VAR and the Premier League

[strung out]

For what it's worth, I do make the distinction between a clumsy challenge and a deliberate foul. By the letter of the law it's still cheating, but even I don't think they're exactly the same thing.

By they letter of the law, an offence has been committed, which is punishable by a free kick or penalty. There is no rule that says players must not commit a foul.

 

[strung out]

Ok, so I guess we're going to have to define terms. What are you calling a foul? Because I would say each of these constitutes a foul:

Or are you going with, "it doesn't literally say 'these things are not allowed'", simply "if these offences happen, you are penalised"? Hence your weird Monopoly example?

Not as weird as your desire to call every single football player ever a cheat.

 

[Lord Camomile]

By they letter of the law, an offence has been committed, which is punishable by a free kick or penalty. There is no rule that says players must not commit a foul.

Cool, cool. Well by that same definition there is no rule that says players must not handle the ball, simulate injury or any of the other things you consider cheating.

Which, getting back to it: why do you consider those things cheating, but not fouls?

 

[Lord Camomile]

Not as weird as your desire to call every single football player ever a cheat.

If we've all cheated, what else would you call us?

 

[Badgers]

Keep this up lads

 

[Lord Camomile]

Keep this up lads

What else we gonna do on a Sunday morning?

Even catching up with MotD as we go at it

 

[strung out]

Cool, cool. Well by that same definition there is no rule that says players must not handle the ball, simulate injury or any of the other things you consider cheating.

Which, getting back to it: why do you consider those things cheating, but not fouls?

I don't consider handball to be cheating. It's an offence in the game which has an appropriate penalty if you get caught.

 

[Lord Camomile]

I don't consider handball to be cheating. It's an offence in the game which has an appropriate penalty if you get caught.

Ooooh, you rotter. I knew I shouldn't have included handball because you didn't expressly mention it

Still got faking an injury (simulation) to account for, though? Drug taking and bribing the ref probably aren't against the rules by your definition, but we'll see...

 

[butchersapron]

Fouls are good you freak

 

[planetgeli]

I honestly don't understand how people make that distinction. You're not allowed to do it, it's against the rules of the game. If you do it knowingly, you're cheating. If you do it accidentally... well, it's unfortunate, but it's still cheating.

Nope.

The definition of cheating is to act dishonestly in order to gain an advantage.

An honest attempt at a challenge might still be a foul, an accidental one. But it is not an act of cheating. Because there was no 'dishonesty to gain an advantage'.

 

[Lord Camomile]

Nope.

The definition of cheating is to act dishonestly in order to gain an advantage.

An honest attempt at a challenge might still be a foul, an accidental one. But it is not an act of cheating. Because there was no 'dishonesty to gain an advantage'.

Aye, fair enough. As I said earlier, I do make a distinction between an accidental and an intentional foul. I mean, I'd still argue most of us have also intentionally fouled someone in one game or another, but I would definitely still contend that "fouling isn't cheating" just ain't true.

Fouls are good you freak

Says you.

 

[strung out]

Ooooh, you rotter. I knew I shouldn't have included handball because you didn't expressly mention it

Still got faking an injury (simulation) to account for, though? Drug taking and bribing the ref probably aren't against the rules by your definition, but we'll see...

Pretty sure drug taking and bribery are against the rules. Faking an injury like that rugby player did, obviously scummy cheating. Diving or over exaggerating contact, meh, couldn't care less. If you get caught you pay the penalty.

 

[strung out]

Like Planetgeli said, the root of the issue is dishonesty. Maltin's bizarre claim that VAR would punish cheats who foul the skillful players we all love to watch was clearly bullshit that needed challenging.

Especially as some of the most dishonest players around are the skillful ones.

A good cynical foul is joyous, one your team gets away with even more so. Fuck VAR.

 

[1927]

In that sense? Yeah, we've all done it, knowingly and accidentally. Doesn't stop it being cheating

The word intent should never have been taken out of the game. If you foul someone because of a mistimed tackle I’d agree that isn’t cheating, but if you intend to take someone out that’s cheating all day long in my book

 

[planetgeli]

Funnily enough the person who first coined the phrase 'professional foul' was a man who committed one. Phil Thompson, League Cup final replay 1978 Liverpool v Forest.

And he didn't get away with it. He pulled someone back on the edge of the penalty area but referee Pat Partridge was so incensed at the cynicism of it that he awarded a penalty anyway. Forest scored the penalty and won 1-0. This game was their first major trophy of that period and we all know what that led on to.

 

[Lord Camomile]

A good cynical foul is joyous, one your team gets away with even more so. Fuck VAR.

Aye, just a hard disagree for me. I mean, you can claim a "cynical foul" is honest, but it's still trying to gain an advantage by unfair means in my book. If that doesn't fit your definition of cheating, fair enough.

Especially as some of the most dishonest players around are the skillful ones.

In what way?

Pretty sure drug taking and bribery are against the rules. Faking an injury like that rugby player did, obviously scummy cheating. Diving or over exaggerating contact, meh, couldn't care less. If you get caught you pay the penalty.

Again, fair enough, if you want to make the distinction between "the rules say you're not allowed" [citation needed ] and "the rules say you are penalised for doing this". Personally, they're as good as the same thing for me.

 

[The39thStep]

So if player X punches player Y out of the referees and assistant referees sight, would you expect VAR to intervene or not? If it does intervene, do you agree that VAR might reduce the number of “off the ball” incidents? Do you not agree that opposition players are more likely to target the better players on the opposition team by fair means or foul?

All totally abstract , your defence of VAR was that

I think the criticism of the introduction of VAR is misplaced and I still think its introduction is for the best, leading to fewer mistakes, making it a fairer game and giving an advantage to more skillful players.

and

Skillful players tend to get fouled more often. Many fouls of skillful players are made out of sight of the on field referee. The fact that players know they are more likely to be penalized for fouling someone as there is someone else watching on a video monitor should reduce the number of fouls. I’m sure those skillful at fouling find other ways to cheat but some of their ability is reduced.

.

First of all the most common reason that the most fouled players are the most fouled players are because they run with the ball . Have a look at the stats for most fouled. This means that they are in most cases in the referee's sight. The number of off the ball incidents on these players is minute not many. Secondly the most fouled player in the EPL this season, the first that has had VAR, has allegedly broken all time EPL records for being fouled so your theory that it reduces fouls doesn't stand up tbh. Finally a VAR review isnt used for every foul, ,its only used for fouls outside the box when there is potential violent conduct , its not even used for a yellow card unless its violent misconduct. It is used for
goal/no goal, penalty/no penalty, direct red card (not second yellow card/caution), mistaken identity (when the referee cautions or sends off the wrong player) . Even then theres been plenty of debate about VAR not picking up fouls that many think are violent conduct and VAR decisions on violent conduct that possibly aren't. Whatever the pros and cons of VAR are theres no evidence to say that it either protects skilful platers or reduces fouls on them. That's just wishful thinking.

 

[Badgers]

We have all had a drink ffs

 

[Lord Camomile]

the most fouled player in the EPL this season, the first that has had VAR, has allegedly broken all time EPL records for being fouled so your theory that it reduces fouls doesn't stand up tbh.

Well, yes, but that's arguably because players are still getting used to the rule. As players get used to the idea they can't get away with as much as they used to, it's reasonable to think they may stop trying to get away with it. I honestly don't know if VAR will 'protect' skilful players or not, but it's too early to tell if it will reduce fouls over time.

its only used for fouls outside the box when there is potential violent conduct.... It is used for penalty/no penalty

Not disputing, that just seems an odd contradiction. <edit: oh, wait, think I misunderstood. For offences outside the box, the only time it's used for fouls is violent conduct, whereas inside the box it is used for fouls. Gotcha>

We have all had a drink ffs

I'm only on my first cuppa! You wait until I've got two in me

 

[The39thStep]

Well, yes, but that's arguably because players are still getting used to the rule. As players get used to the idea they can't get away with as much as they used to, it's reasonable to think they may stop trying to get away with it. I honestly don't know if VAR will 'protect' skilful players or not, but it's too early to tell if it will reduce fouls over time.
Not disputing, that just seems an odd contradiction. <edit: oh, wait, think I misunderstood. For offences outside the box, the only time it's used for fouls is violent conduct, whereas inside the box it is used for fouls. Gotcha>
I'm only on my first cuppa! You wait until I've got two in me

getting used to which rules? Aside from handball what rule changes should EPL players be getting used to?

 

[Lord Camomile]

getting used to which rules? Aside from handball what rule changes should EPL players be getting used to?

Aye, sorry, should have said the existence of VAR, not the rule.

 

[two sheds]

I see on the other thread that Trump's known as Pele by the caddies because he's been seen to kick his golfball around so much.

Fouling rather than cheating though.

 

[The39thStep]

Aye, sorry, should have said the existence of VAR, not the rule.

Its been going since August !

 

[Lord Camomile]

Its been going since August !

And players have been playing the way they do for decades.

 

[two sheds]

Sorry to keep dredging it up, but does anybody who follows rugby object to how VAR's done there? I can't remember seeing anyone saying it should be done away with there. The game - like football - is so fast that a ref is never going to see everything, even with linesmen.

Yep VAR's crap but only because FIFA and the like are so arrogant that they've not even looked at how rugby does it.

 

[Lord Camomile]

Aye, they're much better at it. I think some would argue that stoppages would still interrupt the 'flow' of football more, though.

I also prefer their advantage rule. I think if football were to adopt it you'd see a lot less diving, because players would know that a play would be brought back. It's not 'advantage' if you manage to get away a shot despite being fouled - you're still taking the shot at a disadvantage.

 

[two sheds]

And arguing with the ref and you're instantly back 10 yards. Much more sensible rules all round.

 

[Maltin]

All totally abstract , your defence of VAR was that and .

First of all the most common reason that the most fouled players are the most fouled players are because they run with the ball . Have a look at the stats for most fouled. This means that they are in most cases in the referee's sight. The number of off the ball incidents on these players is minute not many. Secondly the most fouled player in the EPL this season, the first that has had VAR, has allegedly broken all time EPL records for being fouled so your theory that it reduces fouls doesn't stand up

ok, so you chose not to directly answer my questions. A couple more. Who is this most fouled player? Do you not think that those who run with the ball are likely to be the most skillful?

 

[The39thStep]

ok, so you chose not to directly answer my questions. A couple more. Who is this most fouled player? Do you not think that those who run with the ball are likely to be the most skillful?

I think I made a substantial statement that puts an alternative to your view that VAT increases protection for skillful players. Yes of course players who run with the ball are skillful, the previous four years always saw players like Hazard and Saha being the most fouled players .However very few of these fouls would have been off the ball and not in sight of the officials . To aid your research on the matter Grealish has been the most fouled player this season, followed by Zaha.

 

[strung out]

And arguing with the ref and you're instantly back 10 yards. Much more sensible rules all round.

And then drinking each other's piss in the bar afterwards, ra ra ra