[Archived] Blackburn Roverseas previews Bristol Rovers (H) 25.11.17

[Exiled in Toronto]

1 hour ago, Oldgregg86 said:

Would you say the same if it was the other way around

I’d think it somewhat pernickety, but then the offside law is these days.

Under the old offside law, it was a no doubter - miles offside. When they first changed it, he was still offside, clearly seeking to gain an advantage by wandering into the six-yard box. It’s only these endless changes that made it even debatable. If he’s have stood still with his hands up, not offside. But he didn’t, he reacted and got involved. The fact he changed his mind doesn’t change that (I don’t think. Arbitro??)

[JPTSwindon]

A nervous, freezing cold (clubshop benefitted from me purchasing a training top and gloves to combat the cold!) but entertaining win.  Graham & Samual dug us out of what looked like a miserable day at the office.

My first home match for a while.

The strength of our squad will see us up, but we are a long way off where we need to be for the Championship.

But a wins a win, 3 points more on the board. Must do better.

[arbitro]

7 hours ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

I’d think it somewhat pernickety, but then the offside law is these days.

Under the old offside law, it was a no doubter - miles offside. When they first changed it, he was still offside, clearly seeking to gain an advantage by wandering into the six-yard box. It’s only these endless changes that made it even debatable. If he’s have stood still with his hands up, not offside. But he didn’t, he reacted and got involved. The fact he changed his mind doesn’t change that (I don’t think. Arbitro??)

One law change to the wording was the removal of 'seeking' John. The player has to pretty much touch the ball (or an opponent) to be deemed active. And the instruction is that assistants should give any benefit of doubt to the attacking team because the belief is the public want goals. However the benefit of doubt is given to defenders on penalty shouts. I used to argue against this 'logic' with my peers.

[JAL]

8 hours ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

I’d think it somewhat pernickety, but then the offside law is these days.

Under the old offside law, it was a no doubter - miles offside. When they first changed it, he was still offside, clearly seeking to gain an advantage by wandering into the six-yard box. It’s only these endless changes that made it even debatable. If he’s have stood still with his hands up, not offside. But he didn’t, he reacted and got involved. The fact he changed his mind doesn’t change that (I don’t think. Arbitro??)

 

44 minutes ago, arbitro said:

One law change to the wording was the removal of 'seeking' John. The player has to pretty much touch the ball (or an opponent) to be deemed active. And the instruction is that assistants should give any benefit of doubt to the attacking team because the belief is the public want goals. However the benefit of doubt is given to defenders on penalty shouts. I used to argue against this 'logic' with my peers.

Does Harrison make the slightest of contacts with the ball hard to tell from the video. When the goal was disallowed how did Harrison react.

[RV Blue]

I don't think Harrison was interfering with play. If he wasn't there, the goal still would have been scored.

[arbitro]

1 hour ago, JAL said:

 

Does Harrison make the slightest of contacts with the ball hard to tell from the video. When the goal was disallowed how did Harrison react.

Pretty much everybody thought the goal would stand as Rovers were ready to kick off whilst the Bristol players had all but finished their celebrations. I can only assume the assistant asked the referee who last played the ball or interfered with an opponent as he wasn't sure. As you should know if Harrison even makes a play at the ball he is active. After a face to face conversation the assistant flagged and the referee gave the offside. Whether they were right or not it looked untidy and messy and the delegates report should reflect that.

[Bigdoggsteel]

About time we got some luck! 

[Exiled in Toronto]

6 hours ago, arbitro said:

One law change to the wording was the removal of 'seeking' John. The player has to pretty much touch the ball (or an opponent) to be deemed active. And the instruction is that assistants should give any benefit of doubt to the attacking team because the belief is the public want goals. However the benefit of doubt is given to defenders on penalty shouts. I used to argue against this 'logic' with my peers.

Thanks Tony. So many grey areas now. What if he had tried to shoot and done an air shot? Or dummied to shoot? Might as well give benefit of doubt on forwards pushing, handballs etc, that'll get more goals.

I've thought for a while now they are going about this the wrong way. The current interpretations are too subjective and pretty much impossible to play by at junior / kid levels. My idea would be to forget about all this active nonsense and only deem the forward offside if it is their forward motion that puts them offside. A defender's forward motion should not result in an offside. So many great moves are spoiled by the last defender stepping up just before the final pass. To me that's no different to the professional foul and deliberate handball: defenders deliberately causing a stoppage in the game that gives them an advantage.

Anyway, we got away with one because the officials couldn't have seen the detail we were talking about. Personally I thought we were just as lucky with the header against the bar - even I would probably have put that in!

[Bigdoggsteel]

The highlights on the Sky sports website are a disgrace. How does a disallowed goal not count as a highlight. Always the same with them 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

31 minutes ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

Thanks Tony. So many grey areas now. What if he had tried to shoot and done an air shot? Or dummied to shoot? Might as well give benefit of doubt on forwards pushing, handballs etc, that'll get more goals.

I've thought for a while now they are going about this the wrong way. The current interpretations are too subjective and pretty much impossible to play by at junior / kid levels. My idea would be to forget about all this active nonsense and only deem the forward offside if it is their forward motion that puts them offside. A defender's forward motion should not result in an offside. So many great moves are spoiled by the last defender stepping up just before the final pass. To me that's no different to the professional foul and deliberate handball: defenders deliberately causing a stoppage in the game that gives them an advantage.

Anyway, we got away with one because the officials couldn't have seen the detail we were talking about. Personally I thought we were just as lucky with the header against the bar - even I would probably have put that in!

I'd say any forward in the six yard box is in a position to interfere with play and therefore seeking to gain an advantage. 

This was supposedly brought in to prevent those 30 yard shots into the top corner being ruled out because an attacker was stood a yard offside out by the corner flag. How many of those do you see in a season compared with the sorts of shambles we had on Saturday ?

[Oldgregg86]

2 hours ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

Thanks Tony. So many grey areas now. What if he had tried to shoot and done an air shot? Or dummied to shoot? Might as well give benefit of doubt on forwards pushing, handballs etc, that'll get more goals.

I've thought for a while now they are going about this the wrong way. The current interpretations are too subjective and pretty much impossible to play by at junior / kid levels. My idea would be to forget about all this active nonsense and only deem the forward offside if it is their forward motion that puts them offside. A defender's forward motion should not result in an offside. So many great moves are spoiled by the last defender stepping up just before the final pass. To me that's no different to the professional foul and deliberate handball: defenders deliberately causing a stoppage in the game that gives them an advantage.

Anyway, we got away with one because the officials couldn't have seen the detail we were talking about. Personally I thought we were just as lucky with the header against the bar - even I would probably have put that in!

Leading the line and the art of defending is just as important and impressive as attacking play. 

[JAL]

6 hours ago, arbitro said:

Pretty much everybody thought the goal would stand as Rovers were ready to kick off whilst the Bristol players had all but finished their celebrations. I can only assume the assistant asked the referee who last played the ball or interfered with an opponent as he wasn't sure. As you should know if Harrison even makes a play at the ball he is active. After a face to face conversation the assistant flagged and the referee gave the offside. Whether they were right or not it looked untidy and messy and the delegates report should reflect that.

Would have thought microphones are the way forward for the referee and his assistants in future. It's a harsh call if Harrison has been deemed to be interfering with play. Interesting how different viewing angles can throw up differing outcomes.

If you'd have been the video referee Tony what decision would you have given.

[arbitro]

1 hour ago, JAL said:

Would have thought microphones are the way forward for the referee and his assistants in future. It's a harsh call if Harrison has been deemed to be interfering with play. Interesting how different viewing angles can throw up differing outcomes.

If you'd have been the video referee Tony what decision would you have given.

It's difficult to be certain with just the one angle John but on the evidence from that one camera I would have gone goal. When VAR comes in there will be several camera angles to look at but even then it won't be an exact science.

[Exiled in Toronto]

12 minutes ago, arbitro said:

It's difficult to be certain with just the one angle John but on the evidence from that one camera I would have gone goal. When VAR comes in there will be several camera angles to look at but even then it won't be an exact science.

Toronto FC are in the semi final of the MLS playoffs who are using video, but where the video ref looks for “clear and obvious mistakes” not at the behest of the on-field ref. All comes over as a bit Big Brother-ish. 

[RV Blue]

Attempting to interfere with play is different to actually interfering with play.

[dingles staying down 4ever]

Just now, RV Blue said:

Attempting to interfere with play is different to actually interfering with play.

As Brian Clough once said, "If you weren't interfering with play, you shouldn't be on a football pitch"

[arbitro]

18 minutes ago, Exiled in Toronto said:

Toronto FC are in the semi final of the MLS playoffs who are using video, but where the video ref looks for “clear and obvious mistakes” not at the behest of the on-field ref. All comes over as a bit Big Brother-ish. 

As I understand it John the EPL version will be the same. The VAR will see replays of any key incidents that may be missed or wrong and advise the referee who will stop the game and review said incidents from pitch side. The trials in last summer's Confederations Cup were disastrous. I think a real downside to it is if the are several reviews during the game the flow will be seriously disrupted and some of that lost time won't be made up.

[perthblue02]

1 hour ago, arbitro said:

It's difficult to be certain with just the one angle John but on the evidence from that one camera I would have gone goal. When VAR comes in there will be several camera angles to look at but even then it won't be an exact science.

They are currently trialing VAR in the A league, its not going well

[arbitro]

58 minutes ago, perthblue02 said:

They are currently trialing VAR in the A league, its not going well

Typically the authorities believe it will end all controversy and the contentious decisions will be right. They live in cloud cuckoo land.

[bazza]

On 26/11/2017 at 12:16, Dreams of 1995 said:

 

I wouldn't say the balls forward were "punts". Downing aimed for DG and found him - it's one of Downing's best qualities. Rather than the aimless punts we are accustomed too from Hanley and Duffy you actually feel like Mulgrew and Downing have an idea where they want the ball to land.

 

Precisely. They are our two best central defenders. Both always try and find a team mate with a pass be it short or long. I love watching the two of them play together.

On 26/11/2017 at 19:01, Skiptonrover said:

Have a wild guess, maybe trainspotters, don't think the GWR 0-6-0pt was passing through.

 

On 26/11/2017 at 19:02, MCMC1875 said:

??

A Great Western Railway 0-6-0 (wheel arrangement, no front bogey wheels, six driving wheels{3 on each side] and no rear bogey wheels) panier tank steam railway engine.  

 

2 hours ago, arbitro said:

As I understand it John the EPL version will be the same. The VAR will see replays of any key incidents that may be missed or wrong and advise the referee who will stop the game and review said incidents from pitch side. The trials in last summer's Confederations Cup were disastrous. I think a real downside to it is if the are several reviews during the game the flow will be seriously disrupted and some of that lost time won't be made up.

Why is every suggestion to improve anything in football (or in this country about anything, for that matter) always made so complicated.

All it needs is a 5th official to be sitting with a screen in front to replay anything he/she wishes and to be in radio contact with the ref on the field. Ref (Jim) to do his job as per normal and 5th official (Bob) watching on his screen.

E.g.  Jim. "Was there contact there, Bob?" Or Bob "That's a penalty, Jim". As always referee's decision to be final. So, so SIMPLE.

 

[JAL]

21 hours ago, arbitro said:

It's difficult to be certain with just the one angle John but on the evidence from that one camera I would have gone goal. When VAR comes in there will be several camera angles to look at but even then it won't be an exact science.

 

21 hours ago, arbitro said:

It's difficult to be certain with just the one angle John but on the evidence from that one camera I would have gone goal. When VAR comes in there will be several camera angles to look at but even then it won't be an exact science.

The rugby TMO is too slow for me for football OK for rugby, the technology is there for the referee to have an all in one piece with drop eye lense plus mic. that should allow the referee to remain independent. 

Though how far into the future do you think the human element will be removed from refereeing the game of professional football.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

1 hour ago, JAL said:

 

The rugby TMO is too slow for me for football OK for rugby, the technology is there for the referee to have an all in one piece with drop eye lense plus mic. that should allow the referee to remain independent. 

Though how far into the future do you think the human element will be removed from refereeing the game of professional football.

The sooner we have robot refs the better. " Who's that ba---rd in the aluminium " !

[perthblue02]

On 11/28/2017 at 05:09, arbitro said:

Typically the authorities believe it will end all controversy and the contentious decisions will be right. They live in cloud cuckoo land.

Regarding the A League to stop all the negativity and uproar towards the VAR they Today the FFA / A League announced a diversionary tactic , by announcing a weekend of games to take place in December will be known as the Star Wars round sponsored by Disney(this is not a joke). Now it is officially a  Mickey mouse league

https://www.a-league.com.au/news/stars-wars-round-hyundai-a-league

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

The sooner we have robot refs the better. " Who's that ba---rd in the aluminium " !

I can see the abuse now...

"BLOODY TIN POT REFEREE!!!"

"YOU'RE BLOODY CORRUPT!"

"YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE COMPUTING!"