The current implementation of offside favours defenders in most situations because they are moving and therefore leaning away from the goal whereas the attacker is moving/leaning towards the goal. Their legs may be broadly in line but their upper bodies are not. You get the ridiculous situation of vertical lines to knees and shoulders etc.
I would change the emphasis to favour the attacker, which I think we would all agree on, and simplify the check at the same time by comparing the positions of the defender's and attacker's rear feet. In some respects this is going back to the 'clear daylight' rule that was trialled a few years back.
The offside law has been tinkered with before VAR. I think we should always try to go back to the point of the law and I can't see how somebody being offside by a couple of millimetres addresses the point. Of course, as we are using technology, we have complete accuracy but we could also have an inch or two's leeway introduced without any difficulty. Then I suppose the question would be whether that would be an improvemnt or not. I think it probably would.
The current implementation of offside favours defenders in most situations because they are moving and therefore leaning away from the goal whereas the attacker is moving/leaning towards the goal. Their legs may be broadly in line but their upper bodies are not. You get the ridiculous situation of vertical lines to knees and shoulders etc.
I would change the emphasis to favour the attacker, which I think we would all agree on, and simplify the check at the same time by comparing the positions of the defender's and attacker's rear feet. In some respects this is going back to the 'clear daylight' rule that was trialled a few years back.
Using the position of the feet makes it very difficult for an ordinary Lino on a Sunday morning game - trying to pick out feet in a tangle of legs.
With the current laws you just look across the line and see who is "sticking out" the most.
It's important not to change laws to fit VAR and make the game unplayable for the rest of us.
We already have changed the way the law is implemented as if somebody is offside by a millimetre, it would have to be a poor official who flags him offside with no technology. I would say, keep the laws the same but build in a human element to the computer, and call it that, giving a slight leeway. There would then be a greater alignment with Sunday football IMO. We can't pretend things are the same as big games have VAR and other games don't.
If a ref makes a decision, and the VAR official suggests he or she look at it again. There is an immediate pressure on the ref to change the decision. It is another reason why I would like to give each team an appeal. If they appeal, it is looked at but there would not be the same pressure. If they have used up their appeal, tough luck. I don't see cricket teams moaning about it when it costs them. It becomes another aspect of the game.
It's worth a trial but I wonder how the "Hand of God" would now be regarded if it happened after a failed appeal.
We would have the situation where a "miked up" ref gives a goal and the whole world knows within seconds that it is handball. Any attempt by the VAR team to overrule the ref would presumably be illegal and unfair.
How would the conversation with VAR go?
Ref - "I can sense I've missed something but I don't know what."
VAR - "Sorry England cannot appeal so we cannot help you".
Ref - "Please Please tell me what happened. I know I should disallow this goal. The crowd are booing. Please tell me what happened!"
The current implementation of offside favours defenders in most situations because they are moving and therefore leaning away from the goal whereas the attacker is moving/leaning towards the goal. Their legs may be broadly in line but their upper bodies are not. You get the ridiculous situation of vertical lines to knees and shoulders etc.
I would change the emphasis to favour the attacker, which I think we would all agree on, and simplify the check at the same time by comparing the positions of the defender's and attacker's rear feet. In some respects this is going back to the 'clear daylight' rule that was trialled a few years back.
Using the position of the feet makes it very difficult for an ordinary Lino on a Sunday morning game - trying to pick out feet in a tangle of legs.
With the current laws you just look across the line and see who is "sticking out" the most.
It's important not to change laws to fit VAR and make the game unplayable for the rest of us.
By all means, if players are standing still them who "sticks out" most is a relatively safe decision for the lino. However, the eye/brain coordination of linos is not up to making accurate decisions sufficuently often when players are moving in opposite directions hence giving an advantage to the attacking side.
As Muttley said, making a millimetre accurate decision is a bad decision. It should not have been made because humans don't possess the ability to do it with the required frequency.
The current implementation of offside favours defenders in most situations because they are moving and therefore leaning away from the goal whereas the attacker is moving/leaning towards the goal. Their legs may be broadly in line but their upper bodies are not. You get the ridiculous situation of vertical lines to knees and shoulders etc.
I would change the emphasis to favour the attacker, which I think we would all agree on, and simplify the check at the same time by comparing the positions of the defender's and attacker's rear feet. In some respects this is going back to the 'clear daylight' rule that was trialled a few years back.
You would need to change the law of offside and not the VAR technology.
It is the law that is wrong, not the tech. Same with handball.
As I have said before imo VAR should only be used for line decisions where acceptance will eventually be at the same level as tennis where there is no problem now. Any thing else is down to individual judgement and should be left to the onfield official, then live with any mistakes. The present position is farcical.
Would like to see the stats since VAR came in on ;
- How many goals were allowed that otherwise wouldn't have stood; - How many goals were disallowed that otherwise would have stood.
And why we're at it,
- How many red cards were awarded after the intervention of VAR - How many red cards were cancelled after the intervention of VAR
There will always be anomalies and debatable issues as some things just come down to individual opinions, but that's just how it always was.
VAR was "sold" on the basis it would weed out the clear and obvious errors, such as the Thierry Henry handball, or Peter Shirtliff's knee to the back of Ian Baird"s head. It was heralded as being the end of diving to win penalties, shirt pulling at corners, the off the ball punch in the face, etc, that referees just missed. I think most of us were completely behind that as a concept.
But in practice that just isn't what's happening. Which is a real shame as far as I'm concerned as it detracts from the game as I knew and loved it, but no doubt some would view as "progress".
I don’t have the VAR only stats off the top of my head but you’re naturally going to see more goals chalked off by tech than given by tech because the officials are letting things go knowing that the tech will overrule them if they were wrong.
What you could do to compare VAR’s impact on goal production is the total number of goals scored for the entire league season by season.
We’ve had three seasons of VAR at the top level…
21/22: 2.82 goals per match 20/21: 2.69 goals per match 19/20: 2.72 goals per match
Compared with the three season prior to VAR…
18/19: 2.82 goals per match 17/18: 2.68 goals per match 16/17: 2.80 goals per match
Hardly any difference. VAR has not impacted the amount of goals scored.
Would like to see the stats since VAR came in on ;
- How many goals were allowed that otherwise wouldn't have stood; - How many goals were disallowed that otherwise would have stood.
And why we're at it,
- How many red cards were awarded after the intervention of VAR - How many red cards were cancelled after the intervention of VAR
There will always be anomalies and debatable issues as some things just come down to individual opinions, but that's just how it always was.
VAR was "sold" on the basis it would weed out the clear and obvious errors, such as the Thierry Henry handball, or Peter Shirtliff's knee to the back of Ian Baird"s head. It was heralded as being the end of diving to win penalties, shirt pulling at corners, the off the ball punch in the face, etc, that referees just missed. I think most of us were completely behind that as a concept.
But in practice that just isn't what's happening. Which is a real shame as far as I'm concerned as it detracts from the game as I knew and loved it, but no doubt some would view as "progress".
I don’t have the VAR only stats off the top of my head but you’re naturally going to see more goals chalked off by tech than given by tech because the officials are letting things go knowing that the tech will overrule them if they were wrong.
What you could do to compare VAR’s impact on goal production is the total number of goals scored for the entire league season by season.
We’ve had three seasons of VAR at the top level…
21/22: 2.82 goals per match 20/21: 2.69 goals per match 19/20: 2.72 goals per match
Compared with the three season prior to VAR…
18/19: 2.82 goals per match 17/18: 2.68 goals per match 16/17: 2.80 goals per match
Hardly any difference. VAR has not impacted the amount of goals scored.
Lol! Of course VAR has impacted on the number of goals scored!
Bring back daylight between defender/attacker and handball is only if the ball directly strikes the hand due to moving hand towards ball or away from the body, none of this deflected eighteen times off various defenders bollocks.
Would like to see the stats since VAR came in on ;
- How many goals were allowed that otherwise wouldn't have stood; - How many goals were disallowed that otherwise would have stood.
And why we're at it,
- How many red cards were awarded after the intervention of VAR - How many red cards were cancelled after the intervention of VAR
There will always be anomalies and debatable issues as some things just come down to individual opinions, but that's just how it always was.
VAR was "sold" on the basis it would weed out the clear and obvious errors, such as the Thierry Henry handball, or Peter Shirtliff's knee to the back of Ian Baird"s head. It was heralded as being the end of diving to win penalties, shirt pulling at corners, the off the ball punch in the face, etc, that referees just missed. I think most of us were completely behind that as a concept.
But in practice that just isn't what's happening. Which is a real shame as far as I'm concerned as it detracts from the game as I knew and loved it, but no doubt some would view as "progress".
I don’t have the VAR only stats off the top of my head but you’re naturally going to see more goals chalked off by tech than given by tech because the officials are letting things go knowing that the tech will overrule them if they were wrong.
What you could do to compare VAR’s impact on goal production is the total number of goals scored for the entire league season by season.
We’ve had three seasons of VAR at the top level…
21/22: 2.82 goals per match 20/21: 2.69 goals per match 19/20: 2.72 goals per match
Compared with the three season prior to VAR…
18/19: 2.82 goals per match 17/18: 2.68 goals per match 16/17: 2.80 goals per match
Hardly any difference. VAR has not impacted the amount of goals scored.
Lol! Of course VAR has impacted on the number of goals scored!
You would think so but the numbers don’t, so far, back it up.
If the numbers are contradictory, you have to start looking for explanations why. It does seem like VAR is only ever ruling goals out. One possibility: how many times in the past would a linesman put the flag up for offside (incorrectly) but now don’t because it’s a close call?
I was watching a game the other day, I can't remember who it was, but there was a handball decision that var had a look at. The ball had hit the defender on the upper arm and he hadn't had the opportunity to get out of the way. it was dismissed. However the commentator was talking abt the length of the players shirt sleeves and using this as some kind of barometer on whether it was a pen. I couldn't work out wtf he was going on abt?! What's the length of your sleeves got to do with anything?
I am guessing what they mean is that the bottom of a short sleeve is deemed to be where the shoulder starts? Could be way off beam of course, but it's a thought.
I am guessing what they mean is that the bottom of a short sleeve is deemed to be where the shoulder starts? Could be way off beam of course, but it's a thought. Law 12 says, in relation to handball says "the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit".
TV is used in a much better way in Premiership Rugby.
There is a Television Match Official at the ground who acts as an extra pair of eyes for the referee. This is in addition to the touch judges who cover the full length of the pitch and can flag the referee. If the TMO spots a possible offence he suggests the referee reviews it on the giant screen in the ground. Different angles can be used. The referee makes the final call.
Another great thing is that you can buy a radio and listen to the referee's comments and decisions.
I am guessing what they mean is that the bottom of a short sleeve is deemed to be where the shoulder starts? Could be way off beam of course, but it's a thought. Law 12 says, in relation to handball says "the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit".
If a ref makes a decision, and the VAR official suggests he or she look at it again. There is an immediate pressure on the ref to change the decision. It is another reason why I would like to give each team an appeal. If they appeal, it is looked at but there would not be the same pressure. If they have used up their appeal, tough luck. I don't see cricket teams moaning about it when it costs them. It becomes another aspect of the game.
It's worth a trial but I wonder how the "Hand of God" would now be regarded if it happened after a failed appeal.
We would have the situation where a "miked up" ref gives a goal and the whole world knows within seconds that it is handball. Any attempt by the VAR team to overrule the ref would presumably be illegal and unfair.
How would the conversation with VAR go?
Ref - "I can sense I've missed something but I don't know what."
VAR - "Sorry England cannot appeal so we cannot help you".
Ref - "Please Please tell me what happened. I know I should disallow this goal. The crowd are booing. Please tell me what happened!"
VAR - "Sorry mate you're on your own!"
Indeed we can look back on an example from 1986 but even going back that far, we may not have used and wasted our appeal and had we done so, it might be a bit like not having an appeal cost New Zealand in the Cricket World Cup Final against us. It doesn't even get mentioned, except I have just done so.
Can you make football 100% fair? Of course you can't. Can you make it fairer? Of course you can. If the authorities understood that we would be on the right path.
there's a simple solution to the current VAR troubles. - the VAR refs have 10 seconds to overturn the on-field ruling. If they have not made a decision (i.e. there is no clear and obvious breach of the rules), the on-field decision stands.
Good and the bad of VAR last night. Stopped the ref from making a howler with the (sadly missed) penalty. But the first half shout, which was correctly called outside the area, was a clear direct free kick and a yellow card. But VAR is only allowed to overturn certain arbitrarily decided decisions? So it's - "play on, as you were...". Load of old bollocks.
As for the foul(s) in the build up to their first goal...
I will say this until I am blue in the fucking face. All or nothing.
Not a fan of VAR. Once upon a time you could debate a ref's decision in the pub when he got it wrong. It's just moved on now to debating the VAR decision. Put it back to where it was and let the ref make the right or wrong decision, he's only human. And cut out all this millimetre offside crap.
A split second later and the defenders foot was still fouling Harry Kane as both his feet touches the line. The Referee not seeing that was a foul was so poor. You give the foul/penalty and then go and have a look at the screen to either change your mind as you look at the technology. If the VAR official agrees or disagree then you can make your final decision. Not to even get a free kick makes a mockery. Why can't the rules be changed so at least you get a free kick after the VAR check ?
I still believe this was a penalty as the defenders leg was still touching despite the first point of contact being a tad outside.
There’s contact further up Kanes calf than my first line , it’s deffo a pen and especially when you consider contact would have continued further on in
If there was no VAR, the Brazilian fellah would not have given a penalty. We could all feel doubly or trebly aggrieved and King Harry (Kane, that is) would feel no worse than the rest of the squad.
Possible foul: on Saka in the buildup to Tchouameni goal
What happened: Dayot Upamecano won the ball off Bukayo Saka just outside his own area and set up a break that resulted in Aurelien Tchouameni giving France a 17th-minute lead, but there was a VAR check for the tackle.
VAR decision: Goal stands.
VAR review: The VAR, Nicolas Gallo of Colombia, has
two things to consider: is the challenge within the attacking phase, and
was it a clear and obvious error by the referee, Wilton Sampaio of
Brazil, not to award a free kick.
The challenge came 27 seconds
before Tchouameni's shot hit the back of the net, and while time is not
the ultimate factor in determining the start of the attacking phase it
can influence the decision. It's more about the team that lost
possession being in a position to win the ball back, and also if the
attacking team stopped its forward momentum. It's arguable neither of
these were present, but to go so far back in a game to disallow a goal
would be something we haven't see at this World Cup.
The second
question is over the challenge itself. We can see from the replays that
Upamecano caught Saka's left foot, causing him to fall over and lose
possession. But was it a clear and obvious error for the referee not to
see that? It's a tough one to call, and while it should be a free kick
there probably isn't enough to cross the threshold for a VAR
intervention.
Possible penalty: Foul by Upamecano on Kane
What happened: In the 25th minute, Harry Kane
went down on the edge of the area after robbing Upamecano of the ball.
Referee Sampaio waved play on, but there was a lengthy VAR review for a
penalty.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: This was a definite foul by Upamecano,
who caught Kane on the back of his calf just has he was entering the
area. But the VAR can only rule on the penalty and not a missed free
kick. So, if the foul takes place on the line or in the area it's a
penalty; if the foul takes place outside the area play continues from
the point it was stopped.
This all comes down the VAR needing the
weight of evidence to prove where the foul contact took place -- just
like with the ball in play on Japan's winning goal against Spain. The
VAR will take the moment of contact which causes the foul: where is that
part of Kane's leg in relation to the line (the line belongs to the
box, so it's a penalty if on it.) That Kane falls into the area, or has a
foot inside it when contact is made isn't relevant.
The VAR will
check every available angle (there are far more than we are shown on the
television) to try to work out where this contact was, using multiple
synced cameras to the same frame. The angles shown on TV really weren't
conclusive, and only the camera square to the penalty area line can
really give the VAR the best evidence. In this case, it was decided that
contact was just outside the area, or at least there wasn't the
evidence it was on the line.
But this again highlights the
unacceptable level of information on VAR decisions from FIFA within
games. It only shows fans what the VAR is viewing if the referee is at
the monitor. Otherwise, it all goes on in the background and everyone is
left to guess about the process. We all want to hear the audio from the
VAR room, but at the moment FIFA (and UEFA for that matter) is
reluctant to even show supporters what the team is looking at.
Comments
I would change the emphasis to favour the attacker, which I think we would all agree on, and simplify the check at the same time by comparing the positions of the defender's and attacker's rear feet. In some respects this is going back to the 'clear daylight' rule that was trialled a few years back.
With the current laws you just look across the line and see who is "sticking out" the most.
It's important not to change laws to fit VAR and make the game unplayable for the rest of us.
We would have the situation where a "miked up" ref gives a goal and the whole world knows within seconds that it is handball. Any attempt by the VAR team to overrule the ref would presumably be illegal and unfair.
How would the conversation with VAR go?
Ref - "I can sense I've missed something but I don't know what."
VAR - "Sorry England cannot appeal so we cannot help you".
Ref - "Please Please tell me what happened. I know I should disallow this goal. The crowd are booing. Please tell me what happened!"
VAR - "Sorry mate you're on your own!"
As Muttley said, making a millimetre accurate decision is a bad decision. It should not have been made because humans don't possess the ability to do it with the required frequency.
It is the law that is wrong, not the tech. Same with handball.
What you could do to compare VAR’s impact on goal production is the total number of goals scored for the entire league season by season.
21/22: 2.82 goals per match
20/21: 2.69 goals per match
19/20: 2.72 goals per match
Compared with the three season prior to VAR…
18/19: 2.82 goals per match
17/18: 2.68 goals per match
16/17: 2.80 goals per match
Hardly any difference. VAR has not impacted the amount of goals scored.
If the numbers are contradictory, you have to start looking for explanations why. It does seem like VAR is only ever ruling goals out. One possibility: how many times in the past would a linesman put the flag up for offside (incorrectly) but now don’t because it’s a close call?
There is a Television Match Official at the ground who acts as an extra pair of eyes for the referee. This is in addition to the touch judges who cover the full length of the pitch and can flag the referee. If the TMO spots a possible offence he suggests the referee reviews it on the giant screen in the ground. Different angles can be used. The referee makes the final call.
Another great thing is that you can buy a radio and listen to the referee's comments and decisions.
Can you make football 100% fair? Of course you can't. Can you make it fairer? Of course you can. If the authorities understood that we would be on the right path.
As for the foul(s) in the build up to their first goal...
I will say this until I am blue in the fucking face. All or nothing.
Not to even get a free kick makes a mockery. Why can't the rules be changed so at least you get a free kick after the VAR check ?
I still believe this was a penalty as the defenders leg was still touching despite the first point of contact being a tad outside.
Possible foul: on Saka in the buildup to Tchouameni goal
What happened: Dayot Upamecano won the ball off Bukayo Saka just outside his own area and set up a break that resulted in Aurelien Tchouameni giving France a 17th-minute lead, but there was a VAR check for the tackle.
VAR decision: Goal stands.
VAR review: The VAR, Nicolas Gallo of Colombia, has two things to consider: is the challenge within the attacking phase, and was it a clear and obvious error by the referee, Wilton Sampaio of Brazil, not to award a free kick.
The challenge came 27 seconds before Tchouameni's shot hit the back of the net, and while time is not the ultimate factor in determining the start of the attacking phase it can influence the decision. It's more about the team that lost possession being in a position to win the ball back, and also if the attacking team stopped its forward momentum. It's arguable neither of these were present, but to go so far back in a game to disallow a goal would be something we haven't see at this World Cup.
The second question is over the challenge itself. We can see from the replays that Upamecano caught Saka's left foot, causing him to fall over and lose possession. But was it a clear and obvious error for the referee not to see that? It's a tough one to call, and while it should be a free kick there probably isn't enough to cross the threshold for a VAR intervention.
Possible penalty: Foul by Upamecano on Kane
What happened: In the 25th minute, Harry Kane went down on the edge of the area after robbing Upamecano of the ball. Referee Sampaio waved play on, but there was a lengthy VAR review for a penalty.
VAR decision: No penalty.
VAR review: This was a definite foul by Upamecano, who caught Kane on the back of his calf just has he was entering the area. But the VAR can only rule on the penalty and not a missed free kick. So, if the foul takes place on the line or in the area it's a penalty; if the foul takes place outside the area play continues from the point it was stopped.
This all comes down the VAR needing the weight of evidence to prove where the foul contact took place -- just like with the ball in play on Japan's winning goal against Spain. The VAR will take the moment of contact which causes the foul: where is that part of Kane's leg in relation to the line (the line belongs to the box, so it's a penalty if on it.) That Kane falls into the area, or has a foot inside it when contact is made isn't relevant.
The VAR will check every available angle (there are far more than we are shown on the television) to try to work out where this contact was, using multiple synced cameras to the same frame. The angles shown on TV really weren't conclusive, and only the camera square to the penalty area line can really give the VAR the best evidence. In this case, it was decided that contact was just outside the area, or at least there wasn't the evidence it was on the line.
But this again highlights the unacceptable level of information on VAR decisions from FIFA within games. It only shows fans what the VAR is viewing if the referee is at the monitor. Otherwise, it all goes on in the background and everyone is left to guess about the process. We all want to hear the audio from the VAR room, but at the moment FIFA (and UEFA for that matter) is reluctant to even show supporters what the team is looking at.