General Premier League Thread 2020-21 - Mod Notes in 1st post. [Updated 17/12/20]

Mitch Connor

rob316 wrote: »

Exactly just eyeball it, its just killing the game watching lines been drawn on the pitch after each goal.

eyeballing doesn't really work because of distance and perspective of camera shots. Players can look well onside or offside (when the opposite) because of the angle of the shot and the distance between them and the last defender.

Nerdlingr

Mitch Connor wrote: »

imo the way to solve this is to make the lines used to determine offside smallish number of centimeters. If the line of the attacker overlaps with the line of the defender, they are not called offside.

Apparently the lines they use in the VAR room are tiny...one pixel or something..but they enlarge them for the benefit of the viewing public when they show the replays on TV.

My issue is with sleeves and armpits being offside...different to the whole other deabte/sh*tstorm of lines on a pitch.

yourdeadwright

rob316 wrote: »

Exactly just eyeball it, its just killing the game watching lines been drawn on the pitch after each goal.

The Dutch league do offside a bit different from the rest of Europe and it seems to be working ,

They use two 5 cm thick lines, one from the last part of the defender and one form the furthest point of the attacker and if there touching your onside, if there's a gap your offside,

eigrod

yourdeadwright wrote: »

The Dutch league do offside a bit different from the rest of Europe and it seems to be working ,

They use two 5 cm thick lines, one from the last part of the defender and one form the furthest point of the attacker and if there touching your onside, if there's a gap your offside,

Is that a bit like the old daylight rule?

Shanotheslayer

yourdeadwright wrote: »

The Dutch league do offside a bit different from the rest of Europe and it seems to be working ,

They use two 5 cm thick lines, one from the last part of the defender and one form the furthest point of the attacker and if there touching your onside, if there's a gap your offside,

Either way you're still coming down to MM. Because if they're touching by a MM it's deemed on etc.

Mitch Connor

Nerdlingr wrote: »

Apparently the lines they use in the VAR room are tiny...one pixel or something..but they enlarge them for the benefit of the viewing public when they show the replays on TV.

My issue is with sleeves and armpits being offside...different to the whole other deabte/sh*tstorm of lines on a pitch.

that is because it is no longer handball if the ball hits upper shoulder - so you can score with that body part. If a body part you can score with is offside you are considered offside.

IMO, in absence of a margin or error I don't think you should be allowing a body part you can score with to be offside just because you didn't score with it.

Mitch Connor

Shanotheslayer wrote: »

Either way you're still coming down to MM. Because if they're touching by a MM it's deemed on etc.

yes, in terms of the lines. but in reality you will be talking CMs, not MMs.

Ie. if you make the lines 3cm each, then you have a potential margin of error of 6cms. If a player is then still offside they were not offside by just a mm or two, they were off by over 60mm.

Mitch Connor

yourdeadwright wrote: »

The Dutch league do offside a bit different from the rest of Europe and it seems to be working ,

They use two 5 cm thick lines, one from the last part of the defender and one form the furthest point of the attacker and if there touching your onside, if there's a gap your offside,

It works the other way too though.

If the assistant flagged you off and the the VAR shows the lines are touching you are considered off because that is what the onfield decision was - even if VAR actually shows you were onside.

Which seems mad to me, but that is how it is in Holland.

Also, Holland (and somewhere else) have gone against FIFA dictat in doing this - they technically aren't allowed to do so.

Cookiemunster

Mitch Connor wrote: »

It works the other way too though.

If the assistant flagged you off and the the VAR shows the lines are touching you are considered off because that is what the onfield decision was - even if VAR actually shows you were onside.

Which seems mad to me, but that is how it is in Holland.

Also, Holland (and somewhere else) have gone against FIFA dictat in doing this - they technically aren't allowed to do so.

Denmark is the other country.

Shanotheslayer

Mitch Connor wrote: »

yes, in terms of the lines. but in reality you will be talking CMs, not MMs.

Ie. if you make the lines 3cm each, then you have a potential margin of error of 6cms. If a player is then still offside they were not offside by just a mm or two, they were off by over 60mm.

Yeh fair point Mitch

DVDM93

Another footballer falling out of love with the game he dreamed of playing as a kid, it's a real shame.

https://twitter.com/JackGrealish/status/1333553568457105411?s=20

In saying that, Jack hasn't much of a leg to stand on until he stops trying to con vulnerable referees like he did last night.

https://twitter.com/Jacobr_10/status/1333519702874841090?s=20

DVDM93

DVDM93 wrote: »

Another footballer falling out of love with the game he dreamed of playing as a kid, it's a real shame.

https://twitter.com/JackGrealish/status/1333553568457105411?s=20

I find diving, rolling around and cheating far more egregious and damaging to the game than VAR.

DVDM93

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I find diving, rolling around and cheating far more egregious and damaging to the game than VAR.

Yes Conor, I agree.

That is why in the same post I said;

In saying that, Jack hasn't much of a leg to stand on until he stops trying to con vulnerable referees like he did last night.

https://twitter.com/Jacobr_10/status/1333519702874841090?s=20




You may have missed it.

Agent Coulson

The Newcastle Villa game has been postponed.

DM_7

dfx- wrote: »

If there is no flag and no goal/penalty/red card, then the no flag stands as called, there is no review of the offside and you're free to score from the free-kick or corner or possibly even from a few phases of play as if the offside never happened.

So you can be offside by any distance as long as you don't score directly from it or you can be like Watkins and offside by a hair's width and reviewed.

When VAR gets involved, a totally different judgement criteria gets involved.

VAR check goals for offside.

If an assistance sees a player as offside they are asked to wait until the play finishes. They should then flag the offside if they saw one, not just ignore it. That would remove the free, corner etc. We have seen this happen where a player takes a shot and the flag then goes up after the 'play' has finished.

Goals, penalties, possible red cards are the most significant things and are therefore checked. VAR was never intended to check every occurrence on a pitch but to assist in determining the correct decision, in line with the laws for the 'major' moments.

dfx-

the laws don't change for major moments.

They're not necessarily ignoring it - they just don't give it as offside as there's only centimetres are in it in real time.

Never mind how decisions are made and how the game has been refereed so far are all aspects as to whether a foul in the box is a 'clear' enough error by the ref on the field. It can't be done by treating the foul in isolation just because it is a 'major incident' in the penalty box. That breeds inconsistency.

Refereeing the penalty box differently to the rest of the pitch has always been a problem.

DM_7

dfx- wrote: »

the laws don't change for major moments.

They're not necessarily ignoring it - they just don't give it as offside as there's only centimetres are in it in real time.

Never mind how decisions are made and how the game has been refereed so far are all aspects as to whether a foul in the box is a 'clear' enough error by the ref on the field. It can't be done by treating the foul in isolation just because it is a 'major incident' in the penalty box. That breeds inconsistency.

Refereeing the penalty box differently to the rest of the pitch has always been a problem.

Are we talking about the really close scenario where Mane is offside, if he got a free or corner and Liverpool scored then the original decision to 'not flag' would not be checked?

I am okay with that process where only goals scored drive a check of the immediate play leading to it. A corner is a new phase of play and has enough variables involved to look past holding up play.

Even if (hopefully) adjustments are made so less of the super tight calls get checked to tiny measurements I would only want the major items checked and regard that process as a sound use of the technology.

Liam O

dfx- wrote: »

the laws don't change for major moments.

They're not necessarily ignoring it - they just don't give it as offside as there's only centimetres are in it in real time.

Never mind how decisions are made and how the game has been refereed so far are all aspects as to whether a foul in the box is a 'clear' enough error by the ref on the field. It can't be done by treating the foul in isolation just because it is a 'major incident' in the penalty box. That breeds inconsistency.

Refereeing the penalty box differently to the rest of the pitch has always been a problem.

It's arguable that the penalty box is a problem at the moment. That much of the pitch where you've an 80% chance of a goal for any foul, no matter how accidental or soft is a problem. The wide areas of the box are quite easy to get to but have a significantly lower chance of scoring from.

Simply reintroducing indirect free kicks for non intentional fouls and actions in these areas would solve most of the problems. It's clear enough whether there are professional or accidental fouls all over the pitch and the accidental ones have been punished more in recent years than the cynical ones which has allowed the likes of Liverpool and City to get away with murder and create their hugely effective style of play.

yourdeadwright

Just seen under Brexit Irish players can't join English teams until there 18,
That will finish Irish football in my opinion

DM_7

yourdeadwright wrote: »

The Dutch league do offside a bit different from the rest of Europe and it seems to be working ,

They use two 5 cm thick lines, one from the last part of the defender and one form the furthest point of the attacker and if there touching your onside, if there's a gap your offside,

Apparently Dutch is the same as England only they stick with the original call if the lines overlap at all.

As said on here, a player who appears onside when checked can still be looked at as offside if that was original call.

This thread says Watkins would have been offiside even in the dutch method.

https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/status/1333710559137640449?s=19

Fifa are looking at further tech enhancements.
https://www.espn.co.uk/football/fifa-world-cup/story/4237186/fifas-semi-automated-offside-var-tech-to-go-into-development-in-2021

Shanotheslayer

Really good thread DM, don't want to quote as it's quite large.

People will scream at VAR now but that FC Twente not allowed because of 'umpires call' is crazy. He even looks on in the still frame. I can only imagine the absolute fume if it was their team.

osarusan

DM_7 wrote: »

They can't check an offside decision and say, well the lines show the player to be onside by 5mm but the margin for error is 10mm so we will rule it out.

I actually think that is what they should do - with a line for the defender that is 'thick' and represents say 15 or 20cm* of space on the pitch. This is the 'benefit of the doubt line' to allow for lack of certainty about when the ball leaves the foot. Only if the line of the attacker is beyond the thick line of the defender (thus at least 15/20cm offside) is it considered offside.

*or whatever amount of distance is needed for an offside to be 'clear and obvious' to the eye.


For me though, VAR offside problems are nothing to the handball decisions we are seeing. I'm confident that it you showed some of these incidents to a panel of say 100 players/fans of the game, and asked them if that is the kind of thing that 'should be a handball', the vast majority would say No.

And as I said earlier in the thread, there seems to be real inconsistency over whether the question being asked by VAR is 'Is this a penalty?' or 'Was it a clear and obvious error not to award this as a penalty?' The kinds of incidents that end up being changed by VAR are much much more 'unclear and unobvious' than they should be in my opinion.

I have wondered this before, but when whatever IFAB panel came up with these laws sees some of these incidents and decisions, what is their reaction? Are they thinking 'Yes, that's just how we want the laws to be interpreted?' or are they thinking 'Hold on, we never expected decisions like that to be given.'?

Bridge93

Cricket LBW decisions are bit like that. You'll regularly see the ball being predicted to go on and clip the wickets but as its very close they go with 'umpire's call' which is whatever decision the umpires decided live at the time. You very rarely if ever hear anybody complaining, 'umpires call' is now just part of the game

razorblunt

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Just seen under Brexit Irish players can't join English teams until there 18,
That will finish Irish football in my opinion

Or heaven forbid they move to the Continent?

~Rebel~

razorblunt wrote: »

Or heaven forbid they move to the Continent?

To be honest I don't really think any of these kids should be moving anywhere at 16 or 17 anyway. It's so young, with so much pressure, and the stakes higher than they'll likely ever be in their lives - and in most cases they don't make it and are emotionally destroyed. They're kids, like.

This is a great opportunity for Irish academies and clubs to work with the best in the country, in a safer, more nurturing environment at home. The ones who will make it at that top level, will still likely make it and just move over at a more reasonable age anyway.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

~Rebel~ wrote: »

To be honest I don't really think any of these kids should be moving anywhere at 16 or 17 anyway. It's so young, with so much pressure, and the stakes higher than they'll likely ever be in their lives - and in most cases they don't make it and are emotionally destroyed. They're kids, like.

This is a great opportunity for Irish academies and clubs to work with the best in the country, in a safer, more nurturing environment at home. The ones who will make it at that top level, will still likely make it and just move over at a more reasonable age anyway.

You make them sounds like snowflakes!

I hear what you're saying, but with a bit of peperation and research and a few social connections, there's no reason why they couldn't head to the continent. If they can move abroad, they can move aboad. UK or Europe. And if it's too much, it's only a quick and cheap flight back.

A 16 year old getting a stint at a European club versus a UK club is hardly comparable. The language barrier for one would potentially be a major obstacle.

Also, if you're a very promising 16 year old, staying at Shamrock Rovers etc to develop until you're 18 versus going to Liverpool or Utd would stunt your development.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

6 wrote: »

A 16 year old getting a stint at a European club versus a UK club is hardly comparable. The language barrier for one would potentially be a major obstacle.

So learn the language before you go! They teach French and German in Irish schools, don't they? Not to mention the fact that most continental teenagers speak Engilsh at this stage anyway.

If a 16/17 year old has enough talent and cop-on to succeed, Bexit shouldn't in all fainress stop them.

Fitz*

It can work both ways.

For some, being only a 45 minute plane journey away from England to home can sometimes be too much of a distraction and it's easy to become homesick as you are home to your friends and family every 2 weeks. The teenager can become too involved in life 'back home' as opposed to dedicating the time to their football.

I know one lad who went to England to a top PL club young and from what I remember it was the life outside of football that was hard. Living in digs, cooking, wondering what to do with the free time etc.

Holland could be a good market for the players to get into maybe. A nice sized league with onus on developing technical skills with youth. Good quality for the level too. They speak plenty good English! Cultures are quite similar too to the Irish.

Agent Coulson

Football Weekly podcast were saying Irish underage players can still move to the England due to historical agreements between the two Countries.


And on the same pod it was mentioned might English clubs invest in the LOI to bring underage players in through the backdoor by signing them for the LOI club then selling them on to the English Club.

~Rebel~

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You make them sounds like snowflakes!

I hear what you're saying, but with a bit of peperation and research and a few social connections, there's no reason why they couldn't head to the continent. If they can move abroad, they can move aboad. UK or Europe. And if it's too much, it's only a quick and cheap flight back.

No I don’t think they’re snowflakes (though not a fan of that bollox right wing terminology). I think they’re kids. I’m not saying UK good, EU bad, I’m saying both bad. For the vast majority of these kids, they’d have been better off getting to finish their leaving cert so they at least had a route into college afterwards if things didn’t work out - which, again, is the case in the vast majority of instances.

Pauliedragon

razorblunt wrote: »

Or heaven forbid they move to the Continent?

I'm genuinely confused by this. Doesn't the common
travel arrangement still apply meaning anyone can move freely and work between the UK and ourselves?

Potential Underachiever

RasTa wrote: »

No. Playing Cavani at his age, would be similar to what Klopp did to Milner the past 2 games.

It's no surprise to me anyway he picked up an injury

RasTa wrote: »

He started on Tuesday. He's hardly going to do a Klopp and start him a few days later at his age.

So that's 90 minutes, then 45mins, then 79 last night for Cavani, must be due an injury soon now at his age, hope Ole isn't doing a Klopp on him.

pjohnson

Christ the rubbish starts early.

atilladehun

~Rebel~ wrote: »

No I don’t think they’re snowflakes (though not a fan of that bollox right wing terminology). I think they’re kids. I’m not saying UK good, EU bad, I’m saying both bad. For the vast majority of these kids, they’d have been better off getting to finish their leaving cert so they at least had a route into college afterwards if things didn’t work out - which, again, is the case in the vast majority of instances.

Yep, I agree. This isn't about the kids sucking it up and finding somewhere else to go. It's about Ireland getting better. We can make our own elite boxers and rugby players, let's make our own elite footballers. Use Brexit as an opportunity.

If working with European teams is something that will benefit then include it in a structured way like a player exchange. Let's stop hoping for magic to happen in another system.

By nurturing I understand it to mean a system that cares about the player succeeding. In an Irish system it would matter to the system that the players are successful. In a foreign system they're cheap and dispensable. For the very few that cliff edge is motivation. For others, who could also be great footballers but for non football reasons get let go it is inefficient.

DVDM93

Good to see Gerrard in there representing the Premier League.

Henry & Ronaldo also but I imagine both share TOTY selections with Barcelona & Real Madrid respectively.

I don't think you could argue for any other Premier Leagie player to be in there when you see what's on show in that team.

Please note that they're not categorized by separate roles, for example, the back four all fall under the "defenders" category.

https://twitter.com/FootballJOE/status/1334195704760295424?s=20

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

~Rebel~ wrote: »

No I don’t think they’re snowflakes (though not a fan of that bollox right wing terminology). I think they’re kids. I’m not saying UK good, EU bad, I’m saying both bad. For the vast majority of these kids, they’d have been better off getting to finish their leaving cert so they at least had a route into college afterwards if things didn’t work out - which, again, is the case in the vast majority of instances.

Yeah, is agree with you in terms of concistency, but the initial point was that Brexit world make it harder.

It's only harder to move to the uk.

Fr Tod Umptious

Pauliedragon wrote: »

I'm genuinely confused by this. Doesn't the common
travel arrangement still apply meaning anyone can move freely and work between the UK and ourselves?

That's what I would have thought also.

Brexit actually should make it easier for Irish players to find themselves with British clubs as the clubs will find it harder (more paperwork etc) to recruit from the rest of the EU.

Irish people can freely work in the UK post Brexit, other EU citizens can not.

ArmaniJeanss

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

That's what I would have thought also.

Brexit actually should make it easier for Irish players to find themselves with British clubs as the clubs will find it harder (more paperwork etc) to recruit from the rest of the EU.

Irish people can freely work in the UK post Brexit, other EU citizens can not.

The question is do FIFA accept this? It's their rule on Under 18 transfers, and it currently only has exemptions for inter EU or EEA transfers.
Any political agreement between Ireland and the UK (or for that matter between Iceland and Bulgaria and Outer Mongolia!) can't be just assumed to change the football rules.

Bridge93

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

The question is do FIFA accept this? It's their rule on Under 18 transfers, and it currently only has exemptions for inter EU or EEA transfers.
Any political agreement between Ireland and the UK (or for that matter between Iceland and Bulgaria and Outer Mongolia!) can't be just assumed to change the football rules.

I would’ve thought FIFA has no choice but to accept it? International law would supersede and of FIFAs rules?
As far as I’m aware the movement of under 18s among EU countries was already against FIFAs rules but EU law allowed the free movement of people so fifa had to put up with it. Could be wrong on all of that though

The CTA predates even the EU and would cause total carnage to stop given the intricacies of the North

Bridge93

Did the FA’s own wording not include Ireland in its definition of what would count as homegrown or whatever the term is? Thought I saw a screenshot

ArmaniJeanss

Bridge93 wrote: »

I would’ve thought FIFA has no choice but to accept it? International law would supersede and of FIFAs rules?
As far as I’m aware the movement of under 18s among EU countries was already against FIFAs rules but EU law allowed the free movement of people so fifa had to put up with it.

Well there's nothing in international law to say that Argentinian 17 year-olds can't go to Spain and get a job, yet FIFA rules prohibit that job being in football. And Barcelona got a transfer ban and fine for it. So did FIFA rules supersede in such a case?
Meh, I don't really know either, I guess we'll see.

Cookiemunster

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Well there's nothing in international law to say that Argentinian 17 year-olds can't go to Spain and get a job, yet FIFA rules prohibit that job being in football. And Barcelona got a transfer ban and fine for it. So did FIFA rules supersede in such a case?
Meh, I don't really know either, I guess we'll see.

EU laws mandate total freedom of movement for every citizen. FIFA rules cannot supercede that.

Moving from Argentina to Spain is not the same thing at all. Without a visa, they can only stay in Spain (or the EU) for 90 days as they're not EU citizens. They need a visa to stay longer than that. Therefore FIFA can apply their rules as there is no freedom of movement between these countries.

citytillidie

Cookiemunster wrote: »

EU laws mandate total freedom of movement for every citizen. FIFA rules cannot supercede that.

Moving from Argentina to Spain is not the same thing at all. Without a visa, they can only stay in Spain (or the EU) for 90 days as they're not EU citizens. They need a visa to stay longer than that. Therefore FIFA can apply their rules as there is no freedom of movement between these countries.

England will not be in the EU so EU laws will not impact them

~Rebel~

citytillidie wrote: »

England will not be in the EU so EU laws will not impact them

His point is that it was EU law that allowed players from across Europe to go to England without visa's etc.

Now it'll be the common travel/work agreement between Ireland and England that does the same thing.

I think that definitely applies to players of 18+ anyway, where Irish players won't require any visa but other European players will. The grey area is players between 16 and 18, where we just don't know the definitive language. You're still a minor in the UK until you're 18, and there are already strict rules for u-16 over there in terms of only being allowed to recruit from within your local catchment area. And I don't think you can sign a pro contract until you're 17 - which in itself is rare enough, it's usually more like 18/19.

What I believe happened before, was when the EU law allowed work across Europe, the football governing bodies wrote language into their own registrations to that effect so they were all on the same page instead of having the potential for legal challenges for one law super-ceding another etc. So we need to see if new language needs to be written into British guidelines to change it from EU to Irish/English common travel agreements, or what.

It looks like the status quo may be maintained - but we're all still awaiting definitive clarification.

Woodward backing Solskjaer with long term plan

Manchester United will back manager Ole Gunnar Solskjaer with a long-term plan centred around summer transfer windows, according to the club's executive vice-chairman Ed Woodward.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11667/12150388/ed-woodward-manchester-united-to-back-ole-gunnar-solskjaer-in-transfer-window

DVDM93

DVDM93 wrote: »

Good to see Gerrard in there representing the Premier League.

Are you really that proud of the Premier League brand?

Drumpot

6 wrote: »

Woodward backing Solskjaer with long term plan




https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11667/12150388/ed-woodward-manchester-united-to-back-ole-gunnar-solskjaer-in-transfer-window

I find it amusing when rival fans make a lot out of Ole keeping his job. If the last 8 years should of thought anybody, it doesn't matter who is managing United, they aren't gonna win any leagues or champions leagues simply by hiring a better manager. The club is a basket case and run so poorly, a top coach cannot compensate for all the issues behind the scenes.

United are just as likely to win something big with Ole as they were under LVG or Jose. As much as people downplay last season, it was still the clubs 2nd best league finish in 8 years that was done under our least experienced coach since SAF retired. The club cuts the feet from under better managers , so I think having a poorer manager who might work better in the dysfunctional setup at the club may actually end up forcing rival fans to be sorry for what wishing Ole a long tenure at United.

Either way, Ole or no Ole, United is being run by incompetent, egotistical morons who have a major influence with the first team (hello Martial/Pogba, contract extensions for everybody) more then is acknowledged. They are doing a terrible job with the football side of things but they don't care because they are making money and it seems they enjoy retaining control over the football side. They are living proof that sh*ite owners can make money with an EPL and American football club. They are equivalent to Hicks and Gillette but United is so valuable its taking ages for their mismanagement to really cost the club big.

Drumpot

Drumpot wrote: »

The club cuts the feet from under better managers , so I think having a poorer manager who might work better in the dysfunctional setup at the club may actually end up forcing rival fans to be sorry for what wishing Ole a long tenure at United...

Almost 2 years into his regime, and so far I haven't felt a twinge of regret about his appointment.