What's Grinding Your Gears - Football Edition

[Marty]

The article doesn't say anything about waving imaginary yellow cards.

Players and managers will have to be on guard due to new Uefa rule change

CHAMPIONS LEAGUE players and bosses face booking for waving “imaginary” cards as part of a Uefa clampdown on player misbehaviour this season. Uefa refs’ chief Roberto Rosetti has demanded officials…

www.thesun.co.uk

Again, apologies for the source. This is from the UEFA head of ref's ahead of last season’s CL, a mantra that we have been explicitly told PGMOL and the PL would fall in line with starting this season.

But Uefa is also determined to try to stop players putting pressure on refs to book or dismiss opponents - especially when they are conning officials over what actually happened.

And referees, including England’s World Cup-bound Michael Oliver and Anthony Taylor, have been urged to “take firm sanctions” against players who try to con them into giving yellow or red cards to opponents.

Rosetti said: “When a player tries to get another player punished, it’s unfair for football.

“It represents unfair conduct by players against their colleagues – a bad example of disrespectful behaviour.”

The instruction from Rosetti is part of Uefa’s determination to “protect football’s image”.

Again this isn't specifically about waving imaginary cards, but about dissent as a whole. But waving imaginary cards is part of that.

I'm really not sure why you're being obstinate about this.

 

[dontcallme]

Players and managers will have to be on guard due to new Uefa rule change

CHAMPIONS LEAGUE players and bosses face booking for waving “imaginary” cards as part of a Uefa clampdown on player misbehaviour this season. Uefa refs’ chief Roberto Rosetti has demanded officials…

www.thesun.co.uk

Again, apologies for the source. This is from the UEFA head of ref's ahead of last season’s CL, a mantra that we have been explicitly told PGMOL and the PL would fall in line with starting this season.




Again this isn't specifically about waving imaginary cards, but about dissent as a whole. But waving imaginary cards is part of that.

I'm really not sure why you're being obstinate about this.

The original point was one ref booked a player for waving an imaginary card, another didn't. This was given as an example of inconsistencies by refs.

If it's law that this is an automatic booking then fair enough.

But it seems it isn't.

So my point of people always looking for inconsistencies from refs is very overdone and most examples don't make any sense.

 

[Tucker]

Players and managers will have to be on guard due to new Uefa rule change

CHAMPIONS LEAGUE players and bosses face booking for waving “imaginary” cards as part of a Uefa clampdown on player misbehaviour this season. Uefa refs’ chief Roberto Rosetti has demanded officials…

www.thesun.co.uk

Again, apologies for the source. This is from the UEFA head of ref's ahead of last season’s CL, a mantra that we have been explicitly told PGMOL and the PL would fall in line with starting this season.




Again this isn't specifically about waving imaginary cards, but about dissent as a whole. But waving imaginary cards is part of that.

I'm really not sure why you're being obstinate about this.

I shouldn’t bother. Even if you found the exact wording about imaginary cards he’d then want you to find IFABs legal definition of “waving,” “imaginary,” and “card.”

 

[dontcallme]

I shouldn’t bother. Even if you found the exact wording about imaginary cards he’d then want you to find IFABs legal definition of “waving,” “imaginary,” and “card.”

Yeah, damn these people trying to find out what the actual rule is.

 

[Tucker]

Yeah, damn these people trying to find out what the actual rule is.

We’ve not explained it to you. Marty has cited two pretty clear examples, that most people would think were fair enough.

You’re the one ignoring that because it goes against your opinion. There’s not much more to say on the matter really, you’re clearly not interested in the facts unless they line up to the view you already hold.

 

[dontcallme]

We’ve not explained it to you. Marty has cited two pretty clear examples, that most people would think were fair enough.

You’re the one ignoring that because it goes against your opinion. There’s not much more to say on the matter really, you’re clearly not interested in the facts unless they line up to the view you already hold.

You haven't shown me any facts.

You've said refs are inconsistent because one gave a yellow card for a player waving an imaginary card and another didn't.

You stated this is a rule, turns out it isn't.

Refs can't be inconsistent on a rule that doesn't exist.

 

[Tucker]

You haven't shown me any facts.

You've said refs are inconsistent because one gave a yellow card for a player waving an imaginary card and another didn't.

You stated this is a rule, turns out it isn't.

Refs can't be inconsistent on a rule that doesn't exist.

Like I said. Wilful ignorance. Onto the tit list you go.

 

[dontcallme]

Like I said. Wilful ignorance. Onto the tit list you go.

We usually get on well so not sure why you're name calling and negging.

I've pointed out this isn't a rule and you've shown nothing to suggest otherwise.

I speak to a ref regularly at my weekly game. How flimsy the rules are is a bit of an eye opener. There are so many suggestions and rules open to interpretation.

 

[cwy21]

We usually get on well so not sure why you're name calling and negging.

I've pointed out this isn't a rule and you've shown nothing to suggest otherwise.

I speak to a ref regularly at my weekly game. How flimsy the rules are is a bit of an eye opener. There are so many suggestions and rules open to interpretation.

Most decisions a ref has to make falls on a spectrum.

What makes a tackle a red card? The laws say "excessive force" or "endangering the safety of an opponent". Well what does that mean? You need some structure in what it means to endanger the opponents safety. This is what leads to "considerations"

What was the force of the tackle? Did the opponent lunge? Were studs exposed? Did they have an opportunity to play the ball? Did they play the ball? What was the point of contact? Was it flush or glancing? Was it studs or the side/top of the foot?

All of these are some of the questions the ref and VAR need to consider. There's no easy yes/no answer to most of the big decisions.

It's important to remember that these "considerations" for bad tackles, handballs, denying an obvious goal scoring opportunity are there to get refs closer to the same page on a global scale. Trying to get every ref to analyze a situation with the same handful of questions is the best you can do when you have a phrase like "endangers the safety of an opponent" translated into dozens of languages.

 

[Gassin's finest]

The days that drag in between Spurs games...

 

[Japhet]

I think VAR should be looking at more incidents (without stopping the game) and reporting to the Ref. They should be able to analyze yellow cards too, particularly if it leads to a red. Tomyasu got sent off for a fairly blatant bit of simulation from Ayew and I think VAR could have sorted that out very quickly. It spoils the game when cheats are rewarded and we should be doing a lot more to weed it out.

 

[Mycroft Jones]

The referee's decision is final, even when they're wrong, just suck it up and get on with the game. I can't believe this new thing where the PGMOL throws the ref under the bus by apologising for their mistakes.

 

[spurmin]

The referee's decision is final, even when they're wrong, just suck it up and get on with the game. I can't believe this new thing where the PGMOL throws the ref under the bus by apologising for their mistakes.

In other words do away with VAR.

 

[Mycroft Jones]

In other words do away with VAR.

I was in favour when it came in but it's getting on my tits now. We've swapped a panel of clueless pundits criticizing a decision that a referee made in a split second for a similar bunch of muppets criticizing a decision that took five minutes with VAR. Goals are being disallowed because a striker had a toenail in an offside position when in the past the attacker would have got the benefit of any doubt, the goal would have stood and we'd all get to watch the match uninterrupted. Nice idea but the reality hasn't lived up to the hype.

 

[easley91]

I was in favour when it came in but it's getting on my tits now. We've swapped a panel of clueless pundits criticizing a decision that a referee made in a split second for a similar bunch of muppets criticizing a decision that took five minutes with VAR. Goals are being disallowed because a striker had a toenail in an offside position when in the past the attacker would have got the benefit of any doubt, the goal would have stood and we'd all get to watch the match uninterrupted. Nice idea but the reality hasn't lived up to the hype.

VAR has never been the problem, the problem is we still have the same idiotic officials using the VAR as well as ridiculous guidelines and rules in place that they adhere to inconsistently.

 

[spurmin]

VAR has never been the problem, the problem is we still have the same idiotic officials using the VAR as well as ridiculous guidelines and rules in place that they adhere to inconsistently.

Exactly so if it was inconsistent before VAR and now just as inconsistent with VAR. What’s the point of it? Inconsistency has always been there, it’s human error which we all moaned about before and moan about it even more now, because there is more than 3 officials making the decisions.
Unfortunately it’s here to stay as the powers that be have invested too much into it.

 

[PCozzie]

Exactly so if it was inconsistent before VAR and now just as inconsistent with VAR. What’s the point of it? Inconsistency has always been there, it’s human error which we all moaned about before and moan about it even more now, because there is more than 3 officials making the decisions.
Unfortunately it’s here to stay as the powers that be have invested too much into it.

I'd go back to the pre-VAR days in a heartbeat. Easily trade some shit decisions for being able to immediately celebrate a goal again, or to know that after a penalty shout that 2 minutes later the game wont be stopped for an interminable look at whether a hand moved 1 inch to the ball.

 

[easley91]

Exactly so if it was inconsistent before VAR and now just as inconsistent with VAR. What’s the point of it? Inconsistency has always been there, it’s human error which we all moaned about before and moan about it even more now, because there is more than 3 officials making the decisions.
Unfortunately it’s here to stay as the powers that be have invested too much into it.

What needs to change are the people running it in this country and how it is used. If used correctly it is a great tool to have. There are some incidents the ref or linesmen cannot see and so it is useful to have as an aid.

 

[Styopa]

I'd go back to the pre-VAR days in a heartbeat. Easily trade some shit decisions for being able to immediately celebrate a goal again, or to know that after a penalty shout that 2 minutes later the game wont be stopped for an interminable look at whether a hand moved 1 inch to the ball.

Totally agree. I just don’t think it’s made the game more enjoyable. And it’s not really made it any fairer either because a lot of the decisions are debatable to say the least.

I was in favour of var and I think something like goal line technology has been very good. But arguing about whether someone is an inch offside by the tip of their boot or whether someone grazing the ball with their hand unintentionally should be a penalty goes against the spirit of the game in my opinion. The offside rule and handball etc were there to prevent players gaining unfair advantage- not to catch players out by the most minuscule of margins.

I suspect what var comes down to is the amount of money in the game now for clubs and gambling companies as well as the huge scrutiny involved. I think the authorities probably felt like they needed to introduce some technology to act as arbitrator given the huge sums involved.

 

[Spriggan]

Sam Matterface, Lee Dixon, Steve McManaman, Robbie Savage.

Actually most commentators and pundits these days.

Would rather watch with just the crowd noise instead.

This 1000% I'm tired off having to listen to idiot commentators. NBC used to broadcast prem games here in the States with the option to just have crowd noise. It was a wonderful, no bullshit experience!