A&H

Leeds v WHU

Given the image in the OP and using the pitch markings, could you say that Leeds #9 is nearer than 9.15m (10yds)?
Secondly, if a goalkeeper is not permitted to move forward from the goal line, how can he/she ever be that close to the penalty mark to warrant inclusion with the kicker?
Provided the goalkeeper is 6ft+, if they were lying on the ground then their feet could be on the line while simultaneously their head would be failing to respect the required distance... 😂
 
The Referee Store
Given the image in the OP and using the pitch markings, could you say that Leeds #9 is nearer than 9.15m (10yds)?
Secondly, if a goalkeeper is not permitted to move forward from the goal line, how can he/she ever be that close to the penalty mark to warrant inclusion with the kicker?
Yes
This is not the best image. The Leeds poacher was even closer when contact was made with the ball. I thought it was taking the urine TBH
Not to be misunderstood, in the absence of VAR, I reiterate that there's room for a bit of common sense. What I take issue with, is once VAR polices one rule forensically (exactly as the book), the VAR cannot then ignore another rule (in exact conflict with the book). I don't care what was in past iterations of the book, because previous books are totally irrelevant. It is VAR that is the major contributor to this inconsistency. Previously, both rules would be applied ITOOTR, but with VAR, both must be policed the same, otherwise it's just wrong
 
All VAR does it take laws that are written with the basic principal of "Here is a rough framework for referees to make decisions within" and try to apply it as if it's an actual precise legal document. The problem isn't VAR, it's the fact that the laws aren't written well enough that they can actually be applied with the kind of consistency an accurate replay system requires.

The terrible, inconsistent and unclear writing of the law has been gotten away with for years because referees are there to take the blame for when they fill the gaps in a way one team or the other doesn't like. VAR takes away that flexibility, and it turns out that fans and pundits don't actually like the gane they watch when the laws are applied without a referee to paper over the gaps.
You can't call them "laws" and then try to describe the system as "a rough framework". Not how it works in practise and not how people actually think of them.
 
The Laws evolved as a simple shell, with what should be called ultimately "in the opinion of the referee"--that was part of the definition of a foul. The referee was expected to undertand the game and act in the spirit of the game. The advent of television replays--growing in hihg-def and slow mo, along wth the ability to quickly draw lines and so forth has (IMO) been part of the fuel towards the departure from a short, concept based set of Laws to a more didactic and expansive set of Laws, aiming at greater consistency. And VAR has been steroids to that trend. I don't think there is any way back--pandora's box is open.
 
The Laws evolved as a simple shell, with what should be called ultimately "in the opinion of the referee"--that was part of the definition of a foul. The referee was expected to undertand the game and act in the spirit of the game. The advent of television replays--growing in hihg-def and slow mo, along wth the ability to quickly draw lines and so forth has (IMO) been part of the fuel towards the departure from a short, concept based set of Laws to a more didactic and expansive set of Laws, aiming at greater consistency. And VAR has been steroids to that trend. I don't think there is any way back--pandora's box is open.
So after all that, we're broadly in agreement! Such is the perils of forum communication
 
Back
Top