[Football] Another VAR Thread

[rippleman]

Already been proven that they can't actually determine when the ball is 'played' - think they used Sterling as an example, in that he could travel something like 1.5 metres whilst the ball is in contact with the passer's foot. Where would the line be drawn in that case ? Simply needs to be a thicker line and it'll be innstantly improved (not perfect, but better) - like what the Dutch have done.

No way they'll bin VAR now (I wish they would too - ****ing hate that pause after every goal now, it's crap) so got to find a way of making it work better. For offside, the forensic lines apply a level of precision that simply doesn't work

The rule used to be that the ball is in play only after it has travelled its circumference so in your example the offside point should be taken from after the ball has left Sterling's foot - not when his foot first comes into contact with the ball.

It was semantics then really. Never thought that this would be a discussion impacting on key aspects of the game.

The "entire circumference" rule is probably long gone now. It's difficult to keep up!

Any current qualified refs around to comment?

 

[amexer]

It is here to stay as clubs wont want to go back to days when goals given when yards offside. Just needs improving. Seems simple to me follow other sports. Line drawn on last defender All of attackers feet have to be behind line. Touching line like cricket will be onside. . Appreciate this would need a rule change by FIFA

 

[Swansman]

It is here to stay as clubs wont want to go back to days when goals given when yards offside. Just needs improving. Seems simple to me follow other sports. Line drawn on last defender All of attackers feet have to be behind line. Touching line like cricket will be onside. . Appreciate this would need a rule change by FIFA

"Technological defeatism - a belief that, since a given technology is here to stay, there's nothing we can do about it other than get on with it and simply adjust our norms - is a persistent feature of social thought about technology. We'll come to pay for it very dearly." - Evgeny Morozov

 

[dazzer6666]

Why though ? Gary Neville was saying last night that the fans don’t like it. Why do we have to keep something that is not wanted ? Seems to me it is on the basis that technology=progress and is therefore always a good thing. At some point the game is going to have to listen to it’s true paymasters; the fans.

Just can't see them reversing it (I wish they would)................I'd keep the goal line technology because that's not open to human interpretation or margin of error, but happily bin the rest and take the rough with the smooth in terms of decisions.

 

[Javeaseagull]

Just seen a post on the BBC which I thought worth mentioning. Do away with the lines!
Bear with me. It suggests that when a lino signals offside they have a look, without the lines, and if after say 10 seconds they can’t say yes on no go with the linos’ decision.
Seems far too sensible to me to ever be considered. A clear and obvious mistake would be seen straightaway instead of this faffing about with armpits and the like.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

Just seen a post on the BBC which I thought worth mentioning. Do away with the lines!
Bear with me. It suggests that when a lino signals offside they have a look, without the lines, and if after say 10 seconds they can’t say yes on no go with the linos’ decision.
Seems far too sensible to me to ever be considered. A clear and obvious mistake would be seen straightaway instead of this faffing about with armpits and the like.

Seems reasonable. Won’t be liked though by those who have turned our game into a PlayStation sequence, so won’t happen. Really looking forward to watching Southport tomorrow in a game without VAR.

 

[Simster]

I disagree with the Dutch change.

VAR works well with offside as it is, with the flip side being that we now don't see refs blowing up for offside when they are onside anymore, because they can always check later.

The only offside change I'd make is to the law itself. It should only apply to goal scoring parts of the body. That means if your toenail or your nose is 5mm offside, then you are offside. On the other hand, if your whole body is behind the line except for your arms, that should be onside. Bamford had a goal ruled out for pointing (with his arm/hand obvs) where he wanted the ball played. He got it, scored, and was ruled offside because he pointed. That is absurd.

Same thing with handball in the box. It's the crap law itself that is the biggest problem, not VAR - although the intepretation of "clear and obvious" along with VAR is indeed another major issue.

 

[keaton]

I disagree with the Dutch change.

VAR works well with offside as it is, with the flip side being that we now don't see refs blowing up for offside when they are onside anymore, because they can always check later.

The only offside change I'd make is to the law itself. It should only apply to goal scoring parts of the body. That means if your toenail or your nose is 5mm offside, then you are offside. On the other hand, if your whole body is behind the line except for your arms, that should be onside. Bamford had a goal ruled out for pointing (with his arm/hand obvs) where he wanted the ball played. He got it, scored, and was ruled offside because he pointed. That is absurd.

It does only apply to parts of the body you can score with? The Bamford was disallowed because the top of his arm was offside and as of this season that's no longer included in handball

 

[Simster]

It does only apply to parts of the body you can score with? The Bamford was disallowed because the top of his arm was offside and as of this season that's no longer included in handball

I thought he'd pointed and that was why it was disallowed?

 

[keaton]

I thought he'd pointed and that was why it was disallowed?

Yes, in the by pointing his upper arm( I think some people call it t+shirt line) was further forward than it would be.

 

[keaton]

Patrick Bamford: Did Leeds United striker have goal ruled out for pointing? - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/54855596

 

[amexer]

Just seen a post on the BBC which I thought worth mentioning. Do away with the lines!
Bear with me. It suggests that when a lino signals offside they have a look, without the lines, and if after say 10 seconds they can’t say yes on no go with the linos’ decision.
Seems far too sensible to me to ever be considered. A clear and obvious mistake would be seen straightaway instead of this faffing about with armpits and the like.

What happens when lino hasnt flagged and its a yard off

 

[Gotsmanov]

If this is to take into account the frame update rate challenge of the current majority of TV cameras used to capture the VAR frames, (when the ball was struck /where the players were at the time), and 10cm is the accepted margin of error, then makes sense to me. Given that a lino can't look in two places at the same time (unless the lino is a rabbit, with the ability to independently process each eye's information) then this seems like an improvement. The decision in such circumstances could be quickly provided as "too close to call", and would be fair enough and accepted by all in the stadium / at home. Anything outside of the margin of error would be reviewed and upheld / reversed, again quickly as they're more definitive, and it's these sorts of errors that we want removed from the game. The decision making would be quicker, another benefit.

Sent from my GM1913 using Tapatalk

 

[Javeaseagull]

What happens when lino hasnt flagged and its a yard off

That would be picked up in the 10 second review. Pay attention at the back!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I disagree with the Dutch change.

VAR works well with offside as it is, with the flip side being that we now don't see refs blowing up for offside when they are onside anymore, because they can always check later.

The only offside change I'd make is to the law itself. It should only apply to goal scoring parts of the body. That means if your toenail or your nose is 5mm offside, then you are offside. On the other hand, if your whole body is behind the line except for your arms, that should be onside. Bamford had a goal ruled out for pointing (with his arm/hand obvs) where he wanted the ball played. He got it, scored, and was ruled offside because he pointed. That is absurd.

Same thing with handball in the box. It's the crap law itself that is the biggest problem, not VAR - although the intepretation of "clear and obvious" along with VAR is indeed another major issue.

Quite.

Very good post