Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 57

Thread: VAR next season

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Goldfinger's Ranch
    Posts
    1,270

    Default VAR next season

    Been announced that Premier league will use VAR from next season. About time given the events of last Saturday.

    Your thoughts?

  2. #2

    Default

    About time - just a shame we won't be there to enjoy it.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bartonia 2, 000, 000 years ago
    Posts
    7,162

    Default

    Cheers Charlie!

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Was NI now Shropshire..!
    Posts
    8,538

    Default

    VAR is not some magic wand that eradicates all poor decisions from the game. It merely allows officials the chance to review various situations within the game - there is still the human factor. After looking at Charlie Austins 'goal' last week, seen it analysed on TV, I still heard various different versions as to whether it was or was not a 'goal', it's purely opinion in a lot of cases.

    It should clear up 'obvious' errors, I grant you, but there will still be contention within the game (and rightly so).

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The metropolis of Wem
    Posts
    7,650

    Default

    It's overdue, but I'm not sure there's clarity on how it will work.

    There are three forms of VAR used effectively in different sports, but I get the feeling that football wants to be different, rather than following any existing model.

    Tennis, for example, uses a purely player-driven appeal system. There is no video umpire, just technology. The umpire cannot call for a review. But that doesn't work so well in a team sport.

    Cricket has, in my opinion, a very successful hybrid system. The umpire can call for a review on, for example, a catch or run out, but the teams have limited reviews of their own, lost if the review fails. Procedures are clear and an underlying principle that if there is doubt, the on-field umpire's decision stands. I think I'm right in saying that even if it's an umpire referral, the umpire still gives a "soft" decision.

    RU probably has the most complicated system. No appeals from players but both the ref and video ref can review pretty-well anything leading up to a try, or foul play. The ref can ask closed or open questions. IMO it's good for getting things right, but can be too slow.

    I would like something similar to cricket to be used. The ref should be able to refer anything to the video ref if he is unsure. Not just penalties and offsides. As with cricket, with a soft decision to stand unless there is clear evidence. I don't favour the video ref being able to intervene independently. To me this is too confusing as players and spectators seem unaware of a review taking place. But why not a limited number of team reviews per game, where the ref hasn't chosen to review an incident?

    Play doesn't necessarily need to stop for a review, unless it's successful and play needs to be brought back for a penalty, free kick or whatever. But if a review starts during a break, or a break occurs during a review, obviously play doesn't restart until it's resolved. I'd like to see a time limit on the review. Communication both with players and spectators is critical. Not sure if the video being reviewed needs to be on the big screen, but a message needs to be there, eg "Review - penalty?"

    Ok, shoot me down!

    Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    hiding in shadows where I don't belong
    Posts
    31,261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shroppie View Post
    It's overdue, but I'm not sure there's clarity on how it will work.

    There are three forms of VAR used effectively in different sports, but I get the feeling that football wants to be different, rather than following any existing model.

    Tennis, for example, uses a purely player-driven appeal system. There is no video umpire, just technology. The umpire cannot call for a review. But that doesn't work so well in a team sport.

    Cricket has, in my opinion, a very successful hybrid system. The umpire can call for a review on, for example, a catch or run out, but the teams have limited reviews of their own, lost if the review fails. Procedures are clear and an underlying principle that if there is doubt, the on-field umpire's decision stands. I think I'm right in saying that even if it's an umpire referral, the umpire still gives a "soft" decision.

    RU probably has the most complicated system. No appeals from players but both the ref and video ref can review pretty-well anything leading up to a try, or foul play. The ref can ask closed or open questions. IMO it's good for getting things right, but can be too slow.

    I would like something similar to cricket to be used. The ref should be able to refer anything to the video ref if he is unsure. Not just penalties and offsides. As with cricket, with a soft decision to stand unless there is clear evidence. I don't favour the video ref being able to intervene independently. To me this is too confusing as players and spectators seem unaware of a review taking place. But why not a limited number of team reviews per game, where the ref hasn't chosen to review an incident?

    Play doesn't necessarily need to stop for a review, unless it's successful and play needs to be brought back for a penalty, free kick or whatever. But if a review starts during a break, or a break occurs during a review, obviously play doesn't restart until it's resolved. I'd like to see a time limit on the review. Communication both with players and spectators is critical. Not sure if the video being reviewed needs to be on the big screen, but a message needs to be there, eg "Review - penalty?"

    Ok, shoot me down!

    Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
    Well as long as it doesn't get to the ridiculous red and yellow hanky throwing of the NFL or free kicks and the like getting moved forward or back 10 yards if a player dares to make any comment (as in Rugby Union) then I'm all for it. Far too many crass reffing errors and instead of cancelling themselves out over a season they seem to aways favour the big teams now.

  7. #7

    Default

    No reason why they couldn't put a message up on the TV screens at either end of the ground to show a review is taking place.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The metropolis of Wem
    Posts
    7,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by waylander View Post
    No reason why they couldn't put a message up on the TV screens at either end of the ground to show a review is taking place.
    Agreed. Could be quite exciting.

    Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New Forest
    Posts
    5,873

    Default

    Typical vacillation from PL why not just introduce it now, why wait 'til next year? All the logistics & supply issue could be fulfilled by Amazon by Saturday...

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shroppie View Post
    It's overdue, but I'm not sure there's clarity on how it will work.

    There are three forms of VAR used effectively in different sports, but I get the feeling that football wants to be different, rather than following any existing model.

    Tennis, for example, uses a purely player-driven appeal system. There is no video umpire, just technology. The umpire cannot call for a review. But that doesn't work so well in a team sport.

    Cricket has, in my opinion, a very successful hybrid system. The umpire can call for a review on, for example, a catch or run out, but the teams have limited reviews of their own, lost if the review fails. Procedures are clear and an underlying principle that if there is doubt, the on-field umpire's decision stands. I think I'm right in saying that even if it's an umpire referral, the umpire still gives a "soft" decision.

    RU probably has the most complicated system. No appeals from players but both the ref and video ref can review pretty-well anything leading up to a try, or foul play. The ref can ask closed or open questions. IMO it's good for getting things right, but can be too slow.

    I would like something similar to cricket to be used. The ref should be able to refer anything to the video ref if he is unsure. Not just penalties and offsides. As with cricket, with a soft decision to stand unless there is clear evidence. I don't favour the video ref being able to intervene independently. To me this is too confusing as players and spectators seem unaware of a review taking place. But why not a limited number of team reviews per game, where the ref hasn't chosen to review an incident?

    Play doesn't necessarily need to stop for a review, unless it's successful and play needs to be brought back for a penalty, free kick or whatever. But if a review starts during a break, or a break occurs during a review, obviously play doesn't restart until it's resolved. I'd like to see a time limit on the review. Communication both with players and spectators is critical. Not sure if the video being reviewed needs to be on the big screen, but a message needs to be there, eg "Review - penalty?"

    Ok, shoot me down!

    Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
    This, in my opinion is exactly how it should be executed. I should add that only the captain would be able to request a review.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shroppie View Post
    It's overdue, but I'm not sure there's clarity on how it will work.

    There are three forms of VAR used effectively in different sports, but I get the feeling that football wants to be different, rather than following any existing model.

    Tennis, for example, uses a purely player-driven appeal system. There is no video umpire, just technology. The umpire cannot call for a review. But that doesn't work so well in a team sport.

    Cricket has, in my opinion, a very successful hybrid system. The umpire can call for a review on, for example, a catch or run out, but the teams have limited reviews of their own, lost if the review fails. Procedures are clear and an underlying principle that if there is doubt, the on-field umpire's decision stands. I think I'm right in saying that even if it's an umpire referral, the umpire still gives a "soft" decision.

    RU probably has the most complicated system. No appeals from players but both the ref and video ref can review pretty-well anything leading up to a try, or foul play. The ref can ask closed or open questions. IMO it's good for getting things right, but can be too slow.

    I would like something similar to cricket to be used. The ref should be able to refer anything to the video ref if he is unsure. Not just penalties and offsides. As with cricket, with a soft decision to stand unless there is clear evidence. I don't favour the video ref being able to intervene independently. To me this is too confusing as players and spectators seem unaware of a review taking place. But why not a limited number of team reviews per game, where the ref hasn't chosen to review an incident?

    Play doesn't necessarily need to stop for a review, unless it's successful and play needs to be brought back for a penalty, free kick or whatever. But if a review starts during a break, or a break occurs during a review, obviously play doesn't restart until it's resolved. I'd like to see a time limit on the review. Communication both with players and spectators is critical. Not sure if the video being reviewed needs to be on the big screen, but a message needs to be there, eg "Review - penalty?"

    Ok, shoot me down!

    Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
    I fully agree that the VAR referee should not be able to review anything without a firm instruction from pitchside, with that in mind i have also always thought that there should also be the opportunity for managers to make limited appeals , with success meaning an appeal is retained, using all appeals in a game meaning a punishment for the next, maybe less appeals or even touchline ban.

  12. #12

    Default

    Great system. Shame our officials probably won’t be able to use it properly, if the WC was anything to go by.

  13. #13

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Was NI now Shropshire..!
    Posts
    8,538

    Default

    Talking of officials, how many do you need to run a single VAR centre? It's difficult enough finding decent refs and linos to officiate the games, where are ask the VAR operators / officials going to come from?

    Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

  14. #14

    Default

    Will we have that portocabin of refs in full gear looking at TVs, like the World Cup? That was the best part.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    West of Fareham
    Posts
    13,361

    Default

    I thought it worked OK at the World Cup, no doubt they will make a mess of it here though.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    stamping on peoples dreams since 2010
    Posts
    29,848

    Default

    The premier league Have listened to Charlie Austin he speaks for all premier league clubs

    This shall now be known as Charlies rule.

  17. #17

    Default

    I actually think overall we are generally lucky with ref decisions. Sure we get the occasional one like against watford but generally think overall we win more than we lose and actually with VAR we'd be worse off.

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bartonia 2, 000, 000 years ago
    Posts
    7,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heisenberg View Post
    I actually think overall we are generally lucky with ref decisions. Sure we get the occasional one like against watford but generally think overall we win more than we lose and actually with VAR we'd be worse off.
    You mean like Watford this and last year and Chelsea last year oh and the efl final??????

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simo View Post
    You mean like Watford this and last year and Chelsea last year oh and the efl final??????
    The fact you can only think of 3-4 examples over 2 years kinda emphasises my point.

  20. #20

    Default

    About bloody time.

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heisenberg View Post
    The fact you can only think of 3-4 examples over 2 years kinda emphasises my point.
    Huddersfield at home, Newcastle away, Tottenham at home, Man Utd away, West Ham home, Leicester home... then there's also the other ones, the big games where the VAR would have given us the three points. Endless almost, in fact there's games where the entire 90 minutes should be VAR'd - and will be!

  22. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Window Cleaner View Post
    Well as long as it doesn't get to the ridiculous red and yellow hanky throwing of the NFL or free kicks and the like getting moved forward or back 10 yards if a player dares to make any comment (as in Rugby Union) then I'm all for it. Far too many crass reffing errors and instead of cancelling themselves out over a season they seem to aways favour the big teams now.
    I am all for it.

    I would disagree with the above.

    Anyone but Captain talking to the ref is first warned, then yellow card
    Waving of imaginary cards by the team infringed, the free kick, if awarded, moved back 10 metres
    The demonstrations of the infringing team, except the captain, around the referee, the free kick is moved forwards 10 m, until it is on the 'D', then becomes an automatic penalty.

    3 challenges per team per half, for any incident that has stopped play.
    An automatic review of all penalty decisions
    On Field Ref has final say

    Review ref team to also have 1 representative of each team, in an observational and guiding role only, in the box with them
    Managers to have access to screens to review incidents
    Put it on the big screen as well.

    Bring it on please

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Right here, right now
    Posts
    1,511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shroppie View Post
    It's overdue, but I'm not sure there's clarity on how it will work.

    There are three forms of VAR used effectively in different sports, but I get the feeling that football wants to be different, rather than following any existing model.

    Tennis, for example, uses a purely player-driven appeal system. There is no video umpire, just technology. The umpire cannot call for a review. But that doesn't work so well in a team sport.

    Cricket has, in my opinion, a very successful hybrid system. The umpire can call for a review on, for example, a catch or run out, but the teams have limited reviews of their own, lost if the review fails. Procedures are clear and an underlying principle that if there is doubt, the on-field umpire's decision stands. I think I'm right in saying that even if it's an umpire referral, the umpire still gives a "soft" decision.

    RU probably has the most complicated system. No appeals from players but both the ref and video ref can review pretty-well anything leading up to a try, or foul play. The ref can ask closed or open questions. IMO it's good for getting things right, but can be too slow.

    I would like something similar to cricket to be used. The ref should be able to refer anything to the video ref if he is unsure. Not just penalties and offsides. As with cricket, with a soft decision to stand unless there is clear evidence. I don't favour the video ref being able to intervene independently. To me this is too confusing as players and spectators seem unaware of a review taking place. But why not a limited number of team reviews per game, where the ref hasn't chosen to review an incident?

    Play doesn't necessarily need to stop for a review, unless it's successful and play needs to be brought back for a penalty, free kick or whatever. But if a review starts during a break, or a break occurs during a review, obviously play doesn't restart until it's resolved. I'd like to see a time limit on the review. Communication both with players and spectators is critical. Not sure if the video being reviewed needs to be on the big screen, but a message needs to be there, eg "Review - penalty?"

    Ok, shoot me down!

    Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk
    Agree with all that. X number of reviews per team per game, but a successful one doesn't reduce the number available.

    As for BIB, big screens not exciting enough. With today's technology Captain/manager/designated appealer could indicate an appeal to ref electronically for any incident whilst play continues, and the goal posts could turn orange whilst a review is happening, then red or green depending on the outcome. Players and spectators alike wouldn't be able to miss that and imagine the extra excitement/hope if you've just scored/conceded in an orange goal.

  24. #24

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bartonia 2, 000, 000 years ago
    Posts
    7,162

    Default

    I can't see any downsides to var except players making a square with their fingers every time a decision goes against them !

  25. #25

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Chichester (Block 18 Sat 3:00pm)
    Posts
    572

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simo View Post
    I can't see any downsides to var except players making a square with their fingers every time a decision goes against them !
    Straight red cards for anyone (other than the ref) that makes the VAR hand signal during the game.

  26. #26

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    100 miles south-east of Newport
    Posts
    28,793
    Blog Entries
    14

    Default

    Hate it, doesn't improve decisions, ruins live atmosphere and undermines referees. Worst idea ever, worse in execution.

  27. #27

    Default

    We have it in the A league in Australia. We still seem to have as many controversial decisions, lots of incidents are not clear cut even with a myriad of camera angles. Decisions have taken as long as 5 minutes once they decide on a review with the game being stopped and everyone waiting.

    My guess is we will have similar discussions and rants about VAR as we do referees.

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The9 View Post
    Hate it, doesn't improve decisions, ruins live atmosphere and undermines referees. Worst idea ever, worse in execution.
    You make interesting points but on the contrary, VAR corrects wrong decisions, improves the live atmosphere by increasing suspense and supports the referees. So whilst I respect your points they're all wrong and you should consider a retraction of your comments.

  29. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ando View Post
    We have it in the A league in Australia. We still seem to have as many controversial decisions, lots of incidents are not clear cut even with a myriad of camera angles. Decisions have taken as long as 5 minutes once they decide on a review with the game being stopped and everyone waiting.

    My guess is we will have similar discussions and rants about VAR as we do referees.
    Controversies in the A League are down 68% since VAR came in. The longest a decision by VAR has taken was 2 minutes and 57 seconds (info from A League official website) and approval ratings from fans for the system so far is up at 84%. Those are pretty decent stats and it has gone down superbly in Australia, attendances also dramatically increased since VAR came in.

  30. #30

    Default

    It won't effect us as we will be in the championship.

  31. #31

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Dubai
    Posts
    5,324
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    To stop constant interruptions each captain should be given say two opportunities to ask the ref for a review if wrong he loses a life. This way we limit each side asking for a review at every opportunity and breaking up play like in the world cup

  32. #32

    Default

    Don’t think attendances are the result of VAR, I believe there have been longer decisions than 2.57.

    What I am saying is that if you think it will solve all of the referee decision problems it is my opinion you are mistaken.

  33. #33

    Default

    About time. The biggest criticism of VAR is usually that decisions take too long. I would happily have a 2 minute delay if it means 3 points instead of 1 against Watford, or if it means Gabbi's goal stands in a cup final.

    Things will get better as refs become more practiced with the tech.

  34. #34

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    New Forest
    Posts
    5,873

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Turkish View Post
    The premier league Have listened to Charlie Austin he speaks for all premier league clubs

    This shall now be known as Charlies rule.
    Should be worth a regular starting place for that alone.

    Wonder why the PL's lawyers ducked sanctioning him... was it because he was telling the truth?

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ando View Post
    Don’t think attendances are the result of VAR, I believe there have been longer decisions than 2.57.

    What I am saying is that if you think it will solve all of the referee decision problems it is my opinion you are mistaken.
    It's not about every decision being perfect. It's about it being better than it would otherwise be.

  36. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micky View Post
    VAR is not some magic wand that eradicates all poor decisions from the game. It merely allows officials the chance to review various situations within the game - there is still the human factor. After looking at Charlie Austins 'goal' last week, seen it analysed on TV, I still heard various different versions as to whether it was or was not a 'goal', it's purely opinion in a lot of cases.

    It should clear up 'obvious' errors, I grant you, but there will still be contention within the game (and rightly so).
    Under what scenario could Austin's not have been a goal?

  37. #37

    Default

    ^^^ ive not heard any reports suggesting it was the correct decision

  38. Default

    The day that VAR is introduced is the day that the game is finished. Watching a live game of football will be a completely different experience from now on. Think I'm done with it

  39. #39

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    It's grim oop north
    Posts
    8,115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by striker View Post
    Under what scenario could Austin's not have been a goal?
    The main argument would be that Yoshida's presence in an offside position in the 6-yard box influenced the keeper's positioning and judgement, and therefore he could be deemed to be interfering with play.

  40. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bexy View Post
    The main argument would be that Yoshida's presence in an offside position in the 6-yard box influenced the keeper's positioning and judgement, and therefore he could be deemed to be interfering with play.
    Offside offence:

    A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

    interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
    interfering with an opponent by:
    preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
    challenging an opponent for the ball or
    clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
    making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
    or
    gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
    rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
    been deliberately saved by any opponent
    A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage.

    A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area).

    1) Yoshida was out of the keeper's eyeline when Austin struck his shot and was thus not interfering.

    2) The keeper was on the opposite side of the goal to Yoshida, he had to be to cover his near post when Redmond ran into the box. Therefore Yoshida did not interfere with the keeper's position. If the ball had gone behind Yoshida and into the goal, then there would have been an argument for disallowing it, but that didn't happen.

    Yoshida did not interfere with play according to the offside rule as currently written. If he had done, then Austin would have been sanctioned by the FA for his comments after the match.

    This seems to indicate that those who believe there is an 'argument' for Austin's goal being ruled out by Yoshida's position don't fully understand the offside rules as they are currently stand.

  41. #41

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Was NI now Shropshire..!
    Posts
    8,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by striker View Post
    Under what scenario could Austin's not have been a goal?
    Under the scenario that he was in an offside position, and in the eyeline of the goalkeeper, and therefore active and interfering with play.

    As I was driving back from the game on Sunday morning, it was being discussed on a radio program (talk sport I think) and all three presenters thought that the referee got it right.

    Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

  42. #42

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Meon Valley
    Posts
    2,303

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micky View Post
    Under the scenario that he was in an offside position, and in the eyeline of the goalkeeper, and therefore active and interfering with play.

    As I was driving back from the game on Sunday morning, it was being discussed on a radio program (talk sport I think) and all three presenters thought that the referee got it right.

    Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk
    All 3 are morons then. How on earth was Yoshida in Fosters eye line?

  43. #43

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Was NI now Shropshire..!
    Posts
    8,538

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saint IQ View Post
    All 3 are morons then. How on earth was Yoshida in Fosters eye line?
    No, they are not morons, they just hold a different opinion to you. Yoshida does not have to be exactly between Foster and Austin to be in close peripheral vision. Dont forget, he did lean away to ensure he didn't touch the ball.

    Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

  44. #44

    Default

    He wasnt as foster watched it all the way and yoshi was only in his direct vision after he'd dived hence why he didn't claim for the offside

  45. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micky View Post
    No, they are not morons, they just hold a different opinion to you. Yoshida does not have to be exactly between Foster and Austin to be in close peripheral vision. Dont forget, he did lean away to ensure he didn't touch the ball.

    Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk
    Couple of questions:

    1. What is “close peripheral vision” and does it appear in the laws of football?

    2. Did the referee say he disallowed the goal because he thought Yoshida touched the ball, but later admitted he was wrong?

  46. #46

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    18,352

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micky View Post
    No, they are not morons, they just hold a different opinion to you. Yoshida does not have to be exactly between Foster and Austin to be in close peripheral vision. Dont forget, he did lean away to ensure he didn't touch the ball.

    Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk
    Pretty sure they're morons, pal.

  47. #47

    Default

    They're definitely morons, Yoshida was nowhere near interfering with Foster's eyeline, peripheral or otherwise

  48. #48

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Windsor
    Posts
    608

    Default

    Wasn't there a game a few seasons ago (Watford's in the back of my mind) where there was an opposition player laying injured in front of our keeper when they scored?

  49. #49

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    The metropolis of Wem
    Posts
    7,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by saintalan View Post
    Wasn't there a game a few seasons ago (Watford's in the back of my mind) where there was an opposition player laying injured in front of our keeper when they scored?
    Maybe Arsenal?

    Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

  50. #50

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    West of Fareham
    Posts
    13,361

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micky View Post
    No, they are not morons, they just hold a different opinion to you. Yoshida does not have to be exactly between Foster and Austin to be in close peripheral vision. Dont forget, he did lean away to ensure he didn't touch the ball.

    Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk
    You’re talking nonsense, the law states “clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision” - being in someone’s peripheral vision is not obstructing the line of vision.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •