For me the VAR decision for the Spurs goal was a joke.
What happened to: a) the attacker getting the benefit of the doubt and b) VAR being for clear and obvious errors.
If you have to watch a dozen replays and draw lines across the pitch to try and work out if the striker has his big toe offside, then VAR can f*ck right off.
So is VAR only supposed to overturn "clear and obvious" errors?
If it is then how come we are waiting for minutes for someone to get their set square out and draw lines down the pitch that may or may not prove someone is a millimetre nearer the goal than someone else? Like in the Leicester v Spurs game just now.
If it's not a clear and obvious error then let it go and stop fucking about.
I don't disagree with you. However, they had a look and he was just offside. So they can't then give a goal, knowing it's offside, can they ?
Alternatively, should they bring in a measure of how offside you have to be before it's given offside ? :-)
I hate it.
That goal should have stood. If they must keep it, decisions that are shown to be ‘wrong’ by such minuscule amounts should be left to stand under something similar to “umpire’s call” in cricket.
So is VAR only supposed to overturn "clear and obvious" errors?
If it is then how come we are waiting for minutes for someone to get their set square out and draw lines down the pitch that may or may not prove someone is a millimetre nearer the goal than someone else? Like in the Leicester v Spurs game just now.
If it's not a clear and obvious error then let it go and stop fucking about.
I don't disagree with you. However, they had a look and he was just offside. So they can't then give a goal, knowing it's offside, can they ?
Alternatively, should they bring in a measure of how offside you have to be before it's given offside ? :-)
Yeah, they had a look. They had another look. They zoomed in. They drew some lines. They zoomed in again. They thought about it some more. Then they disallowed it.
I have no idea why they drew the lines where they did. They didn't seem to be in the right place to me.
Clear and obvious? Nah. No need for drawing lines and zooming in. They freeze framed it and they looked level, so award the goal.
People who's minds are wired up for the "perfect" answer all the time wont like that. But it's football, not chess.
So is VAR only supposed to overturn "clear and obvious" errors?
If it is then how come we are waiting for minutes for someone to get their set square out and draw lines down the pitch that may or may not prove someone is a millimetre nearer the goal than someone else? Like in the Leicester v Spurs game just now.
If it's not a clear and obvious error then let it go and stop fucking about.
I don't disagree with you. However, they had a look and he was just offside. So they can't then give a goal, knowing it's offside, can they ?
Alternatively, should they bring in a measure of how offside you have to be before it's given offside ? :-)
I understand what you are saying, but when the decision is that close it shouldn't be overturned. VAR was brought in to overturn clear & obvious errors. A toenail on or offside should not be enough to overturn the original decision, so the original decision of Goal shouldve stood.
This is where the review system in cricket works so well. The umpire's original decision stands unless a certain percentage of the ball is hitting/missing the stumps
For me the VAR decision for the Spurs goal was a joke.
What happened to: a) the attacker getting the benefit of the doubt and b) VAR being for clear and obvious errors.
If you have to watch a dozen replays and draw lines across the pitch to try and work out if the striker has his big toe offside, then VAR can f*ck right off.
Yes, it’s a mess really. Where it’s a marginal decision it’s crazy to rely 100% on a system which ISN’T 100% accurate
I used to be a fan but the way it’s being used for offsides is ridiculous. That red and blue dotted line thing doesn’t look convincing at all. You could easily see the blue dotted line could have gone further up the players body along with the red line that was supposedly going up the attacking player. I have just read that back and realised how stupid this sounds talking about red and blue dotted frigging lines!!!
As I mentioned on the Premier League thread. With all this being a matter of millimetres I’d like to know who decides to freeze the replay and when.
in slow motion the player passing the ball will have his foot in contact with the ball for a number of frames, which frame is it stopped on? An extra 3 or 4 frames of footage could make all the difference when checking if an attackers right shoulder is ahead of the defenders knee. (How ridiculous does that last sentence sound too?)
As I mentioned on the Premier League thread. With all this being a matter of millimetres I’d like to know who decides to freeze the replay and when.
in slow motion the player passing the ball will have his foot in contact with the ball for a number of frames, which frame is it stopped on? An extra 3 or 4 frames of footage could make all the difference when checking if an attackers right shoulder is ahead of the defenders knee. (How ridiculous does that last sentence sound too?)
The ball is typically in contact with the foot for 100th of a second in which time a player can move 10 cm. No way are these reviews accurate or meaningful. More like Schrödinger's cat! (Never used an umlaut before).
This could be easily remedied by amending the law to state if there is a gap between defender and attacking player then they are offside.
An arm or a toe being slightly in front would be made redundant. Only if there is actual daylight between the back most part of the stacking party and the defender should it be offside.
For me the VAR decision for the Spurs goal was a joke.
What happened to: a) the attacker getting the benefit of the doubt and b) VAR being for clear and obvious errors.
If you have to watch a dozen replays and draw lines across the pitch to try and work out if the striker has his big toe offside, then VAR can f*ck right off.
I agree with you on the Spurs decision because it's level as you can't measure the accuracy of when the ball leaves the foot from the pass. VAR should be the best thing to happen to football since the introduction of goal nets, but as usual the human element is complicating the process. Tennis, cricket and Rugby don't seem to have the issues with checking decisions.
That Son offside highlights just how ludicrous the use of VAR is. Anyone who believes that sort of decision is good for football is not a fan of the same sport I've been watching all my life.
Couldn't agree more. VAR is trying to interpret the game to a degree of accuracy that is impossible to see with the human eye. In relying on this technology, we de-humanise the game.
Not VAR related I know but, it is ironic that the part of Son's body that was judged to be offside was his arm; the one part he's not allowed to touch the ball with. I don't like the new off-side rule and I'm not sure of the reasoning for reverting. If it were up to me, we should give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking side unless the linesman can see daylight between the torsos (no pissing about with arms and legs) of the players concerned.
Plus, why isn't the "camera" shot for making the decision, in line with the players ? It's approx 10 yards ahead of the play.
There are cameras at the dog tracks, horse racing and all the running competitions in athletics that have a solution but then you might as well take the offside away from linesman.
The biggest problem with VAR and the offside calls is that the linesmen have been told that if it's very marginal, to let the play develop, knowing it can be checked afterwards if a goal results from the play. Although sound in theory, the effect of it is that the fans/team who score have to go through the horrible emotional crash of pure celebration turned to frustration, whilst the defending team get a big pick me up. Both in Leicester/Spurs and Chelsea/Liverpool games this has probably contributed to the defending side getting a goal soon after. Also leads to the feeling that you don't want to celebrate until the game has kicked off and all is confirmed, which takes away from the greatest joy in football; a goal celebration.
Perhaps a potential solution would be the assistant ref to let the play develop, and if there is a goal, instantly raise his flag to indicate he thinks it's probably offside. Therefore the scoring team/fans wouldn't begin to celebrate and would allow the VAR check, and then a goal could be awarded if the attacker was onside?
Plus, why isn't the "camera" shot for making the decision, in line with the players ? It's approx 10 yards ahead of the play.
There are cameras at the dog tracks, horse racing and all the running competitions in athletics that have a solution but then you might as well take the offside away from linesman.
Well no, because the lino gives loads of decisions. But in today's game for the disallowed goal, the camera wasn't in line with the incident, which I don't understand. It wasn't in line yesterday's game either and I'm not certain that it ever is.
If the game is going to persist with VAR I would like to see the Law changed to the extent that there has to be daylight between the attacker and the defender for it be offside i.e. if any part of the body is level then the attacker is deemed onside. VAR decisions would, generally speaking, be far clearer and the game would be rewarding, rather than penalising, an attacker.
The Law was changed before as level used to be offside so why not go that one step further?
If an obvious mistake has been made then var can overall it. The spurs goal yesterday was to close to call and took ages to overall. It's bollox and I don't like it
If we were ever to get back into the Premier League, VAR would be to our huge advantage.
Cast your mind back to the Curbishley glory years. How many times did we play the "big" clubs and get a very iffy decision given against us? It happened all the time. At least with VAR we wouldn't suffer so much and the big clubs would get pulled up if they scored an offside goal against us.
If we were ever to get back into the Premier League, VAR would be to our huge advantage.
Cast your mind back to the Curbishley glory years. How many times did we play the "big" clubs and get a very iffy decision given against us? It happened all the time. At least with VAR we wouldn't suffer so much and the big clubs would get pulled up if they scored an offside goal against us.
Really. So Var would give smaller clubs an advantage over bigger clubs.
Comments
What happened to: a) the attacker getting the benefit of the doubt and b) VAR being for clear and obvious errors.
If you have to watch a dozen replays and draw lines across the pitch to try and work out if the striker has his big toe offside, then VAR can f*ck right off.
I have no idea why they drew the lines where they did. They didn't seem to be in the right place to me.
Clear and obvious? Nah. No need for drawing lines and zooming in. They freeze framed it and they looked level, so award the goal.
People who's minds are wired up for the "perfect" answer all the time wont like that. But it's football, not chess.
This is where the review system in cricket works so well. The umpire's original decision stands unless a certain percentage of the ball is hitting/missing the stumps
for offsides is ridiculous. That red and blue dotted line thing doesn’t look convincing at all. You could easily see the blue dotted line could have gone further up the players body along with the red line that was supposedly going up the attacking player. I have just read that back and realised how stupid this sounds talking about red and blue dotted frigging lines!!!
in slow motion the player passing the ball will have his foot in contact with the ball for a number of frames, which frame is it stopped on? An extra 3 or 4 frames of footage could make all the difference when checking if an attackers right shoulder is ahead of the defenders knee. (How ridiculous does that last sentence sound too?)
An arm or a toe being slightly in front would be made redundant. Only if there is actual daylight between the back most part of the stacking party and the defender should it be offside.
VAR should be the best thing to happen to football since the introduction of goal nets, but as usual the human element is complicating the process.
Tennis, cricket and Rugby don't seem to have the issues with checking decisions.
Spurs go 2 up, they probably draw !
It's approx 10 yards ahead of the play.
Not VAR related I know but, it is ironic that the part of Son's body that was judged to be offside was his arm; the one part he's not allowed to touch the ball with. I don't like the new off-side rule and I'm not sure of the reasoning for reverting. If it were up to me, we should give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking side unless the linesman can see daylight between the torsos (no pissing about with arms and legs) of the players concerned.
Improve it or remove it
londonnewsonline.co.uk/charlton-boss-…
Perhaps a potential solution would be the assistant ref to let the play develop, and if there is a goal, instantly raise his flag to indicate he thinks it's probably offside. Therefore the scoring team/fans wouldn't begin to celebrate and would allow the VAR check, and then a goal could be awarded if the attacker was onside?
But in today's game for the disallowed goal, the camera wasn't in line with the incident, which I don't understand.
It wasn't in line yesterday's game either and I'm not certain that it ever is.
The Law was changed before as level used to be offside so why not go that one step further?
The spurs goal yesterday was to close to call and took ages to overall.
It's bollox and I don't like it
Cast your mind back to the Curbishley glory years. How many times did we play the "big" clubs and get a very iffy decision given against us? It happened all the time. At least with VAR we wouldn't suffer so much and the big clubs would get pulled up if they scored an offside goal against us.
So Var would give smaller clubs an advantage over bigger clubs.