Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

TBF to those idiots , and I don't disagree with that term, they aren't helped by the rules. 
The offside needs to be simplified. Maybe use a players boots as a reference point , slightly less chance of error?
The handball rule needs an overhaul.
The whole thing needs to be time sensitive. If you haven't made a decision in 3/4 looks or 2 minutes give up.
Plus I'd still relegate Villa now on the non goal from last year. 

Rule changes still won't fix the issues with VAR, thickness of lines, or what part of the body is all irrelevant when they do not (cannot) pinpoint the exact frame where the ball leaves the foot of the person playing the pass (talking about offsides for this case).

If the pause is a tenth of a second off, you could easily have enough movement between the forward and defender to change whether the decision should be offside or onside.

Its still a shambles regardless as it was meant to be brought in for clear and obvious errors,  but it is used to quibble over whether someone's pube was offside or not.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Numero Uno said:

It was a poor challenge and deserved a red. However it was clumsy more than anything and I do not believe for a second that Pickford set out to "do Van Dyke"..........have a look at Roy Keane's tackle on Alfe Inge Haaland years ago, that's how you "do" someone with intent (and if Keane is to be believed he had good reason). It is very unfortunate that Van Dyke is out for months but this does happen in football unfortunately.....occupational hazard as we know at this club more than most it seems. However and possibly predictably there are plenty of Liverpool "fans" on social media who are calling for legal action to be taken against both Pickford and Everton.

I don't think the award of a red card is determined by whether the player had any intent intent on “doing” the opposition player. In fact I would say that a majority of straight reds are clumsy/mistimed with no intent to harm the other player.

As a post script, I caught Adrian Durham discussing the challenge on Talksport when I was on the way home a little earlier. He felt that Michael Oliver was waiting for VAR to kick in and make the decision, which of course didn’t happen. This is  a concern and something I think happens more and more, and especially with potentially contentious decisions. Rather than make a decision and risk the embarrassment of the decision being overturned by VAR, are referees now happy to let it ride and if VAR picks it up they can always argue that they didn't see the incident/see it clearly enough as a get out of jail free card?

I think when it was introduced most of us envisioned VAR being used to decide those marginal offsides that always cause debate and disagreement. However, as VAR has become increasingly involved in almost every decision and even incidents occurring prior to a goal, the real danger is that referees increasingly abdicate their responsibility to make on field decisionsdecisions. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, downendcity said:

I don't think the award of a red card is determined by whether the player had any intent intent on “doing” the opposition player. In fact I would say that a majority of straight reds are clumsy/mistimed with no intent to harm the other player.

As a post script, I caught Adrian Durham discussing the challenge on Talksport when I was on the way home a little earlier. He felt that Michael Oliver was waiting for VAR to kick in and make the decision, which of course didn’t happen. This is  a concern and something I think happens more and more, and especially with potentially contentious decisions. Rather than make a decision and risk the embarrassment of the decision being overturned by VAR, are referees now happy to let it ride and if VAR picks it up they can always argue that they didn't see the incident/see it clearly enough as a get out of jail free card?

I think when it was introduced most of us envisioned VAR being used to decide those marginal offsides that always cause debate and disagreement. However, as VAR has become increasingly involved in almost every decision and even incidents occurring prior to a goal, the real danger is that referees increasingly abdicate their responsibility to make on field decisionsdecisions. 

 

Agreed, a clear red card. My point is aimed at the nutters on twitter asking for legal action, compensation and all that kind of stuff.

Also agree that VAR is stopping officials do what they are paid to do ie make decisions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

VAR has a place in football - what we seem to have got wrong is the implementation in allowing the final decision to be that of the VAR referee rather than the on field ref.

If football insisted the on field Ref look at the monitor whenever a marginal decision needed to be made and then was made to be responsible for the final decision things would improve.

I watched Exeter Chiefs yesterday, and one phrase which Rugby refs regularly use is “is there any reason why I can’t award a try?” - the TMO (Rugby’s VAR) then helps the Ref make the final decision.

This seems to be streets ahead of football in the use of technology.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

Death threats to both Pickford and Richarlison being looked into. Is it any wonder Liverpool FC have an “always the victim” reputation?
 

All I am waiting for is some total weapon on here to justify it.........

Don't think you'll get anyone on here justifying death threats, regardless of how much of a tool they are. 

 

Totally unacceptable. And just makes you and your club look pathetic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

Death threats to both Pickford and Richarlison being looked into. Is it any wonder Liverpool FC have an “always the victim” reputation?
 

All I am waiting for is some total weapon on here to justify it.........

No surprise is it. Even Gerrard got threats when he nearly signed for Chelsea.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Denbury Red said:

VAR has a place in football - what we seem to have got wrong is the implementation in allowing the final decision to be that of the VAR referee rather than the on field ref.

If football insisted the on field Ref look at the monitor whenever a marginal decision needed to be made and then was made to be responsible for the final decision things would improve.

I watched Exeter Chiefs yesterday, and one phrase which Rugby refs regularly use is “is there any reason why I can’t award a try?” - the TMO (Rugby’s VAR) then helps the Ref make the final decision.

This seems to be streets ahead of football in the use of technology.

The first step to resolving this has got to be transparency and that means having the conversations between VAR and the ref broadcast live.    

In Rugby you can hear everything what is said, which means the commentators apologising everytime there's a scrum because of the language of the players.  I'm not suggesting that in football, but I would suggest that as soon as there is any potential VAR involvement, they should turn on the mikes of the VAR person and the Referee and assistants and the decision making process is carried out with people being able to be hear. 

It will have a number of benefits:-

1.  Make decision making process clearer to everyone.

2. Allow for better assessment of VAR and referees' performance ongoing as it will lay bare their failings and successes.  They are guessing at the moment.

3.  Ensure ownership of decisions by the referee rather than someone in an office in London which is deeply suspicious.

4.  Should promote more understanding of the referees' situation and appreciation of the refs who are good at what they do.  It will also make the likes of 'Jamie' with his permanent whingeing look like even more of a manual manipulator.

Clear and obvious should be kept to with offsides rather than drawing little lines over a screen to show a player's armpit hair was offside.  Referee should decide that not someone on a ******* computer.  The ridiculous thing about Mane's offside at the weekend was he came from a milimetre offside back into an obviously onside position.  No advantage was gained.

VAR is the obvious role for retiring refs to go into.  Wayne Barnes was the TMO for the Exeter v Bath game last weekend and that was refereeed superbly as he kept the ref right on his toes. The Bristol v Wasps game on the same day was a shambles.  The ref got loads of decisions clearly wrong as there was a mute in the TMO role.  

What English football has come up with is completely shit.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just me who feels sorry for Pickford a little bit here? He probably wont be able to go out in Liverpool for a while without being abused, it wasn't like he intentionally went out to injure Van Dijk, it was a stupid tackle but there was no intention. 
At the moment he has been on an awful run of form and probably the last thing he needs to happen to him, he will feel worse than anyone about Van Dijk being injured for a long time. 

The offside goal for Liverpools 'winner' on Saturday was the worst VAR call I have seen, and to me has completely put me off wanting to see City play with VAR in play. It's sickening to lose a goal like that due to the smallest of margins. Time to get rid, go back to what was tried and tested. 

The difference with Rugby and Cricket is both games are stop start anyway, Football is played on emotion of the crowd and is generally free flowing and quicker. VAR has not been a positive inclusion to the game in this Country.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Bard said:

What English football has come up with is completely shit. the worst of all worlds!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do that to someone on the street and you're on a GBH charge, but becuase it's football all is fine - what a joke.

 

Pickford arguably could be facing a custodial sentence. 

Just now, CiderHider said:

Do that to someone on the street and you're on a GBH charge, but becuase it's football all is fine - what a joke.

 

Pickford arguably could be facing a custodial sentence. 

If I was Van Dijk i'd have called my lawyer, i expect he did anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, intercity said:

And to think Fam was banned for 6 matches retrospectively for allegedly spitting at a player. Same but different? I can't remember all the details, but I'm not convinced by the FA. Again.

Yeah but Fam is black n all, plus plays for a small club

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Denbury Red said:

VAR has a place in football - what we seem to have got wrong is the implementation in allowing the final decision to be that of the VAR referee rather than the on field ref.

If football insisted the on field Ref look at the monitor whenever a marginal decision needed to be made and then was made to be responsible for the final decision things would improve.

I watched Exeter Chiefs yesterday, and one phrase which Rugby refs regularly use is “is there any reason why I can’t award a try?” - the TMO (Rugby’s VAR) then helps the Ref make the final decision.

This seems to be streets ahead of football in the use of technology.

Can you imagine if the rugby final for Bristol had got lines out to check if actually was a forward pass, nah it was 'I think that's gone forwards'

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, CiderHider said:

Do that to someone on the street and you're on a GBH charge, but becuase it's football all is fine - what a joke.

 

Pickford arguably could be facing a custodial sentence. 

If I was Van Dijk i'd have called my lawyer, i expect he did anyway.

I agree, it's the double standards that does it for me. I was walking down the street the other day, gave a Granny a good hard tackle, I got most of the ball albeit my elbow did break her nose and yet I am on a GBH charge and Pickford gets nothing. I was surprised to get charged to be honest because she looked a yard offside from my side of the pavement.

Thanks for being the person that proved my point by the way. It obviously hasn't occurred to you that when you walk out onto a football pitch, a rugby pitch, a boxing ring etc. etc. and get paid to be on said arena there just might be an element of risk that you accept in return for being paid to take part in a physical contact sport? When I took out old Doris on the street the other day she hadn't signed up to that funnily enough..........

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, CiderHider said:

Do that to someone on the street and you're on a GBH charge, but becuase it's football all is fine - what a joke.

 

Pickford arguably could be facing a custodial sentence. 

If I was Van Dijk i'd have called my lawyer, i expect he did anyway.

Yeah go for it Van Dijk, embarass yourself and call a lawyer, what absolute rubbish

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 2015 said:

Yeah go for it Van Dijk, embarass yourself and call a lawyer, what absolute rubbish

As daft as it is we are even having a conversation just have a look at Van Dyke as he goes for the ball.....studs showing, hardly a parody of utter virtue himself and if you want to convict Pickford on still frames then he can do exactly the same to defend himself whether justified or not......I’m sure a top barrister at the Old Bailey wouldn’t need much time to drive a bus through any prosecution case.

You can argue that Pickford has been reckless by way of professional incompetence (in a split second it should be pointed out) but there is absolutely no way you can prove intent. Impossible based on that evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Numero Uno said:

As daft as it is we are even having a conversation just have a look at Van Dyke as he goes for the ball.....studs showing, hardly a parody of utter virtue himself and if you want to convict Pickford on still frames then he can do exactly the same to defend himself whether justified or not......I’m sure a top barrister at the Old Bailey wouldn’t need much time to drive a bus through any prosecution case.

You can argue that Pickford has been reckless by way of professional incompetence (in a split second it should be pointed out) but there is absolutely no way you can prove intent. Impossible based on that evidence.

There is absolutely zero intent from Pickford to injure Van Dijk and I'm sure Pickford is gutted he has injured a fellow professional for as long as he has. Ludicrous to think someone should be sued for committing a workplace hazard, Pickford would never admit he went out to injure him even if he did (which he didn't). I've seen the scousers all over the radio, social media crying their little hearts out about it. Always the victims

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Numero Uno said:

Death threats to both Pickford and Richarlison being looked into. Is it any wonder Liverpool FC have an “always the victim” reputation?
 

All I am waiting for is some total weapon on here to justify it.........

That's social media for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, 2015 said:

Yeah go for it Van Dijk, embarass yourself and call a lawyer, what absolute rubbish

I'm just sayin had you be in tesco and someone went for you like that it would become a police matter, I 'know' its a football and different, but some of these injuries are career ending, if someone recklessly ended your career on a building site you'd call a lawyer, and the police if it was malicious.  

Pickford should maybe take a lie detector to determine if he went in with aggression and intent to harm if so jail and bankrupt him.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 2015 said:

There is absolutely zero intent from Pickford to injure Van Dijk and I'm sure Pickford is gutted he has injured a fellow professional for as long as he has. Ludicrous to think someone should be sued for committing a workplace hazard, Pickford would never admit he went out to injure him even if he did (which he didn't). I've seen the scousers all over the radio, social media crying their little hearts out about it. Always the victims

It’s the “scapegoat” world of media and social media. Pickford should be in prison purely because we know the effects of the Van Dyke injury!!!!

Whereas five or six even worse tackles every weekend needn’t have any action taken on the perpetrators because the recipients were somehow lucky enough to be alright afterwards or because they play for teams like Crawley and Crewe and nobody gives a shit..........

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CiderHider said:

I'm just sayin had you be in tesco and someone went for you like that it would become a police matter, I 'know' its a football and different, but some of these injuries are career ending, if someone recklessly ended your career on a building site you'd call a lawyer, and the police if it was malicious.  

Pickford should maybe take a lie detector to determine if he went in with aggression and intent to harm if so jail and bankrupt him.  

I can't believe this is even a discussion. I'm walking into Tesco during my leisure time, not getting paid to do so and i dont get paid to go into a 50/50 tackle in Tesco. Van Dijk went into a 50/50 tackle and came off worse because Pickford cannot tackle as he is a goalkeeper. It's part of being a footballer, not part of being a shopper for christ sake

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, downendcity said:

I don't think the award of a red card is determined by whether the player had any intent intent on “doing” the opposition player. In fact I would say that a majority of straight reds are clumsy/mistimed with no intent to harm the other player.

As a post script, I caught Adrian Durham discussing the challenge on Talksport when I was on the way home a little earlier. He felt that Michael Oliver was waiting for VAR to kick in and make the decision, which of course didn’t happen. This is  a concern and something I think happens more and more, and especially with potentially contentious decisions. Rather than make a decision and risk the embarrassment of the decision being overturned by VAR, are referees now happy to let it ride and if VAR picks it up they can always argue that they didn't see the incident/see it clearly enough as a get out of jail free card?

Unfortunately, I believe AD was quite correct, as are you with your perception that referees seem to be 'hiding' behing VAR, rather than taking control of the match, which, after all, is their purpose - the pitch side monitor is available should they wish to check a tight decision, but, much like cricket umpires and front foot no-ball decisions, referees seem to be shirking their responsibility and relying on a third party watching on a screen to make a decision for them.

I am pretty sure it was Michael Oliver who refereed the Sheffield United/Aston Villa match where an 'obvious' goal was not awarded, and whilst almost everybody on the pitch, including the referee (MO?), could see that the ball had clearly crossed the line - for goodness sake, the goalkeeper took a few paces to carry the ball from behind the post! - he waved away the Sheffield United players' protests, simply pointing at his watch to indicate it had not buzzed. 

Why, when his own eyes must have convinced him that the ball was over the line, did he not take the opportunity when the ball was next out of play to check with the monitor? 

18 hours ago, Denbury Red said:

VAR has a place in football - what we seem to have got wrong is the implementation in allowing the final decision to be that of the VAR referee rather than the on field ref.

If football insisted the on field Ref look at the monitor whenever a marginal decision needed to be made and then was made to be responsible for the final decision things would improve.

I watched Exeter Chiefs yesterday, and one phrase which Rugby refs regularly use is “is there any reason why I can’t award a try?” - the TMO (Rugby’s VAR) then helps the Ref make the final decision.

This seems to be streets ahead of football in the use of technology.

If football could find referees as competent as Nigel Owens that would be half the battle won.

I never cease to be amazed by the mutual respect shown whenever he is in charge. 

1 hour ago, The Bard said:

The first step to resolving this has got to be transparency and that means having the conversations between VAR and the ref broadcast live.    

Clear and obvious should be kept to with offsides rather than drawing little lines over a screen to show a player's armpit hair was offside.  Referee should decide that not someone on a ******* computer.  The ridiculous thing about Mane's offside at the weekend was he came from a milimetre offside back into an obviously onside position.  No advantage was gained.

VAR is the obvious role for retiring refs to go into.  Wayne Barnes was the TMO for the Exeter v Bath game last weekend and that was refereeed superbly as he kept the ref right on his toes. The Bristol v Wasps game on the same day was a shambles.  The ref got loads of decisions clearly wrong as there was a mute in the TMO role.  

What English football has come up with is completely shit.  

He is clearly a better TMO than he was when he was actually refereeing on the field itself 😉.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 2015 said:

There is absolutely zero intent from Pickford to injure Van Dijk and I'm sure Pickford is gutted he has injured a fellow professional for as long as he has. Ludicrous to think someone should be sued for committing a workplace hazard, Pickford would never admit he went out to injure him even if he did (which he didn't). I've seen the scousers all over the radio, social media crying their little hearts out about it. Always the victims

I dunno man, some dressing room talks I've heard about... I know for a fact some players go out to harm their opponents some people are like that, win whatever the cost, the ends justifies the means. 

If you mean to take someone on physically you must be willing to hurt them physically, even in football, same with rugby, and especially boxing. But its professional so it's OK, I 'get it'

1 minute ago, CiderHider said:

I dunno man, some dressing room talks I've heard about... I know for a fact some players go out to harm their opponents some people are like that, win whatever the cost, the ends justifies the means. 

If you mean to take someone on physically you must be willing to hurt them physically, even in football, same with rugby, and especially boxing. But its professional so it's OK, I 'get it'

How many managers before they played against Gascoigne said break his ******* legs? 

Edited by CiderHider
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CiderHider said:

I dunno man, some dressing room talks I've heard about... I know for a fact some players go out to harm their opponents some people are like that, win whatever the cost, the ends justifies the means. 

If you mean to take someone on physically you must be willing to hurt them physically, even in football, same with rugby, and especially boxing. But its professional so it's OK, I 'get it'

I seriously don't believe Jordan Pickford has gone in the dressing room celebrating potentially ending another player's career, I don't think anyone is that sick. I just see it as this to be honest, it's Liverpool and they are always the victims somehow.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 2015 said:

I seriously don't believe Jordan Pickford has gone in the dressing room celebrating potentially ending another player's career, I don't think anyone is that sick. I just see it as this to be honest, it's Liverpool and they are always the victims somehow.

It was a split second. We can never know what went though his mind or any players when they challenge for a 50/50, how much pain are you willing to risk or inflict? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, CiderHider said:

I dunno man, some dressing room talks I've heard about... I know for a fact some players go out to harm their opponents some people are like that, win whatever the cost, the ends justifies the means. 

If you mean to take someone on physically you must be willing to hurt them physically, even in football, same with rugby, and especially boxing. But its professional so it's OK, I 'get it'

How many managers before they played against Gasoline said break his ******* legs? 

Yes, there will be isolated cases where players really do mean it. Keane on Haaland being the most obvious.

Generally speaking though it will be impossible to prove in a court of law 99% of the time. Player A will simply claim that he mistimed his tackle on Player B - in the worst situations the defendant will say “I admit to incompetence but not intent”.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CiderHider said:

It was a split second. We can never know what went though his mind or any players when they challenge for a 50/50, how much pain are you willing to risk or inflict? 

In the heat of the moment an agressive competitive athlete is capable of inflicting harm in order to win, I don't think anyone could disagree. But there is no way to know without lie detectors and truth serums. Give in 50 yrs though

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, 2015 said:

I can't believe this is even a discussion. I'm walking into Tesco during my leisure time, not getting paid to do so and i dont get paid to go into a 50/50 tackle in Tesco. Van Dijk went into a 50/50 tackle and came off worse because Pickford cannot tackle as he is a goalkeeper. It's part of being a footballer, not part of being a shopper for christ sake

 That would be an interesting job getting paid to tackle people in tesco if it looks 50/50, bbbut officer it was a fair tackle. 😂

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...