Aston Villa Vs Arsenal | Saturday December 9 1730

[KSE Comedy Club]

One thing that completely baffles me is that if a ball hits an attacker on the hand/arm, its handball and if htey score the goal is disallowed.

If the ball hits the same attacker but their teammate scores, it’s not handball & goal stands.

If the ball hits the defender then no handball either and they can clear it etc.

Same situation results in 3 completely different decisions. How?

Take the one on Saturday, it clearly hits cash on the arm (i dont think thats a penalty) but if the touch by Havetez is enough to deem it handball and disallow the goal then surely the touch by Cash on his arm is a penalty

Good point, but it's hard to be certain.

First, you have to try and decipher the rules of the game - which change every game, every week, depending on who the ref is, who the VAR team is and who is playing.
Second, you have to take into account the corruption and bias that seems to happen blatantly, with the full backing of the FA, with officials who are completely unaccountable for anything & answerable to no one.
Third, I think it might also have something to do with "not being able to tell how much pressure was applied" to the handball........ maybe, who fucking knows these days!

[Letters]

I just fucking told you what to check out? You want me to place the bet for you too? And pay for it?

No, I want you to test your hypothesis that you can foretell results because it's all rigged.
I don't believe that, but if you were able to use the odds you mentioned to post results ahead of time accurately then I'd be convinced.

[Letters]

Whereas VAR mistakes are fully intended.

If that were true then they wouldn't release the audio and open themselves up to scrutiny.
VAR is clearly not working (inb4 you reply "it's working exactly as intended"). I've been an apologist for it because it feels like the right thing to do, but it's made the game worse.

The issue with your thesis is VAR doesn't actually have as much sway over results as you seem to think, nor do officials.
There are too many fine lines and other factors - Ødegaard should have scored at least 1, maybe 2 on Saturday. Had he done then we'd have got a result despite the VAR calls. The officials can't control stuff like that.

Spot bets are easier to control - wasn't there some thing some years back where there was some player in collusion around the timing of the first throw in, he agreed to hoof it out of play straight from kick off or something. Stuff like this can be controlled. The result of a game - there's just too many fine lines. Our win at Luton is a good example. How the fuck do you orchestrate that?

But hey, as I said if you start accurately posting results ahead of time based on your reading of betting odds then you'll convince me.

[Letters]

One thing that completely baffles me is that if a ball hits an attacker on the hand/arm, its handball and if htey score the goal is disallowed.

If the ball hits the same attacker but their teammate scores, it’s not handball & goal stands.

If the ball hits the defender then no handball either and they can clear it etc.

Same situation results in 3 completely different decisions. How?

Take the one on Saturday, it clearly hits cash on the arm (i dont think thats a penalty) but if the touch by Havetez is enough to deem it handball and disallow the goal then surely the touch by Cash on his arm is a penalty

The offside rule is utterly nonsensical these days. The main thing lacking is common sense.

[Niall_Quinn]

One thing that completely baffles me is that if a ball hits an attacker on the hand/arm, its handball and if htey score the goal is disallowed.

If the ball hits the same attacker but their teammate scores, it’s not handball & goal stands.

If the ball hits the defender then no handball either and they can clear it etc.

Same situation results in 3 completely different decisions. How?

Take the one on Saturday, it clearly hits cash on the arm (i dont think thats a penalty) but if the touch by Havetez is enough to deem it handball and disallow the goal then surely the touch by Cash on his arm is a penalty

The question is, why would they make the rules so vague at all? It gives them scope to be as incompetent as they like, but it allows introduces scope to cheat. The rule used to be hand to ball, and not ball to hand. Can't see what was wrong with that or why it needed to be changed. Well, not officially, at least. And now this orange card bullshit is on the way. More and more of these rule changes open up more scope for the officials to decide the result rather than the players. Are these officials simply egomaniacs? And even if they are, why are FIFA and UEFA pandering to them? When you consider FIFA and UEFA are tow of the most corrupt entities on the planet, and (being generous) you pile the egomaniac officials on top - it's not a good recipie. Nothing good can come of it and thoughts of nefarious intent aren't unrealistic at all.

How have so many donkeys ended up controlling literally everything?

[Niall_Quinn]

If that were true then they wouldn't release the audio and open themselves up to scrutiny.
VAR is clearly not working (inb4 you reply "it's working exactly as intended"). I've been an apologist for it because it feels like the right thing to do, but it's made the game worse.

The issue with your thesis is VAR doesn't actually have as much sway over results as you seem to think, nor do officials.
There are too many fine lines and other factors - Ødegaard should have scored at least 1, maybe 2 on Saturday. Had he done then we'd have got a result despite the VAR calls. The officials can't control stuff like that.

Spot bets are easier to control - wasn't there some thing some years back where there was some player in collusion around the timing of the first throw in, he agreed to hoof it out of play straight from kick off or something. Stuff like this can be controlled. The result of a game - there's just too many fine lines. Our win at Luton is a good example. How the fuck do you orchestrate that?

But hey, as I said if you start accurately posting results ahead of time based on your reading of betting odds then you'll convince me.

What are you on about? So what if they release the audio? All it tells you is they are either blind or corrupt. You can see for yourself a video of a defender shoving the attacking player in the box, more than enough of a foul in comparison to hundreds of others that have been given. And yet, in the official video or audio analysis the ruling is inconclusive - despite it being conclusive beyond doubt. Just because they say something doesn't make it so.

[Niall_Quinn]

What's with all the substitutions btw? WTF? They can basically replace the whole team now. This favours clubs that like to kick the player rather than the ball. Send five of them out to do some damage and sub them before the ref gets his cards out. We should go back to one sub and only for injuries. Instead, with the orange card on the way, it'll be more like a game of musical chairs.

[Mac76]

What's with all the substitutions btw? WTF? They can basically replace the whole team now. This favours clubs that like to kick the player rather than the ball. Send five of them out to do some damage and sub them before the ref gets his cards out. We should go back to one sub and only for injuries.

If only teams did that against Son I'd be happy

[Letters]

What are you on about? So what if they release the audio?

Well, if they're trying to influence results then releasing the evidence is a strange thing to do.

All it tells you is they are either blind or corrupt.

It's the former. Well, I'd go with incompetent rather than blind. The Liverpool debacle against Spurs - the VAR guys actually got it right. The trouble is they thought the ref had too and by the time they realised it was too late to go back. Utter incompetence and failure of communication all round.

You can see for yourself a video of a defender shoving the attacking player in the box, more than enough of a foul in comparison to hundreds of others that have been given. And yet, in the official video or audio analysis the ruling is inconclusive - despite it being conclusive beyond doubt. Just because they say something doesn't make it so.

Decisions in football are inherently about interpretation. You must have had plenty of conversations in pubs with people who you disagree with about football decisions. You're certain it was a clear foul/penalty/goal/sending off, they're equally certain it wasn't. That's football. That's a lot of sports. The trouble is VAR was sold as bringing certainty and "right" decisions. It hasn't. Partly due to the aforementioned incompetence, partly due to the inherent impossibility of doing that. All it's led to is more scrutiny over decisions, more stoppages in games and less common sense being applied. They should stick with the goalline technology and scrap the rest. They won't of course, but they should.

In brief: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

[Niall_Quinn]

Well, if they're trying to influence results then releasing the evidence is a strange thing to do.


It's the former. Well, I'd go with incompetent rather than blind. The Liverpool debacle against Spurs - the VAR guys actually got it right. The trouble is they thought the ref had too and by the time they realised it was too late to go back. Utter incompetence and failure of communication all round.



Decisions in football are inherently about interpretation. You must have had plenty of conversations in pubs with people who you disagree with about football decisions. You're certain it was a clear foul/penalty/goal/sending off, they're equally certain it wasn't. That's football. That's a lot of sports. The trouble is VAR was sold as bringing certainty and "right" decisions. It hasn't. Partly due to the aforementioned incompetence, partly due to the inherent impossibility of doing that. All it's led to is more scrutiny over decisions, more stoppages in games and less common sense being applied. They should stick with the goalline technology and scrap the rest. They won't of course, but they should.

In brief: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Yeah, it's always incompetence. In sport, in politics, in commerce. Just a series of mishaps by the same crowd of well-intentioned yet inept individuals. And they all get to keep their jobs, so they can be incompetent again, and again. It's all perfectly reasonable. The idea that the incompetence theory is a bulletproof shield that so many people somehow buy, each and every time, and is therefore the ideal mechanism for corruption is a cynical suggestion that doesn't fit with the lofty character self-assigned by people whose behaviour is often very different behind the scenes.

But you have a point. Because they don't sit in the booth whispering in conspiratorial tones is proof enough there can't be any corruption, even as we fondly recall the entirely above board World Cup in the entirely appropriate Qatar. Just because shady arabs and Russian gangsters are the bedfellows of our incompetent heroes at the FA and FIFA doesn't mean the wrong sort are running and ruining the game. Corrupt refs have been a thing in English football for years - holy hell, look at Bennett, and the twat who's actually in charge of all these incompetent victims today. Corrupt doesn't have to mean you took an envelope from some bloke in a sheet. Maybe sometimes it's just be pure bias. Regardless, I have an issue with such reliably incompetent individuals prospering instead of being held to account, if we take the perpetually naive angle on their behaviour.