Yes they do and of course there would have to be guidelines and it won't be perfect. If we seek perfection we will never get there. But fairer should be achievable and less cumbersome.
It should be used only when the referee, and he alone has a doubt and it should be used sparingly. It's ridiculous that a second referee sitting in a studio miles from the action can interfere with the officiating. And/or possibly OR there should be a similar 'appeal' situation as used in tennis and cricket. Both sides should have (say) two appeals per game to be used within (say) 5 seconds of any disputed incident.
Maybe more decisions are got right but VAR has made things less fair. look at Scotland as a prime example - England got a penalty against them and they didn't get a penalty against Japan. VAR was used on one and not the other! Both to the detriment of Scotland.
Maybe more decisions are got right but VAR has made things less fair. look at Scotland as a prime example - England got a penalty against them and they didn't get a penalty against Japan. VAR was used on one and not the other! Both to the detriment of Scotland.
Is VAR highlighting the issues with the Laws of the game?
Just listening to TalkSport and John Motson suggested daylight between the attacker and defender. The hosts suggested leading foot beyond the defender in any way.
I think some of the 'laws' could be reviewed and modernised.
Not really - it just takes nearly two minutes to make a simple decision for handball.
And then it uses a random picture - taken some time around when the ball was kicked - with a funny blue line drawn on it to make completely random decisions about where players' shoulder are.
All this is completed in a matter of mere minutes while a nice robotic voice keeps people in the stadium in awe of how clever the technology is.
Above all it ensures that everyone is confident that the officials know exactly what they are doing.
Is VAR highlighting the issues with the Laws of the game?
Just listening to TalkSport and John Motson suggested daylight between the attacker and defender. The hosts suggested leading foot beyond the defender in any way.
I think some of the 'laws' could be reviewed and modernised.
The "daylight" rule was around 10/15 years ago. Dont know why they changed it back.
I like the goal line technology but VAR its now getting ridiculous. The Man City "goal" was perfectly acceptable as I dont think you can be 100% certain when the ball was played. Saw a piece earlier on Sky looking at the penalty latter in the game & highlighted the goalkeeper moving as the ball was kicked.....but even Dermot Gallagher couldnt tell from the "still" taken at the time as it wasnt frozen at the exact moment the ball was struck.
At the very least I think it should be a whole leg or a body width to be offside, not fractions of a shoulder.
Is VAR highlighting the issues with the Laws of the game?
Just listening to TalkSport and John Motson suggested daylight between the attacker and defender. The hosts suggested leading foot beyond the defender in any way.
I think some of the 'laws' could be reviewed and modernised.
The "daylight" rule was around 10/15 years ago. Dont know why they changed it back.
I like the goal line technology but VAR its now getting ridiculous. The Man City "goal" was perfectly acceptable as I dont think you can be 100% certain when the ball was played. Saw a piece earlier on Sky looking at the penalty latter in the game & highlighted the goalkeeper moving as the ball was kicked.....but even Dermot Gallagher couldnt tell from the "still" taken at the time as it wasnt frozen at the exact moment the ball was struck.
At the very least I think it should be a whole leg or a body width to be offside, not fractions of a shoulder.
They can be absolutely certain as at Stockley Park they have the kit to run the video from different cameras syncronised. He's offside because a part of the body you can score was offside, it's not hard.
Is VAR highlighting the issues with the Laws of the game?
Just listening to TalkSport and John Motson suggested daylight between the attacker and defender. The hosts suggested leading foot beyond the defender in any way.
I think some of the 'laws' could be reviewed and modernised.
The "daylight" rule was around 10/15 years ago. Dont know why they changed it back.
I like the goal line technology but VAR its now getting ridiculous. The Man City "goal" was perfectly acceptable as I dont think you can be 100% certain when the ball was played. Saw a piece earlier on Sky looking at the penalty latter in the game & highlighted the goalkeeper moving as the ball was kicked.....but even Dermot Gallagher couldnt tell from the "still" taken at the time as it wasnt frozen at the exact moment the ball was struck.
At the very least I think it should be a whole leg or a body width to be offside, not fractions of a shoulder.
They can be absolutely certain as at Stockley Park they have the kit to run the video from different cameras syncronised. He's offside because a part of the body you can score was offside, it's not hard.
Not so sure about this!
The typical contact time between foot and ball is around 10ms - a sprinter moves about 10 cm in this time.
Does offside apply to the start or end of contact?
Can the equipment really work this fast and capture the exact moment the ball leaves the foot?
How could it possibly know this without a perpendicular camera angle showing some light between a disformed ball and the foot?
Meanwhile we are judging "shoulder" movement to the nearest millimetre - just don't believe it!
To me the changes to the offside rule and the use of VAR are making judgements based on say 95% certainty at the moment
Much better than before but I don't believe the technology is 100% accurate yet, and to me the benefit should go to the attacker when there's this element of doubt. A football version of "umpire's call"
according to today's 'Times', the powers that be are to look into the application of VAR .. hopefully there will be a much less strict interpretation of the offside law, more akin to the cricket idea of only overruling really glaring errors .. presumably the same will apply to reviews of penalties and red cards .. if the regime is relaxed, that will be to the good of the game ..
If think offside should remain the call of the linesman but allow 3 challenges for attacking or defending side. If it's a gnats cock either way it's all part of the game and only a slide rule measurement needed if it's challenged. I am amazed at how accurate the linesman calls generally are.
If ref misses a handball incident (as opposed to judging it not handball) I think again it should be for the team to appeal for a VAR check. Like in cricket you have to appeal to get a ruling, if no one noticed let it go and it's a lucky break.
Only place for VAR interrupting play is if it's a foul/non-foul/hand ball incident in penalty area and a unanimous 3 man jury in VAR room tell ref he's a wanker if he thinks he's made the right call. In this case they can make the call based on video evidence overruling the official like in Cricket and Rugby.
Serious foul play not picked up by ref is already dealt with retrospectively and that can continue rather than interfere with the rhythm of the game.
The hand ball ruling about "unnatural" position and attempting to make a "bigger area" using the arms is bonkers. The arm has the same area whether it's against or away from the body. In fact the only way to use them to increase the area for blocking a ball is to hold them less than a ball's width away from the body, a very natural position. Refs should go back to using instinct on whether a player accidentally handled the ball or not, or deliberately left his arm in the path of the ball. VAR is being used to change the rules to allow technology to prevail rather than a brain making decisions.
The technology is fine, it's the clueless twats in charge of making it work who are the problem.
I totally agree. And the handball rule is the real issue with the Man City goal yesterday as Danny Murphy alluded to. The problem is that football is trying to use VAR to make 100% perfect decisions which is impossible. Cricket has understood that it should be used to give teams a chance to stop an injustice and have introduced it in an intelligent way.
Football should learn from this and give teams one VAR appeal that they will lose if wrong. If they use it and then can't contest a genuinely wrong decision, it can be argued it is their own fault, much as it is in cricket.
But I am bothered about the handball rule. When I was managing last season, we had a lad try to clear the ball and totally slice it and it went up and hit his hand. The ref gave a penalty. I spoke to the ref at half time, politely, for clarification. I wanted to know how he thought there could be any intent as if there was my player should be on Barcelona's books. He said he was following recent guidance. Then time and time again, we have seen total confusion. Football is its own worst enemy sometimes because the people in authority are idiots.
according to today's 'Times', the powers that be are to look into the application of VAR .. hopefully there will be a much less strict interpretation of the offside law, more akin to the cricket idea of only overruling really glaring errors .. presumably the same will apply to reviews of penalties and red cards .. if the regime is relaxed, that will be to the good of the game ..
I take your point Lincs, but them someone has to decide what is a "glaring error"...
The Man City VAR decision may anger the likes of Mr Murphy but it was the correct call. The ‘pass’ to create a goal scoring opportunity came off the arm.
i am with others on this thread about VAR and the offside rule. Linesmen have been encouraged for years to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking player. We saw in the women’s World Cup and in a recent Man City match goals being cancelled for the tightest offside calls.
If cricket can have the umpire’s call for tight decisions then perhaps there should be a linesman’s call for tight off sides.
No way in a million years would MC's goal yesterday had been disallowed before VAR. Those incidents happen 2 or 3 times every game and just part & parcel of football. The ball will hit a part of the body, especially in a crowded penalty box. The recent rule change is ridiculous. Handball should be given for INTENTIONALLY touching the ball with your hand......bit the ball flicking off your elbow after it had been fired at you from 3 yards.
Clear & obvious error was the reasons for changing decisions via VAR......that one yesterday was neither.
It is true that without VAR the goal would have stood in about 90% of cases as it was hard to spot.
The issue is that giving the refs the power to decide handling of the ball was intentional or not, whilst logical, meant that different refs would make different decisions. I never had an issue with that. The problem was that there are too many rubbish refs who had real difficulty with the autonomy they had and made poor decisions. The ref's/football's solution is what a band of brothers always do - rather than weed out the rubbish refs they find a system that works around it. In this case to the detriment of the game.
I totally agree. And the handball rule is the real issue with the Man City goal yesterday as Danny Murphy alluded to. The problem is that football is trying to use VAR to make 100% perfect decisions which is impossible. Cricket has understood that it should be used to give teams a chance to stop an injustice and have introduced it in an intelligent way.
Football should learn from this and give teams one VAR appeal that they will lose if wrong. If they use it and then can't contest a genuinely wrong decision, it can be argued it is their own fault, much as it is in cricket.
But I am bothered about the handball rule. When I was managing last season, we had a lad try to clear the ball and totally slice it and it went up and hit his hand. The ref gave a penalty. I spoke to the ref at half time, politely, for clarification. I wanted to know how he thought there could be any intent as if there was my player should be on Barcelona's books. He said he was following recent guidance. Then time and time again, we have seen total confusion. Football is its own worst enemy sometimes because the people in authority are idiots.
There are far to many grey areas that IMO haven’t been thought out before VAR into the game. Their have been three prime examples of this in the last two weeks the goals scored by both Wolves and Man City that were ruled out for handball, were they intentional or were they the motion of the player? If it was the motion of the player then the goal should stand as it is a natural movement and there is nothing that the players involved could have done to stop the ball hitting the arm. The foul on the City player against Spurs was a blatant pen and the VAR should advise the referee to have a look. Finally if you cannot score a goal with an arm/hand I would not have this part of the body to be deemed as you gaining advantage and ruling the attacker player offside as his arm is in front of the defender.
I am a fan of VAR, the way it was used in the WC was how it should be used, and proved it works . However the new handball law is ridiculous, consequently VAR is getting blamed for upholding this ridiculous law. As usual the powers at the top make idiotic decisions.
I am a fan of VAR, the way it was used in the WC was how it should be used, and proved it works . However the new handball law is ridiculous, consequently VAR is getting blamed for upholding this ridiculous law. As usual the powers at the top make idiotic decisions.
Agree 100% regarding the new handball law... for instances such as this one.
However I do believe the reasoning for the law was to wipe out the need for a decision on intent. I support it.
The Handball law has not changed that much but doesnt appear to be fully understood, judging by some comments on here. The "intent" logic still applies but has been extended so that any arm that is not in a natural position (what players run aroun d with their arms aloft?) Is deemed to be intentional if the ball strikes it. The major change is that if say an attacker has handled the ball (intentional or non intentional) and a goal results following that handball, then the goal is ruled out.
Other than above, all "handball" offences that before were deemed to be unintentional and were not penalised, remain unpenalised.
One can offer an opinion on whether the new interpretation is progessive or regressive, but I have stated the new interpretation
The Handball law has not changed that much but doesnt appear to be fully understood, judging by some comments on here. The "intent" logic still applies but has been extended so that any arm that is not in a natural position (what players run aroun d with their arms aloft?) Is deemed to be intentional if the ball strikes it. The major change is that if say an attacker has handled the ball (intentional or non intentional) and a goal results following that handball, then the goal is ruled out.
Other than above, all "handball" offences that before were deemed to be unintentional and were not penalised, remain unpenalised.
One can offer an opinion on whether the new interpretation is progessive or regressive, but I have stated the new interpretation
Have a good day one and all.
For my own clarification, there was a moment during our game on Saturday against Barnsley when Pearce charged out of defence, blocked a shot and looked to have his arms up to protect his face - Now I cant tell myself if its hit him on the arm or in the face yet Barnsley fans were adament they should have had a penalty
Would that be regarded as a natural position to have the arms or did we get away with one?
IF of course it even struck his arm in the first place
Comments
And/or possibly OR there should be a similar 'appeal' situation as used in tennis and cricket. Both sides should have (say) two appeals per game to be used within (say) 5 seconds of any disputed incident.
Just listening to TalkSport and John Motson suggested daylight between the attacker and defender. The hosts suggested leading foot beyond the defender in any way.
I think some of the 'laws' could be reviewed and modernised.
And then it uses a random picture - taken some time around when the ball was kicked - with a funny blue line drawn on it to make completely random decisions about where players' shoulder are.
All this is completed in a matter of mere minutes while a nice robotic voice keeps people in the stadium in awe of how clever the technology is.
Above all it ensures that everyone is confident that the officials know exactly what they are doing.
I like the goal line technology but VAR its now getting ridiculous. The Man City "goal" was perfectly acceptable as I dont think you can be 100% certain when the ball was played. Saw a piece earlier on Sky looking at the penalty latter in the game & highlighted the goalkeeper moving as the ball was kicked.....but even Dermot Gallagher couldnt tell from the "still" taken at the time as it wasnt frozen at the exact moment the ball was struck.
At the very least I think it should be a whole leg or a body width to be offside, not fractions of a shoulder.
The typical contact time between foot and ball is around 10ms - a sprinter moves about 10 cm in this time.
Does offside apply to the start or end of contact?
Can the equipment really work this fast and capture the exact moment the ball leaves the foot?
How could it possibly know this without a perpendicular camera angle showing some light between a disformed ball and the foot?
Meanwhile we are judging "shoulder" movement to the nearest millimetre - just don't believe it!
Much better than before but I don't believe the technology is 100% accurate yet, and to me the benefit should go to the attacker when there's this element of doubt. A football version of "umpire's call"
If ref misses a handball incident (as opposed to judging it not handball) I think again it should be for the team to appeal for a VAR check. Like in cricket you have to appeal to get a ruling, if no one noticed let it go and it's a lucky break.
Only place for VAR interrupting play is if it's a foul/non-foul/hand ball incident in penalty area and a unanimous 3 man jury in VAR room tell ref he's a wanker if he thinks he's made the right call. In this case they can make the call based on video evidence overruling the official like in Cricket and Rugby.
Serious foul play not picked up by ref is already dealt with retrospectively and that can continue rather than interfere with the rhythm of the game.
The hand ball ruling about "unnatural" position and attempting to make a "bigger area" using the arms is bonkers. The arm has the same area whether it's against or away from the body. In fact the only way to use them to increase the area for blocking a ball is to hold them less than a ball's width away from the body, a very natural position. Refs should go back to using instinct on whether a player accidentally handled the ball or not, or deliberately left his arm in the path of the ball. VAR is being used to change the rules to allow technology to prevail rather than a brain making decisions.
The technology is fine, it's the clueless twats in charge of making it work who are the problem.
Football should learn from this and give teams one VAR appeal that they will lose if wrong. If they use it and then can't contest a genuinely wrong decision, it can be argued it is their own fault, much as it is in cricket.
But I am bothered about the handball rule. When I was managing last season, we had a lad try to clear the ball and totally slice it and it went up and hit his hand. The ref gave a penalty. I spoke to the ref at half time, politely, for clarification. I wanted to know how he thought there could be any intent as if there was my player should be on Barcelona's books. He said he was following recent guidance. Then time and time again, we have seen total confusion. Football is its own worst enemy sometimes because the people in authority are idiots.
Kids will be playing a very different game to the one they see on the tele.
Maybe if it's only used to weed out genuine cheating in the game I'd be comfortable with it.
But ruling a goal out because a fellas elbow is a gnats cock offside is a nonsense.
i am with others on this thread about VAR and the offside rule. Linesmen have been encouraged for years to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking player. We saw in the women’s World Cup and in a recent Man City match goals being cancelled for the tightest offside calls.
If cricket can have the umpire’s call for tight decisions then perhaps there should be a linesman’s call for tight off sides.
Clear & obvious error was the reasons for changing decisions via VAR......that one yesterday was neither.
The issue is that giving the refs the power to decide handling of the ball was intentional or not, whilst logical, meant that different refs would make different decisions. I never had an issue with that. The problem was that there are too many rubbish refs who had real difficulty with the autonomy they had and made poor decisions. The ref's/football's solution is what a band of brothers always do - rather than weed out the rubbish refs they find a system that works around it. In this case to the detriment of the game.
The foul on the City player against Spurs was a blatant pen and the VAR should advise the referee to have a look.
Finally if you cannot score a goal with an arm/hand I would not have this part of the body to be deemed as you gaining advantage and ruling the attacker player offside as his arm is in front of the defender.
However the new handball law is ridiculous, consequently VAR is getting blamed for upholding this ridiculous law.
As usual the powers at the top make idiotic decisions.
However I do believe the reasoning for the law was to wipe out the need for a decision on intent. I support it.
Other than above, all "handball" offences that before were deemed to be unintentional and were not penalised, remain unpenalised.
One can offer an opinion on whether the new interpretation is progessive or regressive, but I have stated the new interpretation
Have a good day one and all.
Would that be regarded as a natural position to have the arms or did we get away with one?
IF of course it even struck his arm in the first place