Premier League Thread 2019/20

[CosbehFox]

Problems at Watford; that’s 3 wins in 12 or 2 wins in 11 - the wins being Fulham, Huddersfield and Leicester 

 

Their owners are cited as a model but it’s equally used by players and managers as a platform with ambition hardly bursting 

[inckley fox]

1 minute ago, Fktf said:

I was with you until the second paragraph. Making var the superior ref makes sense if it is ever going to work in terms of correcting mistakes made by a few people watching the action once in real time. This is the case for rugby and cricket, two sports where video replays work well in my opinion. If there's a dubious try in rugby they immediately signal for video assistance, and in cricket they give a 'soft' signal of out to indicate it is subject to video review. But then you advocate for a situation where the lino may have missed an offside call but the goal stands if they don't ask for a review. This is precisely the situation in which we need var to be superior and overrule the on field decision, no? 

No, not necessarily.

 

VAR's remit would be purely cards and penalties unless the referee asked it for help. For instance in checking a goal where they're worried about an off-side, infringement, handball etc. In those cases and only those cases would VAR be the superior ref. That would mean the bulk of goals could still be celebrated without fear of a review 60 seconds later.

 

When the ref points to the centre circle, it's a goal and that's final. When he makes the VAR signal, we know VAR will make the decision for him because he's not sure.

 

For the vast majority of goals, a ref won't feel the need to consult VAR. Most goals are clear-cut. When that's the case, you give the goal and everyone can enjoy their moment. Very, very occasionally something will be missed, but unless we hand over full control for 90 minutes to VAR, some things are always bound to be missed.

 

If we use VAR as we do now, we'll pick up the hand in today's game, but we won't do anything about the handball that leads to a corner that leads to a goal. So we're already drawing a line in which crucial moments VAR intervenes in, and which it doesn't. I'm just suggesting that we push that line back a touch in order not to do the game unnecessary harm.

 

If we slightly reduce the scope of VAR, it will still see a huge improvement in the officiating, with only a minimal impact on the flow of the game, or the spectacle. If we leave things as they are, I think it's going to fundamentally damage a game of football's single most euphoric moment. And I don't think we need to do that.

[Facecloth]

3 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Problems at Watford; that’s 3 wins in 12 or 2 wins in 11 - the wins being Fulham, Huddersfield and Leicester 

 

Their owners are cited as a model but it’s equally used by players and managers as a platform with ambition hardly bursting 

Team needs a freshen up. Still going with Deeney as their main striker, still have the same defenders they've had for years, Holebas, Cathcart etc. Not saying there aren't good players but they obviously can be improved on. No point buying players for the hell of it, but also no point getting stale either. Could definitely do with fresh face up top.

[Guest Fktf]

3 minutes ago, inckley fox said:

No, not necessarily.

 

VAR's remit would be purely cards and penalties unless the referee asked it for help. For instance in checking a goal where they're worried about an off-side, infringement, handball etc. In those cases and only those cases would VAR be the superior ref. That would mean the bulk of goals could still be celebrated without fear of a review 60 seconds later.

 

When the ref points to the centre circle, it's a goal and that's final. When he makes the VAR signal, we know VAR will make the decision for him because he's not sure.

 

For the vast majority of goals, a ref won't feel the need to consult VAR. Most goals are clear-cut. When that's the case, you give the goal and everyone can enjoy their moment. Very, very occasionally something will be missed, but unless we hand over full control for 90 minutes to VAR, some things are always bound to be missed.

 

If we use VAR as we do now, we'll pick up the hand in today's game, but we won't do anything about the handball that leads to a corner that leads to a goal. So we're already drawing a line in which crucial moments VAR intervenes in, and which it doesn't. I'm just suggesting that we push that line back a touch in order not to do the game unnecessary harm.

 

If we slightly reduce the scope of VAR, it will still see a huge improvement in the officiating, with only a minimal impact on the flow of the game, or the spectacle. If we leave things as they are, I think it's going to fundamentally damage a game of football's single most euphoric moment. And I don't think we need to do that.

In this situation, the ref on field is the superior ref. Henry's handball against Ireland, Maradona's handball against England, wouldn't be ruled out because the ref didn't see it and he was sure the goal was legitimate so signalled a goal. These clear and obvious errors are what var is all about for me, not the being a few mm offside. Not allowing var to overrule the ref because he's already made a decision defeats the idea in my opinion. 

[turtmcfly]

2 hours ago, Aus Fox said:

Sad but true

'Everyone talking about VAR instead of footlball'. Says the man who won't shut up about VAR

[The Bear]

Nothing wrong with VAR, it's the shitty handball rule that's at fault. They've tried to stop handballs resulting in goals but they've royally ****ed up the wording. 

 

Chalk goals off that go directly in off the arm/hand, that's fair enough and everyone would agree, but if the ball brushes an arm on it's way through to the goalscorer, then that's just tough luck. Not one sane person wants that chalking off. 

[inckley fox]

10 minutes ago, Fktf said:

In this situation, the ref on field is the superior ref. Henry's handball against Ireland, Maradona's handball against England, wouldn't be ruled out because the ref didn't see it and he was sure the goal was legitimate so signalled a goal. These clear and obvious errors are what var is all about for me, not the being a few mm offside. Not allowing var to overrule the ref because he's already made a decision defeats the idea in my opinion. 

Well, if the referee has a doubt he'll call on VAR, and when VAR is called on, the VAR takes precedence. So when ten players throw their hands up in the air in disbelief before he's even had chance to indicate the goal, he'll probably have his doubts and call on VAR. That certainly would have been the case with the Maradona and Henry handballs, whether we want to acknowledge that players' reactions influence refs or not. They do, and they will. And 99% of injustices in goal decisions are knife-edge decisions, not apparently clear-cut, flawless goals where the ref doesn't have an inkling that anything's amiss until after the net bulges.

 

Basically it's a straight choice. Do we want football to be a little more accurate (than, for instance, how accurate it would be if refs called a goal review when they felt the need), and damage the single most enjoyable moment that any fan or player can possibly experience in what is, after all, a sport and a form of entertainment? Or do we want to accept that there are always going to be errors, regardless of how much we use VAR, so maybe we should limit its use to the aspects of the game where it won't adversely impact on the experience?

 

I'd go for the latter, personally. Like I said, the line has to be drawn somewhere. We can't achieve perfection. So I think we should use technology where it achieves a good balance between accuracy and entertainment value, not where it doesn't.

[inckley fox]

Just now, The Bear said:

Nothing wrong with VAR, it's the shitty handball rule that's at fault. They've tried to stop handballs resulting in goals but they've royally ****ed up the wording. 

 

Chalk goals off that go directly in off the arm/hand, that's fair enough and everyone would agree, but if the ball brushes an arm on it's way through to the goalscorer, then that's just tough luck. Not one sane person wants that chalking off. 

I agree about the handball rule. I think it's laughable. For my part, I'm not sure that we're quite using VAR in the right way, but VAR will still get a lot of undeserved bad press due to this.

[ARTY_FOX]

3 hours ago, the fox said:

Less than average tbh. In FPL In have 32 points at the moment.

 

 

Stipe has to finish him in the first 2 rounds because DC is very tough. And also, Yoel is also fighting 😁

I think I’m sitting on 89 after today, half my team is still to play this weekend though. 

 

The way DC has been speaking since he won that fight, he needs bringing back down to earth. Romero fight is gonna be amazing! 

[Phube]

1 hour ago, Ian Nacho said:

That rule 12 is an utter joke. How on earth can the handball rule be different for an attacker vs a defender? If that hits a Spurs players arm they don't give a penalty. 

 

I assume the reason is you’d get every skilled player just flicking balls at defenders arms whilst in the box to get penalties.

[StriderHiryu]

52 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

Problems at Watford; that’s 3 wins in 12 or 2 wins in 11 - the wins being Fulham, Huddersfield and Leicester 

 

Their owners are cited as a model but it’s equally used by players and managers as a platform with ambition hardly bursting 

They remind me of us after we lost to Wycome in the FA Cup, even though they actually did reach the final. That seemed to be Watford's one shot of glory for a long time and now it's over, and it may be hard to motivate a team that has one of the oldest average ages in the league. But the Pozzo's being the Pozzo's if they continue to slide they will just replace the manager, and I think there is just about enough quality in their squad to see them to safety.

 

So far the only team that really looks doomed are Newcastle. They started with 4 losses last season and turned it around, but they had Rafa in charge and with Rondon and Perez in the team, seemed like they could score goals. This time around, I don't think Bruce is savvy enough to keep them up. Sheffield United I imagine will also go down, but I think they will be similar to Cardiff last year where they make a really good go of it and only go down near the end of the season. Who the last team is I'm not so sure of.

[ithuriel]

Newcastle 

Christ, how depressing for the poor sods, Ashley with Bruce.

[ithuriel]

10 hours ago, BlueSi13 said:

Here's an idea for VAR.  Can't be used to disallow goals.

I think it should only be used if the ref calls for it or dangerous play takes place.

[st albans fox]

8 hours ago, Phube said:

 

I assume the reason is you’d get every skilled player just flicking balls at defenders arms whilst in the box to get penalties.

Something which apparently lineker is in favour of ......... strange .........

[st albans fox]

9 hours ago, The Bear said:

Nothing wrong with VAR, it's the shitty handball rule that's at fault. They've tried to stop handballs resulting in goals but they've royally ****ed up the wording. 

 

Chalk goals off that go directly in off the arm/hand, that's fair enough and everyone would agree, but if the ball brushes an arm on it's way through to the goalscorer, then that's just tough luck. Not one sane person wants that chalking off. 

What about the clearance in the box that strikes the attackers arm (unintentionally) and falls for another player to score ...... we had similar one last season v soton in the league cup. Can’t recall if it was VAR or the ref who saw it but they decided it was real handball as obvs the new law hadn’t come in. 

[davieG]

Quote

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49383527

 

Sean Dyche: Rules allow players to 'cheat at least once a game'

Defeat on Saturday was Dyche's ninth straight Premier League defeat against Arsenal
Burnley manager Sean Dyche says players "can cheat at least once a game" as he criticised the Premier League's rules on simulation after defeat at Arsenal.

Dyche, a long-standing advocate of harsher punishments for diving, believes the threat of a yellow card does not offer enough of a deterrent.

On the changes he would like to see, Dyche said: "Simple. Ban them. It would be out of football within a month.

"It's not about Arsenal. It's about the greater good of the game."

Speaking after the 2-1 defeat, Dyche - who did not single out any Arsenal player - said he attended a recent Premier League meeting where, regarding simulation, he was told "the worst that can happen is a yellow card".

He added: "Have you ever thought about that? I don't know any sport where they tell you that you can cheat once a game. I've never seen that in sport before.

"The game is in a really poor state with players literally falling on the floor. If you're a manager, why would you want to lose your best players? It's got to the level where it's every week now."

In 2015 Dyche claimed one prominent manager told him to "move with the times" when it came to diving in the modern game, while in 2016 the Clarets boss called for retrospective bans which would eradicate diving from football "in six months".

Left frustrated, a year later he claimed "no-one cares" about trying to eradicate diving from English football - and last season added "no-one wants to deal with it".

On Saturday he said: "I'm the only one who ever talks about it. I find that really weird.

"Tony Adams, when he was captain here (at Arsenal). Can you imagine? Do you think he would have accepted it? Do you think he would have accepted it if it was his own players, let alone the opposition? I doubt it."

 

I agree with him but his holier than thou attitude stinks. 

 

Find a mirror Dyche before you start complaining.

[ealingfox]

Our 500th Premier League game today according to SSN.

[Guest]

17 hours ago, the fox said:

Got Bernardo Silva off my fantasy team for Mahrez and Pep benches Mahrez for Bernardo. Wow! Thanks, Pep.

I only watched the second half but Mahrez was embarrassing. Three times in the vital last 10 minutes he got the ball, ran with it, lost it (to 1 defender) and didn't get it back. Manc fans were not happy down that wing. Thought he did okay in pre-season but he has a fragile mental composition, I don't think he'll be able to handle the fans turning on him.

 

 

14 hours ago, Corky said:

VAR is here because people can't accept honest errors. 

Nor dishonest ones that have a bias in favour of the big clubs.

[Facecloth]

17 hours ago, the fox said:

Got Bernardo Silva off my fantasy team for Mahrez and Pep benches Mahrez for Bernardo. Wow! Thanks, Pep.

Man City are going to be tough to use this season in the fantasy teams. Defense will be ok, because the same players will play most weeks, but further forward its anyones guess who'll start week by week. Pep is going to be chopping and changing as he has endless choices.

[Corky]

50 minutes ago, davieG said:

I agree with him but his holier than thou attitude stinks. 

 

Find a mirror Dyche before you start complaining.

Like his players collapsing with cramp every time they are winning/ drawing but magically avoiding cramp when they are losing and chasing a goal?

[ian_marshall]

I think VAR is a good addition to the game and from what we've seen so far it's very rare that it fails to lead to a correct decision. 

 

I appreciate my thoughts go somewhat against the grain but I don't actually see the issue with the new hand ball rule.

 

Most people's opinions seem to be be based on the fact that there was no intent from the offender which I fully accept in both cases concerning the Wolves goal last week and also Man City's.

 

However, the issue for me with both goals and hence why I feel VAR along with the new rules have led to the correct decisions being made is that in both cases the intervention whilst unintentional and very slight does impact on the flight of the ball. In both instances, had contact not been made with an arm regardless of intent, then the natural travel of direction of the ball would not have led to a goalscoring opportunity so in my opinion the use of VAR is correct in these instances. It's harsh and I get that, but without striking Boly's arm last week that ball doesn't drop at the feet of Dendonker, and likewise yesterday if the ball doesn't hit Laporte's arm it doesn't find it's way to Jesus. 

 

Where I think it could fail under the new rule is where there is no change of direction of the ball following a strike against an arm which ultimately leads to a goal. In this instance I think the rules need a slight tweak but nothing major is needed.

[Shane]

Everton 9 clean sheets in their last 12

[The Bear]

3 hours ago, st albans fox said:

What about the clearance in the box that strikes the attackers arm (unintentionally) and falls for another player to score ...... we had similar one last season v soton in the league cup. Can’t recall if it was VAR or the ref who saw it but they decided it was real handball as obvs the new law hadn’t come in. 

I'm that situation it's just tough luck. Clear the ball better. 

[Matt]

15 hours ago, the fox said:

Seems like an unpopular opinion but I like VAR. But I want the rule to change and to put a restriction on it of 3 challenges per game for both teams  (as an option where the manager can use it review a previous action).

 

A team isn't allowed to use VAR for more than 3 times which will make it another tactical tool to use (I imagine many would use their challenges to give their team a break,  take a breather and regroup). 

 

 

I've been saying this for years.

[UniFox21]

Sky need to realise being a good player doesn't make them a good pundit. 

 

Ashley Cole sounds fairly dull and Jamie Redknapp is a dull bugger