• This site contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, Poker Chip Forum may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!

Official Worldwide Football (Soccer) Discussion Thread (3 Viewers)

BonScot said:
New football finance report out today from DeLoitte showing that 15 of the top 30 wealthiest clubs play in the EPL.

Last place EPL gets somewhere around £120 million. Last year Celtic got £3 million for winning our league.
Click to expand...

10th place at the WSOP gets $800,000

10th place at my home tournament gets $0 and first crack at playing Goldeneye on my N64.
 
AB02FD87-31C8-4877-962A-3A99AD9379AC.jpeg
 
JMC9389 said:
I hear you and don't think you're wrong.

Here's a controversial opinion. The game needs to do away with offsides entirely. If attacking teams want to goal hang and poach, let them, and make defending teams adjust. This will open up a lot more space in the middle third of the field and make the game more exciting and high scoring. I think the modern game has been ruined by the offsides rules and VAR.
Click to expand...
I only just read this post. And I mean this in the politest way possible, but I almost vomited in my mouth at the thought of it and wanted to let you know how terrible your idea is. You can't have football without the offside rule. It would suck so badly. Really badly. God no. Please no. Fuck off Todd Boehly. Haha.

You are right that VAR is annoying but it's getting better.
 
Perthmike said:
I only just read this post. And I mean this in the politest way possible, but I almost vomited in my mouth at the thought of it and wanted to let you know how terrible your idea is. You can't have football without the offside rule. It would suck so badly. Really badly. God no. Please no. Fuck off Todd Boehly. Haha.

You are right that VAR is annoying but it's getting better.
Click to expand...
Tell me how you really feel.

Just do away with VAR and I'll be happy. If the offsides is too close to call by the naked eye, the ruling should more favor the attacking team.
 
JMC9389 said:
Tell me how you really feel.

Just do away with VAR and I'll be happy. If the offsides is too close to call by the naked eye, the ruling should more favor the attacking team.
Click to expand...
Springing your offside trap on a forward is a great part of the game. If you scrap offside you completely change the game. At best every team would have to play with a sweeper at worst you could end up with something that looks like table football with defenders scared to move up the pitch.

Deciding offsides is one of the few things that VAR has going for it.
 
BonScot said:
Springing your offside trap on a forward is a great part of the game. If you scrap offside you completely change the game. At best every team would have to play with a sweeper at worst you could end up with something that looks like table football with defenders scared to move up the pitch.

Deciding offsides is one of the few things that VAR has going for it.
Click to expand...
I'll respectfully disagree. If an attacking team scores and it's close for potential offsides, waiting to celebrate the goal until the VAR review takes place takes a lot of the intensity and passion out of the game.
 
JMC9389 said:
I'll respectfully disagree. If an attacking team scores and it's close for potential offsides, waiting to celebrate the goal until the VAR review takes place takes a lot of the intensity and passion out of the game.
Click to expand...
I get that but it removes any doubt. Same way goal line technology does. Handy in a country known for corrupt referees where 28 of the 32 professional referees support a certain team…. Keeps the cheating b@stards honest.
 
JMC9389 said:
I'll respectfully disagree. If an attacking team scores and it's close for potential offsides, waiting to celebrate the goal until the VAR review takes place takes a lot of the intensity and passion out of the game.
Click to expand...
I'd probably disagree with this: I absolutely LOVE the tension VAR reviews create in celebrating goals. The delay only adds to the excitement, IMO.
 
jr8719 said:
I'd probably disagree with this: I absolutely LOVE the tension VAR reviews create in celebrating goals. The delay only adds to the excitement, IMO.
Click to expand...
I hate it and I think VAR kills the game but it’s a necessary evil in Scotland. The referees here are a joke. Just Google “Connor Goldson handballs” to see what I’m talking about. None of them have been given as a penalty. Then Google “Matt O’Reilly handball” and “Benarbi handball” which were both given. Rangers not conceded a penalty in almost 3 years but given a ridiculous number every season. VAR here is said to stand for is Video Assisting Rangers :ROFL: :ROFLMAO:

The only thing it’s any good for here is offsides.
 
JMC9389 said:
Tell me how you really feel.

Just do away with VAR and I'll be happy. If the offsides is too close to call by the naked eye, the ruling should more favor the attacking team.
Click to expand...
Yeah I agree with that. They really need to stop calling offsides for toenails.
 
JMC9389 said:
I'll respectfully disagree. If an attacking team scores and it's close for potential offsides, waiting to celebrate the goal until the VAR review takes place takes a lot of the intensity and passion out of the game.
Click to expand...
I can respect this opinion. But if you have this view, then you must be willing to sacrifice goals that would erroneously be called of for offside. For example, there was this one goal at the WC (an African team, I don't remember which) where everyone thought it was offside, even the goal scoarer, he didn't even celebrate. The Swedish commentators where 100% certain. But VAR showed it wasn't offside, the goal stood. There's no chance in hell that goal would have stood without the "delayed offside" rule.

So if you want a team to be able to celebrate immediately, then you must be willing to sacrifice legitimate goals. You can't both have the cookie and eat it.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that I'd rather only have legitimate offsides be called. I'm willing to have teams postpone celebrations for a few seconds if that's what it takes.

Perthmike said:
Yeah I agree with that. They really need to stop calling offsides for toenails.
Click to expand...
If VAR should be used for offside, then an offside MUST be called for toenails. Where else should it be called? The toe? That would just be moving the definition of offside, one could still be offside by the width of a toenail even if the line is drawn by the toe. I can respect that people want offsides to be called by the human eye. But IF it's called by VAR, then a very precise definition is needed, which very well could be at the toenail.
 
Mr Winberg said:
I can respect this opinion. But if you have this view, then you must be willing to sacrifice goals that would erroneously be called of for offside. For example, there was this one goal at the WC (an African team, I don't remember which) where everyone thought it was offside, even the goal scoarer, he didn't even celebrate. The Swedish commentators where 100% certain. But VAR showed it wasn't offside, the goal stood. There's no chance in hell that goal would have stood without the "delayed offside" rule.

So if you want a team to be able to celebrate immediately, then you must be willing to sacrifice legitimate goals. You can't both have the cookie and eat it.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that I'd rather only have legitimate offsides be called. I'm willing to have teams postpone celebrations for a few seconds if that's what it takes.


If VAR should be used for offside, then an offside MUST be called for toenails. Where else should it be called? The toe? That would just be moving the definition of offside, one could still be offside by the width of a toenail even if the line is drawn by the toe. I can respect that people want offsides to be called by the human eye. But IF it's called by VAR, then a very precise definition is needed, which very well could be at the toenail.
Click to expand...
Im all for perfect accuracy using var, I just think there needs to be a slight adjustment to the rule of what is offside. I don't have the perfect answer, but even if you use a ratio or something like that. Perhaps no more than 50% of your body can be ahead of the defender. Not saying that's the solution, just an example of what I mean. I don't see it the same as a race for example where the tiniest margin legitimately does mean you win.

In my eye if most of your body and your feet are behind the defender, but you flung your arm out so that it's ahead of the defender, that isn't offside. But by the rules right now, it would be.
 
Perthmike said:
Im all for perfect accuracy using var, I just think there needs to be a slight adjustment to the rule of what is offside. I don't have the perfect answer, but even if you use a ratio or something like that. Perhaps no more than 50% of your body can be ahead of the defender. Not saying that's the solution, just an example of what I mean. I don't see it the same as a race for example where the tiniest margin legitimately does mean you win.

In my eye if most of your body and your feet are behind the defender, but you flung your arm out so that it's ahead of the defender, that isn't offside. But by the rules right now, it would be.
Click to expand...
It used to be that the attacker had to be behind the defender and being level was offside. Then they changed it so level was onside. Some people are now saying they want there to be clear daylight between attacker and defender to be offside. I’m not fussed either way but all that would do is change the definition of what’s offside. We’d still be having the same debate only moving the line forward a few centimetres.

The current rule is that it has to be a body part you can score with so flinging out an arm doesn’t count (unless you’re a certain Argentinian).
 
BonScot said:
Some people are now saying they want there to be clear daylight between attacker and defender to be offside
Click to expand...
I think FIFA are giving this a try in one if the lower Swedish divisions.

BonScot said:
all that would do is change the definition of what’s offside. We’d still be having the same debate only moving the line forward a few centimetres.
Click to expand...
I agree. It could still be called by the width of a toenail. Even if the rule was 50% of the body.

Perthmike said:
In my eye if most of your body and your feet are behind the defender, but you flung your arm out so that it's ahead of the defender, that isn't offside. But by the rules right now, it would be.
Click to expand...
Arms don't count in off-sides, to VAR agrees with you there.
 
Mr Winberg said:
I think FIFA are giving this a try in one if the lower Swedish divisions.


I agree. It could still be called by the width of a toenail. Even if the rule was 50% of the body.


Arms don't count in off-sides, to VAR agrees with you there.
Click to expand...
Yeah that was a bad example, I never bother to keep track of the exact rule, but you know what I mean. There have been some calls that feel very silly and I think a small change to the rule could help.

Rashford for example. That's a much clearer call to disallow a goal than a toenail or head (if head counts). He was clearly interfering with play.

Also some of these goals where it grazes a player on the way through, or bounces back to another player and some other action rendered them offside. Havertz v Liverpool, or nketiah v west ham come to mind.

I'd just like to see some tweaking to the rules.
 
Perthmike said:
Yeah that was a bad example, I never bother to keep track of the exact rule, but you know what I mean. There have been some calls that feel very silly and I think a small change to the rule could help.

Rashford for example. That's a much clearer call to disallow a goal than a toenail or head (if head counts). He was clearly interfering with play.

Also some of these goals where it grazes a player on the way through, or bounces back to another player and some other action rendered them offside. Havertz v Liverpool, or nketiah v west ham come to mind.

I'd just like to see some tweaking to the rules.
Click to expand...
Both of those examples are down to the competence (or corruption) of the officials. The Rashford one being a good example. We had one last week where a defender attempted a pass back header and our striker (who was in an offside position) anticipated it and ran onto the pass back and scored. He couldn’t be offside because the defender last touched the ball but the referee gave it as offside.

Offsides and the ball crossing the line are the only things that are matter of fact and not open to interpretation. That’s the one good thing to come out of having the new technology. Albeit you can still have the “interfering with play” argument with offsides.
 
BonScot said:
Albeit you can still have the “interfering with play” argument with offsides.
Click to expand...
In some sports they have changed the rules to make it easier (less subject to interpretation) to make correct calls when using video technology. A good example would be to allow interference with play on off-sides. Or, to go the other route and not allow anyone to be off-side. While neither of these might be better for the game, they would definitely remove the human error from judging offsides using VAR.

Though personally, I would love it if interference with play was allowed! It would make for some interesting tactical plays, like blatantly running off-side only to jump over the ball and have someone who was on-side received it (like the famous one with Messi, with the difference that you're allowed to interfere as much as you like. Messi just stood still). People might not agree with this being better for the game, but the VAR judgement would simply come down to "did he or did he not touch the ball" (and of course "was the reciever on-side").

I believe VAR will trigger rule changes that remove human interpretation.
 
Mr Winberg said:
In some sports they have changed the rules to make it easier (less subject to interpretation) to make correct calls when using video technology. A good example would be to allow interference with play on off-sides. Or, to go the other route and not allow anyone to be off-side. While neither of these might be better for the game, they would definitely remove the human error from judging offsides using VAR.

Though personally, I would love it if interference with play was allowed! It would make for some interesting tactical plays, like blatantly running off-side only to jump over the ball and have someone who was on-side received it (like the famous one with Messi, with the difference that you're allowed to interfere as much as you like. Messi just stood still). People might not agree with this being better for the game, but the VAR judgement would simply come down to "did he or did he not touch the ball" (and of course "was the reciever on-side").

I believe VAR will trigger rule changes that remove human interpretation.
Click to expand...
The other thing would be to copy rugby and show the VAR camera angles on the big screens while being able to hear the conversations between the referee and the VAR. That would go some way to removing the suspicion about certain calls.

VAR works great in rugby so it can work if used properly. Football is making a mess of it.
 
Chippy McChiperson said:
And Jesse Marsch was fired by Leeds. Hopefully the USMNT scoops him up
Click to expand...
This.

I don't understand the calls for a "European" manager.

Marsch may be the most brilliant tactical manager the US has ever produced and he's still young. Arena and Bradley are shit tactically compared to him, honestly.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom