GWT: PL Matchbox 20

[Gecklund]

They showed multiple angles of the van Dijk part and it doesn’t look like it hits his arm at all, at worst inconclusive. Unless they’ve shown something different than what they were discussing at half.

I saw something on twitter. I’ll try to find it again and post it but you could be right. I don’t agree with the rule too so you wont hear any arguments from me. Just according to the rule.

 

[AB13]

That’s pretty optimistic. They’re going to be hard pressed to catch any of Leicester, Wolves, United, Spurs and Chelsea. Who are they passing for a top 7 spot at the worst?

Wolves, and if they keep playing like they have lately, Sp*rs.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

How did Eric Garcia play? Is he ready to play more minutes? City need more CB’s. He was the highest rated player in his age group at Barcelona before Pep poached him.

 

[Savant]

How did Eric Garcia play? Is he ready to play more minutes? City need more CB’s. He was the highest rated player in his age group at Barcelona before Pep poached him.

He was fine. Nothing good, nothing bad. Which is good for a defender. If I am Man City, I am done with Otamendi and Stones. We know they are bad. I’d give Garcia a run and see where that goes.

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

He was fine. Nothing good, nothing bad. Which is good for a defender. If I am Man City, I am done with Otamendi and Stones. We know they are bad. I’d give Garcia a run and see where that goes.

Otamendi is done. I'd keep Stones for the 3rd CB, Garcia for 4th. I think they've done more bad than good using Fernandinho as opposed to Garcia and Stones, at times. I also don't know if Rodri is yet able to play the Fernandinho role every game if you use Fernandinho at CB. Stones isn't great, but how many teams have a better 3rd CB? He helps fit the English quota, as well. They also have Harwood-Bellis coming right after Garcia. I think they should try to bring in another CB in the winter window and get rid of Otamendi. If not, you do that in the summer then. They'll have Laporte coming back soon enough, as well.

And I think this is exactly the type of situation that you use to develop Garcia. You've already qualified for Europe. You have no pressure on you in the Premier League. Give him a run of Premier League games, hopefully he's ready to contribute in a more consistent role next season. Garcia is supposed to be one of the best CB prospects in his age group around the world. You have injuries and lack depth. The games aren't important either. Use the kid smartly. Obviously you don't throw him into all the hardest games, but he shouldn't play less than 1000 minutes the rest of the season.

 

[hatterson]

How did Eric Garcia play? Is he ready to play more minutes? City need more CB’s. He was the highest rated player in his age group at Barcelona before Pep poached him.

I don’t recall anything he did really well or really poorly, which means he’s better than what city have had recently.

He’s 18 (despite looking 30) so if he gets extended minutes, you’re likely gonna see some mistakes, but again with Otamendi or Stones you’re gonna see those anyway so might as well let the youngster learn and see if he can be a solid option for the future.

 

[gary69]

What a win. Lampard got the set-up completely wrong and the in-match completely right.

Obviously I haven't seen all the matches in the league, but this must have been one of the best in-game manager performances of the season (even if Jorginho not getting a second yellow helped a lot).

 

[les Habs]

I’m glad you can lol I wish I was more like you you’re so cool man.

I can state for a fact that @Duchene2MacKinnon is NOT cool at all. Dude wanted us to sign Isco ffs and probably still does. I mean where is Isco nowadays anyway? China? Probably thinks we should have signed Asscrackbar instead of De Jong. Again, NOT cool.

 

[Machinehead]

It's 3AM and I just noticed the thread title

 

[Chimaera]

A smart club would offer Nuno the keys. Especially over Jose or Arteta

 

[Blender]

A smart club would offer Nuno the keys. Especially over Jose or Arteta

I think Wolves already did that.

 

[Chimaera]

I think Wolves already did that.

Obviously. But he probably could do a job at a traditional top 4 side.

 

[hatterson]

Obviously. But he probably could do a job at a traditional top 4 side.

This is frequently said about managers who bring clubs up and stay competitive for a while, but there’s a massive difference between building a team on a budget and getting the most out of players who are generally the underdogs and trying to attract and manage world class talents and keep them happy.

 

[Chimaera]

This is frequently said about managers who bring clubs up and stay competitive for a while, but there’s a massive difference between building a team on a budget and getting the most out of players who are generally the underdogs and trying to attract and manage world class talents and keep them happy.

It is and it isn’t. World class managers don’t get there overnight. They start somewhere and make the jump. He’s kept Wolves up, improved most of their players, they’re in Europe, he’s managed international level players, I’m confused as to what talent he doesn’t have. what makes Arteta any more prepared for it than Nuno? Because he sat next to Pep for three years? He couldn’t do a better job than Mourinho who has been run out of his last three stops and looks tactically past it? Nuno couldn’t do more at Everton than Carlo? (Not that I think he’d take that job). Look at their record against the top 6. They also have an outsized budget compared with typical promoted clubs. For all his detractors, Rodgers climbed the ladder and probably has done one of the best managerial jobs in the league this year. He’d be Arsenals manager if he wanted.

I understand massaging egos can be a bit different, but I think there’s a lot of clubs who should take a shot with one of those guys (Potter from Brighton might be another) rather than some of what they’re picking).

 

[YNWA14]

Again, no one has said not to use VAR. You've been corrected on this repeatedly and you are still arguing against a position no one has taken. Use VAR within the limits of the technology.

Yes, coming to a conclusion based on flawed information is not an honest or correct position. It's a form of argument from ignorance, and that's how they are applying VAR right now. They can't make a proper determination, so they are doing so arbitrarily just to say that they made a decision.

So again you can keep correcting me on something but if you are choosing not to use VAR to make the determination then you are relying on even less accurate information to make the decision. It's not rocket science. You either let VAR make the call, or it's the ref and linesmen that are making the call who certainly have a much larger chance of error than a few millimeters. They're not doing it arbitrarily either, they're taking the best frame that they can and using it which is just fine within the context of the rule and using the technology as it is currently to the best of its ability. Nothing wrong with that at all; hopefully they improve the technology going forward but again, it's better than an even more flawed and less accurate linesman or referee behind the play.

I posted this a month ago in reference to VAR overturning a penalty clearance due to encroachment

The last line is the most relevant. Literally no one on the pitch, in the stadium, in the announcers booth, or anywhere was worried about that potentially being offside.

Interestingly enough, you actually liked that post.

Yeah, and let me make my stance clear as maybe it got a bit confusing with the nature of the argument. I think the way VAR is being implemented in terms of the spots they choose to use or not use it hasn't been great. They definitely need to work on the implementation and the clarification but in terms of the offside calls, the level of the technology, and what happens once they've decided to use VAR to look at something...I would always prefer to have the decision made there than just letting the call on the field be the right one because VAR might be a millimeter off, as mentioned above there's a much larger likelihood that the ref or linesmen get it wrong than VAR does in these specific situations. Again, there have been way, way worse missed or wrong offside calls in the past before VAR was introduced. I do think it's a bit difficult to just say because nobody was complaining about an offside that there's no reason to check; it's really hard to see the entire breadth of the game when you're focused on the ball and a lot is going on at once which can happen a lot in those scrambly defensive situations. Overall though I do agree with your point.

I saw something on twitter. I’ll try to find it again and post it but you could be right. I don’t agree with the rule too so you wont hear any arguments from me. Just according to the rule.

Yeah, if they can conclusively say it touched his arm I'd agree with you that it would be no goal. To me it doesn't look like it actually does (maybe optical illusion, and it's very close) but hard to say one way or the other. He certainly doesn't control it and the ball doesn't change trajectory, but again the rule as it is it would be enough to call the goal back if it did and I wouldn't complain.

 

[hatterson]

Yeah, and let me make my stance clear as maybe it got a bit confusing with the nature of the argument. I think the way VAR is being implemented in terms of the spots they choose to use or not use it hasn't been great. They definitely need to work on the implementation and the clarification but in terms of the offside calls, the level of the technology, and what happens once they've decided to use VAR to look at something...I would always prefer to have the decision made there than just letting the call on the field be the right one because VAR might be a millimeter off, as mentioned above there's a much larger likelihood that the ref or linesmen get it wrong than VAR does in these specific situations. Again, there have been way, way worse missed or wrong offside calls in the past before VAR was introduced. I do think it's a bit difficult to just say because nobody was complaining about an offside that there's no reason to check; it's really hard to see the entire breadth of the game when you're focused on the ball and a lot is going on at once which can happen a lot in those scrambly defensive situations. Overall though I do agree with your point.

I think a lot of it comes down to understanding why offside exists as a rule. It exists to prevent players from cherry picking and to allow defenders to move up the field without always worrying about an attacker behind them. It was never designed to have the type of accuracy demanded in today's game.

That doesn't inherently mean accuracy is a bad thing, but it certainly means that having a category of "too close to call" absolutely makes sense. Have a set of rules that essentially codifies a situation like this one, or the Son armpit or the Pukki armpit, or anything like that, and lets VAR say "it's too close to conclusively call, so it didn't provide a material advantage or impact on the play and thus it stands"

That still lets you use VAR to overturn obviously offside goals (like Sheffield's yesterday) or count ones that were flagged but weren't like the Arsenal leveler against United, but doesn't end up in this stupid place of some guy zooming in and literally trying to identify which pixel is the one that counts and still possibly getting it wrong (since part of the Liverpool defenders leg was behind the attackers arm in the camera shot and thus you can't establish exactly where it was)

That actually seems to be what you're arguing here:

Yeah, if they can conclusively say it touched his arm I'd agree with you that it would be no goal. To me it doesn't look like it actually does (maybe optical illusion, and it's very close) but hard to say one way or the other. He certainly doesn't control it and the ball doesn't change trajectory, but again the rule as it is it would be enough to call the goal back if it did and I wouldn't complain.

There was a similar situation for United against Sheffield. The review seemed to show the ball hitting the attackers arm, but it couldn't be conclusively proven that it was actually his arm and not just his shirt, thus the goal stood.

That cost United 2 points, but I supported it at the time.

Similar situation with offside. Replay *seemed* to indicate it was offside, but it can't be conclusively proven and thus the call on the field should stand.

 

[Blender]

So again you can keep correcting me on something but if you are choosing not to use VAR to make the determination then you are relying on even less accurate information to make the decision. It's not rocket science. You either let VAR make the call, or it's the ref and linesmen that are making the call who certainly have a much larger chance of error than a few millimeters. They're not doing it arbitrarily either, they're taking the best frame that they can and using it which is just fine within the context of the rule and using the technology as it is currently to the best of its ability. Nothing wrong with that at all; hopefully they improve the technology going forward but again, it's better than an even more flawed and less accurate linesman or referee behind the play.

Never once have I said not to use VAR and instead let the referee/linesman make the call. You are clearly not getting what anyone has said in this thread on this issue.

 

[YNWA14]

I think a lot of it comes down to understanding why offside exists as a rule. It exists to prevent players from cherry picking and to allow defenders to move up the field without always worrying about an attacker behind them. It was never designed to have the type of accuracy demanded in today's game.

That doesn't inherently mean accuracy is a bad thing, but it certainly means that having a category of "too close to call" absolutely makes sense. Have a set of rules that essentially codifies a situation like this one, or the Son armpit or the Pukki armpit, or anything like that, and lets VAR say "it's too close to conclusively call, so it didn't provide a material advantage or impact on the play and thus it stands"

That still lets you use VAR to overturn obviously offside goals (like Sheffield's yesterday) or count ones that were flagged but weren't like the Arsenal leveler against United, but doesn't end up in this stupid place of some guy zooming in and literally trying to identify which pixel is the one that counts and still possibly getting it wrong (since part of the Liverpool defenders leg was behind the attackers arm in the camera shot and thus you can't establish exactly where it was)

Again, I'm all for giving the defenders the advantage in this situation and sticking to the rule as it is at the moment because, while it sounds counterintuitive, especially with offside if you are favouring the defenders you are creating a more offensive environment. The easier you make it for players to break offside (or do away with it altogether) the more defensive teams become to compensate. Still, I wouldn't have a problem at all if they did something like VAR calls will be determined by foot position only or something, or that the foot position is all they consider when looking at offsides at all which I imagine would be a lot easier to measure. Putting in some kind of margin of error will still just kind of move the goalposts for arguments I don't think it will change all that much.

 

[YNWA14]

Never once have I said not to use VAR and instead let the referee/linesman make the call. You are clearly not getting what anyone has said in this thread on this issue.

So if VAR doesn't determine whether its offside, who is making the call? I understand what people are saying and I get that you want to be a dick here, but if VAR isn't making the determination then it's the linesmen or ref that have made the call. It's pretty easy to follow.

 

[Blender]

So if VAR doesn't determine whether its offside, who is making the call? I understand what people are saying and I get that you want to be a dick here, but if VAR isn't making the determination then it's the linesmen or ref that have made the call. It's pretty easy to follow.

VAR makes the call with a margin of error built into the rules to account for the limits of the technology, as I have said 4 or 5 times already. I don't want to be a dick, you're just refusing to argue against anything I have actually said.

 

[hatterson]

The point boils down to this:

If the linesmen miss by more than a few inches, VAR fixes it. If they miss by less than a few inches no one should care because those 2 inches didn't have a material impact on the play and the game is far worse having someone staring at a screen for 10 minutes trying to identify which pixel is the right one than just counting the goal and moving on.

 

[YNWA14]

The point boils down to this:

If the linesmen miss by more than a few inches, VAR fixes it. If they miss by less than a few inches no one should care because those 2 inches didn't have a material impact on the play and the game is far worse having someone staring at a screen for 10 minutes trying to identify which pixel is the right one than just counting the goal and moving on.

I don't like the amount of time they spend on it, yeah. The issue for me isn't the material impact on the singular play, but I feel like if you work in a margin of error that favours the attacker then you force teams to play more defensively to avoid it.

There were a lot of arguments not to use technology at all to avoid ruining the spirit of the game. I think it's just an issue of some people don't care that much about the accuracy of it as long as its close and some people do. Ultimately my preference is for 'as accurate as possible within the rules' but I also wouldn't really care if they did it the way you're suggesting. I'm just saying that they're using VAR to the best of its capabilities as the rule is right now. Does that need to change to reflect they could be off by a millimeter? I don't really think so but eh.

VAR makes the call with a margin of error built into the rules to account for the limits of the technology, as I have said 4 or 5 times already. I don't want to be a dick, you're just refusing to argue against anything I have actually said.

They're not making a call if they're just saying it's too close to say with our technology, because then they're just deferring to the call made by the ref or linesmen, who again, have even worse information. In my opinion if it's 'too close to call' the 'tie' should go to the defender which only VAR can determine in these cases. If that's what it led to instead of drawing lines I'd be fine with that.

 

[hatterson]

Too close to call should absolutely go to the attacker.

The margins you're talking about aren't enough for a human being to consciously make a decision on real time based upon so it wouldn't change how attackers or defenders play at all.

Giving the attackers an extra potentially 2-3 feet (via the idea of only judging based on the foot location, or the idea of NHL style offside where if any part is onside you're entirely onside) would definitely change behavior of defenders and cause them to go deeper, but grey area on review does not change behavior. Also that grey area has been there (and larger) for the entire history of the game.

 

[YNWA14]

Too close to call should absolutely go to the attacker.

The margins you're talking about aren't enough for a human being to consciously make a decision on real time based upon so it wouldn't change how attackers or defenders play at all.

Giving the attackers an extra potentially 2-3 feet (via the idea of only judging based on the foot location, or the idea of NHL style offside where if any part is onside you're entirely onside) would definitely change behavior of defenders and cause them to go deeper, but grey area on review does not change behavior. Also that grey area has been there (and larger) for the entire history of the game.

I think there's a mental impact of knowing that it can be reviewed that way and that the 'margin of error' would favour the attacker. It's different than when the technology didn't exist and so on because, at least in my experience, there is that typical benefit of the doubt given to defenders when it seems like a player got behind them too easily (even when they're not offside).

Why do you think too close to call should go to the attacker?

 

[The Abusement Park]

For VAR I think they should have a time limit of like a minute or something like that. If you can’t figure it out in that time than the call wasn’t that egregious and the call on the field stands.