Remove this ad

#21 [url]

Mar 29 17 1:41 AM

Just reflecting on video referee goals (e.g. France vs Spain last night) - this will likely lead to errors in the reported minutes of goals. A goal is not scored when the ball crosses the line, but when the referee decides to award the goal - the latter instant should be used as the goal time (just as with red/yellow cards - the moment the card is shown by the ref, not when the foul was committed by the player). Normally these events are almost simultaneous of course, but with video ref delay we will see plenty of cases with up to a minute or so between the ball going in the net and the eventual awarding of the goal.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#22 [url]

Mar 29 17 8:29 AM

How do you want to deal with goals which have been awarded after the match? In Holland this happenend until 1962 occasionally.Team A objects a goal against Team B was not awarded i.e. in minute 37. They officially protested at KNVB. A committee investigated the case and award the goal. So the match did not end in 3-3 but in 3-4. The afterwards awarded goal would have been the 1-1.....

Quote    Reply   

#23 [url]

Apr 10 17 11:52 PM

Hmm. Such goals are certainly in 90+N' :-)

Goals awarded by a committee long after the match has ended are not really part of the match itself but more part of the overall competition (league or cup). Such goals were not awarded by the referee. The phantom "goal" has a similar purpose as punishing a team by removing points in the table. Just like a player being suspended by a committee after the match is not the same as having a red card in the match (e.g. Luis Suárez biting Chiellini).

Quote    Reply   

#24 [url]

May 17 17 5:39 PM

So anyone who's been following the UEFA U-17 tournaments this month (men's and women's) know that they've become the world's first-ever testing ground for a new format of penalty shoot-out. Apparently inspired by something in tennis, the order of penalties being taken in these trials is now 'ABBA' as opposed to the usual 'ABAB'.

Use up all your obvious puns below to get them out your system, and here is what happened with the format in action for the first time...

Quote    Reply   

#27 [url]

May 19 17 8:09 AM

I wouldn't use the term 'mean' as such, it's part of the game and the players know this going in. Most other proposed tie-breaking formats (usually a variation of 'next goal wins') would cause similar kinds of stress for the losers, where there obviously has to be one. Taking matches to replays in the middle of a tournament isn't too fair stamina-wise on whoever gets through, and I think on an organisational level most people involved want it settled on the night.

As with most things in youth football, the important thing is how the event is treated, rather than the event itself. If the losing team's built up a supportive environment like they should have done, then the guilty player will be able to brush off their miss a lot quicker.

If England's final with Spain tonight goes to a shoot-out, they'll have all the stereotypes thrown around in commentary but it's not as though there's as much pressure as in a senior tournament, so in that sense it could be a healthy chance to break the stigma early if they win one (I realise that England also won the 2014 tournament on penalties, but the more the merrier when it comes to players tasting success in this area).

Quote    Reply   

#30 [url]

May 22 17 11:26 AM

nfm24 wrote:
In youth football, tossing a coin would be better than a penalty shootout.
I'm just not convinced. Mainly because if a group of kids were having a kickabout that ended in a draw, other than 'next goal wins', they'd probably choose to settle it on penalties because that's what they've seen the professionals do, and the guilty player in that situation would get ripped on more mercilessly than in any organised game.

Penalties are still a skill, and I'd rather a knockout game was decided that way rather than a coin toss. Again I think it's down to the environment more than anything else, I'm sure that the England squad who lost that Final will have been told not to dwell on it and have access to the best psychological support should they need it, but all that's really 'needed' in general is for the team and the parents to behave in a sensible manner, which unfortunately some don't.

As for corners/fair play, interesting variants but I can't help but feel it would change the mindset of players (not nessecarily for the worse), so for keepers not to palm a ball round the post like they would usually do, or someone shooting from distance just to try and get a corner, or a player not going for a tackle, admittedly minor things but it wouldn't be the way they normally play the game.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#31 [url]

May 22 17 12:18 PM

Another fun idea would be to use smaller size goals for the shootout, so that it would take quite a bit more skill to score. It was pretty fun to watch the Canada-Sweden shootout at hockey worlds yesterday, with only two goals scored out of seven or eight attempts.

Quote    Reply   

#32 [url]

May 24 17 5:27 PM

mattsanger92 wrote:
it would change the mindset of players ... so for keepers not to palm a ball round the post like they would usually do, or someone shooting from distance just to try and get a corner, or a player not going for a tackle
Giving the opponent a corner is generally worth avoiding, regardless of a tie-breaker tally.  Likewise playing to gain a corner is already a common tactic, either for its own sake (i.e. to cross the ball into the box for a scoring chance), or to kill time at the end of a game.  These are already parts of football strategy.

However your point is correct, and teams could play just to boost the corner tally, for example, if a team gets a first corner, it could just repeatedly take short-corners and hold the ball in the corner area to attempt to gain a succession of corners, rather than make any attempt to work the ball towards the goal-mouth.   With good practice, this could be the football equivalent of nursery cannons in billiards, a tactic which made an already extremly dull game infinitely duller.

Anyway, the influence of the impending tie-breaker upon the preceding play is already common, e.g. teams playing very defensively in extra-time and/or timewasting to get to the shootout is currently a popular strategy.

I am not exactly in favour of using corners, but it is better than something like "shots on target" or "possession" which would more strongly influence the preceding playing style.  If the objective is just to separate the two teams, tossing a coin is fine with me.


Quote    Reply   

#33 [url]

nfm24 wrote:
Just reflecting on video referee goals ... this will likely lead to errors in the reported minutes of goals. A goal is not scored when the ball crosses the line, but when the referee decides to award the goal - the latter instant should be used as the goal time (just as with red/yellow cards - the moment the card is shown by the ref, not when the foul was committed by the player). Normally these events are almost simultaneous of course, but with video ref delay we will see plenty of cases with up to a minute or so between the ball going in the net and the eventual awarding of the goal.

Well, the anticipated scenario has now arrived.  Goal minutes are being noted (in the official FIFA report say) as the instant the ball crosses the line, instead of the instant when the referee eventually awards the goal post-VAR.  But surely only the latter defines the goal.   Even if the referee initially awarded a goal, and then the VAR consulation just validates the referee's first decision, the goal is not ultimately confirmed until after this process has finished.

Example today, Jurić's goal vs Germany.  The ball goes in at 56'.  The referee appears to award the goal, but checks the VAR.  Eventually the VAR decision comes and the referee finally awards the goal at 57', and Germany kick-off.  Official sources are using 56', but I would use 57'.

Interested to hear others' opinions on this.

Quote    Reply   

#34 [url]

I always considered match events being given in the timing they occured. A goal is scored when a goal is scored. The referee may award or disallow the goal afterwards but this doesn't change the fact that if the goal was scored at 56' then that is the actual timing.
I would agree if we had access to referee match reports and could be consistent but that is not the case.

Back to topic; one of the proposals is to cut the game time to 60 minutes. Cynical me (as I am) assume it's just a way to play more games with more time given to advertising?

www.soccer-db.info - football internationals

Quote    Reply   

#35 [url]

agree: goals scored in the minutes on the field, if the ref or VAR take 3 minutes to validate a goal, that does not make 3 minutes of playing time....

and is it important that a goal is scored in the 56 of 57th minute?  I do not care....

Quote    Reply   

#36 [url]

> I always considered match events being given in the timing they occured.  A goal is scored when a goal is scored

Well, "scored" literally means to be marked on the scoreboard, i.e. "counted" or "tallied" or "chalked" etc.  I assume you meant the moment when the ball crossed the line.  I don't mean to play word games though, only to say my point is still the same.  What is a goal?  A goal doesn't exist until the referee awards it.  Regardless of when the ball crossed the line, or whether it did so at all.  

The ball crossing the line is neither sufficient nor necessary to constitute a goal.  The referee's final decision is.

For example, there are many familiar scenarios where a goal was awarded (by the referee) and counted in the result, but replays show the ball never crossed the line at all.  In that case the "match event" never occurred.  Only the referee's decision did.


> I would agree if we had access to referee match reports and could be consistent but that is not the case.

We have videos for most matches nowadays. We can at least be consistent within a given tournament, say.  



> if the ref or VAR take 3 minutes to validate a goal, that does not make 3 minutes of playing time


Fair, but it is the same situation as when a spectator runs on the pitch or throws a flare, or a floodlight fails etc.  There can be 3 minutes or more of lost playing time while we wait for the game to resume, but typically the clock is not stopped.  Or, it is stopped by the TV company but not the referee, or vice versa... 


> is it important that a goal is scored in the 56 of 57th minute?  I do not care....

Right, why are we spending time collecting all this useless data!  Is it important if Belgium won or lost vs Netherlands in 1922*?  Who cares!

* of course, I have deliberately chosen a year in which Belgium won, to avoid further enraging Piet :-)

It is quite arbitrary to use minutes, it just comes from the old days of long-winded chronological match reports; a journalist and his stopwatch.  
Nowadays we could use minutes and seconds.  Or we could changed to an ordinal system, and just number the match events as the 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc regardless of the times they occur.


> Back to topic; one of the proposals is to cut the game time to 60 minutes. Cynical me (as I am) assume it's just a way to play more games with more time given to advertising?

I'm sure you're right.  Although stopping the clock when the ball is out of play is not necessarily conducive to ad-breaks, as there would be short and variable length interruptions.  They could fix that by enforcing a minimum interval before restarts of say 20 seconds, to fit adverts.  

And at least the stopped clock rule would solve the goal timing problem being discussed here.

They say it's about cutting down time wasting, but time wasting comes in many forms and for many reasons.  It is not always done just to bring the final whistle closer and help a team preserve a 1-0 lead.  It can be done to break the opponent's momentum, preserve energy, regain tactical position, drink water, coaching instructions etc.  Also it is perfectly possible to waste time while the ball is in play, e.g. holding the ball in the corner as mentioned above, or goalkeeper dithering.  

And how about free-kicks?  Nowadays these are the most boring events in football, waiting for the referee to mark out 10 yards, spray a line, explain to the wall that they shouldn't use their hands (as if these players are complete beginners at football), reprimanding jostlers, going back to his vantage point, gesturing authoritatively, etc, this is the biggest waste of all and I don't see how this rule will affect it.  It just means that all the tedium is taking place with the clock stopped, which if anything will encourage more tedium.

Anyway we know what will happen.  This new rule will be suddenly enforced, with no previous trials, in a major competition.


Quote    Reply   

#37 [url]

I'd say the goal is valid when the ball crosses the line.
After all, when the result of a match is awarded by a Jury decision, the date corresponds to the day the game is played and not to the day the Jury decide to change the result.

Quote    Reply   

#38 [url]

How about yellow cards then? In Mexico vs NZ, the referee gave three yellow cards about 4 minutes after the fouls which earned them. All reports of the match use the minutes that the cards were shown, not when the fouls were made.

Quote    Reply   

#39 [url]

a yellow card is not the same as the foul commited; it is logical to give the time of the card given
in the other case: a goal is made when the ball crosses the line, it is not the referee or the VAR that scores the goal..I agree with Luca

Quote    Reply   

#40 [url]

Otherwise, use the good old notes. Example: goal scored at 56', but validated by the VAR system at 57'.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help