting the ball... looking at it, etc. as you describe. These things don't constitute challenging for the ball because it is possible to do them before challenging for the ball as the law states.

As I say, what possible scenario does that law refer to if not this?
Click to expand...

Thanks - so that was your opinion rather than part of the offside rules, got it. It did read however like it was a fact hence me asking.

We'll disagree over the rest.
 
red_house said:
Thanks - so that was your opinion rather than part of the offside rules, got it. It did read however like it was a fact hence me asking.

We'll disagree over the rest.
Click to expand...

In fairness we've had two days worth of opinions of people who think they got the decision was wrong because they think "Challenging for the ball" could possibly involve "running towards the ball" despite the fact that this interpretation would render a whole passage of the law completely redundant.

Lawmakers don't often include completely redundant clauses for no reasonbbut hey, it went against us so must be wrong.

Anyway I'm off to challenge my missus for the remote control from the garden shed.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
In fairness we've had two days worth of opinions of people who think they got the decision was wrong because they think "Challenging for the ball" could possibly involve "running towards the ball" despite the fact that this interpretation would render a whole passage of the law completely redundant.

Lawmakers don't often include completely redundant clauses for no reasonbbut hey, it went against us so must be wrong.

Anyway I'm off to challenge my missus for the remote control from the garden shed.
Click to expand...

Well obviously they were challenging for the ball, no new passage of law necessary in this case. Your missus is in the garden shed , just don't let her ask about the offside rule.
 
red_house said:
Well obviously they were challenging for the ball, no new passage of law necessary in this case. Your missus is in the garden shed , just don't let her ask about the offside rule.
Click to expand...

The new passage of law probably wasn't necessary but they added it anyway because for whatever reason they clearly wanted the foul to take precedence over the offside in these situations. Which is my point... the law is stupid but it is clear.

No I'm in the shed, well more of a kennel tbh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;