Football 17/18

[philipsteak]

6 hours ago, WS_Jack_III said:

Also, after a goal it takes about 2 mins until the game gets back underway so it has zero effect in terms of stoppage if a goal has to be reviewed.

It won't be though. It'll be however long it takes to decide if the goal should be allowed plus the 2 minutes to get back underway. It's not like the players are going to go and stand patiently ready for kick off while they wait for a decision

[mjsell]

14 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Can you *really* be sure that interest levels will be maintained when there's less to be interested about?

No. And yet you can say with complete certainty that it won't...

You never know, the fairer nature of decision making might attract those that have lost interest in the game due to the bias towards the bigger teams... nah actually forget that, Chelsea will still find a way.

[pink_triangle]

2 hours ago, mjsell said:

No. And yet you can say with complete certainty that it won't...

You never know, the fairer nature of decision making might attract those that have lost interest in the game due to the bias towards the bigger teams... nah actually forget that, Chelsea will still find a way.

I have honestly never met a person who has stopped watching because of big team bias.

[zahidf]

Sturridge to west brom

 

giroud to chelsea apparently!

[WS_Jack_III]

3 hours ago, philipsteak said:

It won't be though. It'll be however long it takes to decide if the goal should be allowed plus the 2 minutes to get back underway. It's not like the players are going to go and stand patiently ready for kick off while they wait for a decision

This isn't what happened in the Leicester game. Waited 1 min and 30 seconds for decision, quick celebration when they gave the goal and back underway. Pretty much the same time as when somebody scores and goes mental for 2 minutes.

[pink_triangle]

31 minutes ago, WS_Jack_III said:

This isn't what happened in the Leicester game. Waited 1 min and 30 seconds for decision, quick celebration when they gave the goal and back underway. Pretty much the same time as when somebody scores and goes mental for 2 minutes.

Good point on the football weekly podcast. The instant  emotion after the goal is one of the things that makes football (a low scoring game) special. VAR only diminishes that .

[WS_Jack_III]

3 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

Good point on the football weekly podcast. The instant  emotion after the goal is one of the things that makes football (a low scoring game) special. VAR only diminishes that .

True.

 

Refs should have mics to indicate what is happening. This would build crowd anticipation. They'll never do that though.

[LJS]

5 hours ago, eFestivals said:

It's not bullshit. 

If there's fewer decisions to be argued over, then there's less to say about the game, less reason for people to get passionate ... and ultimately less reason for people to have an interest in the game.

As i pointed out, it got to be the most popular game in the world without rule/ref perfection. Can you *really* be sure that interest levels will be maintained when there's less to be interested about?

Football got to be the most popular game in the world without floodlights & live telly. 

Has VAR reduced interest in cricket/rugby/tennis? If anything, I'd argue quite the opposite.

The point is you need to work out what is appropriate to be reviewed & what is not. 

 

[eFestivals]

11 hours ago, mjsell said:

No. And yet you can say with complete certainty that it won't...

because simple logic says when there's less to be interested about, interest levels will fall.

And i'll say it again: it became the most popular game when refs often got it wrong, not when every decision was perfect.

[eFestivals]

7 hours ago, WS_Jack_III said:

This isn't what happened in the Leicester game. Waited 1 min and 30 seconds for decision, quick celebration when they gave the goal and back underway. Pretty much the same time as when somebody scores and goes mental for 2 minutes.

apart from .... people had to wait for one and half minutes before they knew it was right to go nuts.

The ball in the net is no longer a goal to the fans in the stand!

Edited January 30, 2018 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

6 hours ago, LJS said:

Football got to be the most popular game in the world without floodlights & live telly. 

neither of which alter what a fan gets to see/experience of a game, or how the game pans out.

 

Quote

Has VAR reduced interest in cricket/rugby/tennis? If anything, I'd argue quite the opposite.

all three are (longish stop) stop/start games anyway.  That's the difference with football, it's not.

A mate of mine lived in California during the '94 WC and went to a few games. At every game he heard footie-unfamiliar yanks talking with amazement at the non-stop athleticism of the game and players.

THAT is the difference.

Quote

The point is you need to work out what is appropriate to be reviewed & what is not. 

so what you're saying is that 'perfect' isn't important after all...?

Either perfection should be pursued, or there's not really any need to do so and the reasons given above by some don't stand up in your opinion.

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by eFestivals

[LJS]

31 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

neither of which alter what a fan gets to see/experience of a game, or how the game pans out.

 

all three are (longish stop) stop/start games anyway.  That's the difference with football, it's not.

A mate of mine lived in California during the '94 WC and went to a few games. At every game he heard footie-unfamiliar yanks talking with amazement at the non-stop athleticism of the game and players.

THAT is the difference.

so what you're saying is that 'perfect' isn't important after all...?

As usual, Neil that's not what I'm saying at all. Perfect isn't achievable. That doesn't mean you don't try and make things better. Whether or by how much VAR makes things better is a matter of opinion.

 

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, LJS said:

As usual, Neil that's not what I'm saying at all. Perfect isn't achievable. That doesn't mean you don't try and make things better. Whether or by how much VAR makes things better is a matter of opinion.

In regard to the rules it undoubtedly does. I've no quibbles with that part.

But there's more that defines the game as we know it than merely the rules. It's also about how the game is played out, how it happens - and VAR changes that.

Would footie be as popular if it had been that different game for all of the last 100 years? I suspect it wouldn't. The enjoyment comes from a fast and furiously played game, complete with controversial decisions.

[Wooderson]

Interesting to see do Utd start up a women’s team. The shade from City and now Big Sexist Phil is amusing.

[TheGayTent]

1 hour ago, eFestivals said:

because simple logic says when there's less to be interested about, interest levels will fall.

And i'll say it again: it became the most popular game when refs often got it wrong, not when every decision was perfect.

I think you have the right answer from the wrong reasoning. 

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

I think you have the right answer from the wrong reasoning. 

go on, then....

[TheGayTent]

14 hours ago, eFestivals said:

It's not bullshit. 

If there's fewer decisions to be argued over, then there's less to say about the game, less reason for people to get passionate ... and ultimately less reason for people to have an interest in the game.

As i pointed out, it got to be the most popular game in the world without rule/ref perfection. Can you *really* be sure that interest levels will be maintained when there's less to be interested about?

Football didn't become popular because refs made shite decisions. Football wouldn't become unpopular if refs were perfect (or technology made them perfect). 

People forget that from the beginning of the last century through to the 50s attendances at football matches were much higher than they were from the 50s through to the 90s. Despite the fact that matches weren't televised with any regularity until the beginning of the 60s. Even then, there were very few games compared to what we are used to today.  

The only people that knew about poor referring decisions were the match day punters. National newspaper reports weren't given in any detail and the local reports didn't concern themselves with controversial decisions. 

In other words, football became hugely popular for reasons other than controversial decisions. 

[eFestivals]

8 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

Football didn't become popular because refs made shite decisions.

I didn't say it did. I said it became popular while refs were making shit decisions.

All the same I don't think it can be discounted as part of what makes the game popular, because it creates talking-points when there otherwise wouldn't be those talking points.

8 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

Football wouldn't become unpopular if refs were perfect (or technology made them perfect). 

I don't have a problem with perfect decisions, it's the effect on how the game happens to get that perfection I object to.

 

12 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

The only people that knew about poor referring decisions were the match day punters.

Who then had something to talk about beyond "we won" or "we lost" (or drew). Yeah, I know.

It's via the talking that it penetrated into culture so strongly.

14 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

In other words, football became hugely popular for reasons other than controversial decisions. 

How do you know? Those controversial decisions have been everyone's experience of the game, a full part of the experience. 

[TheGayTent]

14 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I didn't say it did. I said it became popular while refs were making shit decisions.

If you didn't think it had any effect then you needn't have mentioned it at all. 

Or mentioned birds can fly. That's true as well and has as much relevance. 

14 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

All the same I don't think it can be discounted as part of what makes the game popular, because it creates talking-points when there otherwise wouldn't be those talking points.

There have always been talking points. Years ago they were much more about the football and much less about the officials. Dramatically so.

14 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I don't have a problem with perfect decisions, it's the effect on how the game happens to get that perfection I object to.

As I alluded to earlier - this is the only bit we're in agreement on. Though for different reasons clearly.

14 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Who then had something to talk about beyond "we won" or "we lost" (or drew). Yeah, I know.

It's via the talking that it penetrated into culture so strongly.

There was already plenty to talk about and refereeing decisions didn't dominate conversation. 

Basically, there's much more chat now than there ever was. There's forums to fill, websites to produce articles for, 24 hour football channels to broadcast. 

14 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

How do you know? Those controversial decisions have been everyone's experience of the game, a full part of the experience. 

Because the world has moved on. If the ref gave a dodgy handball down the other end you didn't know, and it was virtually forgotten by the time you got back to the pub. 

Now that dodgy handball is still being shown on the tele, sent to you on a meme, linked to on a football discussion on a festival website. 

 

[zahidf]

ha

 

[ThomThomDrum]

23 hours ago, eFestivals said:

not true.

I think you will find that it is truer than you think. Football already is a very stop/start game with the ball going out of play a lot. 

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

all three are (longish stop) stop/start games anyway.  That's the difference with football, it's not.

I beg to differ.

How long is the ball in play on average per 90 minute game? The difference (compared to some other sports) is in football they dont stop the clock when the ball goes dead. Football would be a much much longer game if they did, but instead they waste the time and the time added on at the end of the halves never remotely accurately reflects the true amount of time the ball went dead.

Its cute you think football has a wondrous flow to it, but the reality is that that flow doesn't truly exist.

[eFestivals]

11 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

If you didn't think it had any effect then you needn't have mentioned it at all. 

Or mentioned birds can fly. That's true as well and has as much relevance. 

There's only one "most popular". Particular things helped create that.

 

11 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

There have always been talking points. Years ago they were much more about the football and much less about the officials. Dramatically so.

People saw less footie (no TV) so saw less bad decisions. But when there was a bad decision they saw, guess what?

[eFestivals]

10 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

I think you will find that it is truer than you think. Football already is a very stop/start game with the ball going out of play a lot. 

I had noticed.

But unlike rugby or cricket, it's also an-immediate-restart game, with no delay.

And if it's so important that (say) every offside is called correctly, it's equally important that every throw-in is - because if it's called wrong, the game plays out in a different way to how it would otherwise do.

 

10 minutes ago, ThomThomDrum said:

Its cute you think football has a wondrous flow to it, but the reality is that that flow doesn't truly exist.

It has a flow whether or not you think its flow is wonderous.

Adding in an extra review cannot do otherwise than slow the flow, no matter how wonderous a person might think that flow goes.

[fred quimby]

54 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

 

 

People saw less footie (no TV) so saw less bad decisions. But when there was a bad decision they saw, guess what?

That is quite a strange correlation you are making there

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, fred quimby said:

That is quite a strange correlation you are making there

Not really.

How much a person cares about a wrong decision tends to be very strongly linked to their team likes/dislikes - so back in the day, while people saw far-fewer wrong decisions they still saw about the same number as now of those they really cared about.