[Football] Football needs VAR but laws of the game aren't ready for it

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Whatever offside rule you make there will be a point where it switches from being onside to offside. Around this point there will always be arguments.

Of course. I agree. I am assuming that the repeated comments on here and in real life dating back to before VAR that an offside call when only a nose hair was offside is against the spirit of the game. Given that VAR will allow a very precise estimate of whether it is offside or not, why not make everone feel a bit better about the outcome by making it a bit less harsh on the attacker.

And it is worth noting that exactly the same applies to goal line technology - it is either a goal or not, down to almost angstrom precision, and yet everyone is comfortable with goal line technology.

Clear blue dayliht on offside won't make VAR any quicker but it will result in less ire.

Until Zaha is ruled onside when he scores the winner against us with his silly arse cheeks blocking out the clear blue daylight, of course.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

My god I have seen some crap analogies but I don't think this will ever be beaten

See reply to Guiness Boy.

People who would rather have a wrong decision than wait for VAR.

Here is another one. If my kiddy gets a rash I would rather rely on my next door neighbour's assessment that have to schlep all the way into town with the nipper to check with the doc if it's meningitis.

No, I don't mean that VAR is like meningitis. I mean that it is better to be safe than sorry, and that doing rash and stupid things (like having a skinful before driving home from the pub) is idiotic, and people ripping up their season ticket because of VAR is like someone not going down the pub becasue they can no longer drive home pissed.

Get in now?

 

[Nobby]

But what was actually wrong with the tech at the weekend? Burn was offside. The ball did clearly strike the Man City guy's arm. They were both great decisions by VAR. Baffled by what people actually want except wrong decisions to stand.

I don't think this controversy has got any legs, we aren't going to go back to having poorer decisions decide matches

Ok what about the cast iron City penalty vs Spurs. Why was that not given on VAR?

 

[Nobby]

Sorry that this is a) The Mail and b) written by an anti-VAR journalist but if you can bring yourself to read it the technology could be out by as much as 14 inches (or about one sixth of a Dan Burn) when it comes to offside. The still briefly shown on MotD was after the ball had been kicked.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...-2-4cm-offside-allowed-13cm-margin-error.html

Wow that’s dreadful. What a shambles

 

[Nobby]

Some people appear desperate to blame VAR for everything. Blaming VAR for some of the contentious decisions we've seen (e.g. the penalties at the WWC or the Man City non-goal at the weekend) have more to do with the laws than the technology. Blaming VAR is like blaming the speed camera for catching you when you hadn't realised they'd lowered the speed limit to 30 from 40 and you get caught doing 38.

Having said that, there's no reason why it shouldn't be made faster. Impose a 30 second time limit on any decision, failure to reach a conclusive decision in that time leads to "referee's call" and it stays with their decision. That would make it more akin to something like the time it took to check and award that Pascal Gross goal against Man Utd the season before last, which was an amazing moment.

10 seconds

 

[Mellotron]

Fair point. My mistake was to assume “clear and obvious errors” meant VAR would leave the ref to it and only step in if he or she had missed a howler or the ref wanted a second opinion.

This.

I cautiously backed the introduction of VAR on the basis it would be there specifically to sort things like Henry's handball against Ireland, or the Luis Garcia "ghost goal" for Liverpool years ago. Absolute shockers where the referee simply missed it, through no fault of his own.

I was all in favour of VAR for that, not this overbearing monstrosity that has been unleashed.

 

[symyjym]

I have always thought that the game could use a system for offside where all boots and balls are chipped and making the feet as the offside measurement. This would mean that the offside can be caught in real time and stopping play before a goal is scored. It is really important for offside to be recognised in the exact instance.

As it is at the moment it will stop players celebrating in the moment, and fans too.

 

[Nobby]

See reply to Guiness Boy.

People who would rather have a wrong decision than wait for VAR.

Here is another one. If my kiddy gets a rash I would rather rely on my next door neighbour's assessment that have to schlep all the way into town with the nipper to check with the doc if it's meningitis.

No, I don't mean that VAR is like meningitis. I mean that it is better to be safe than sorry, and that doing rash and stupid things (like having a skinful before driving home from the pub) is idiotic, and people ripping up their season ticket because of VAR is like someone not going down the pub becasue they can no longer drive home pissed.

Get in now?

I’m not sure you’re getting this argument at all.
No one wants a wrong decision. Supporters want a decision which is made quickly and not take 1 minute and 42 seconds to decide as on Saturday.
People also want consistency.
If VAR corrects incorrect onsides and offsides then it should correct missed penalty calls and incorrect penalty calls.
That did not happen at the weekend.

What happened was that this useful technology, (of which there are still some doubts apparently), was not used in cases which have subsequently been shown to be incorrect decisions. (Eg City penalty vs Spurs).

If we are going to use this technology, it must be quick and seamless, so that paying customers are not sacrificed to the TV Gods, and it must be used to redress all incorrect decisions not just some of them.

Otherwise, we have no difference to the non VAR past, when some decisions were correct and some not.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I was taking the piss with my analogy. Taking the piss out of folk who think that using VAR to reach a correct decision is taking all the fun out of the game and they would rather have an instant incorrect decision.

I get it - you're speaking in the voice of us naughty funsters who'd rather have a bad, quick, human decision to debate in the pub than an accurate to the point of ridiculousness, slow, technology based decision. I'm a Luddite

But the analogy was poor for the reasons I stated - VAR is the CCTV and not the drink drive limit. CCTV doesn't stop you doing stupid things - it just rachets up the possiblity that you'll get caught.

 

[Arthritic Toe]

Of course. I agree. I am assuming that the repeated comments on here and in real life dating back to before VAR that an offside call when only a nose hair was offside is against the spirit of the game. Given that VAR will allow a very precise estimate of whether it is offside or not, why not make everone feel a bit better about the outcome by making it a bit less harsh on the attacker.

And it is worth noting that exactly the same applies to goal line technology - it is either a goal or not, down to almost angstrom precision, and yet everyone is comfortable with goal line technology.

Clear blue dayliht on offside won't make VAR any quicker but it will result in less ire.

Until Zaha is ruled onside when he scores the winner against us with his silly arse cheeks blocking out the clear blue daylight, of course.

Personally, my beef isn't with the microscopic accuracy. I'd say if we have to have it, lets have it precise. My beef is with the whole idea of VAR and that it just saps the life out of the game. Not knowing whether a goal is a goal until several minutes later just destroys it.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

I was taking the piss with my analogy. Taking the piss out of folk who think that using VAR to reach a correct decision is taking all the fun out of the game and they would rather have an instant incorrect decision.

My God, it took him this long to come up with an excuse. No matter, mods like Guinness will swoon over the idiot anyway.

 

[Machiavelli]

Personally, my beef isn't with the microscopic accuracy. I'd say if we have to have it, lets have it precise. My beef is with the whole idea of VAR and that it just saps the life out of the game. Not knowing whether a goal is a goal until several minutes later just destroys it.

I'm actually pro-VAR but the disallowed Trossard decision took an age to make. I could see it from where I sat and it was pretty clear on replays, so no idea why it took so long for the goal to be ruled out.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

There probably was clear daylight between Burn and the defence wasn't there?

Not when I saw the reply and the VAR decision. That said, MOTD ran through it so quickly.....and the way they were speaking it was not contestable. But MOTD is backing VAR....to my eye the bodies overlapped, which is why I woke up feeling glum about the goal. I'd like to see the VAR view on screen at the stadium, too. I don'r recall seeing it on Saturday.

These are small tweaks, though.

 

[Driver8]

Football doesn’t need VAR.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I get it - you're speaking in the voice of us naughty funsters who'd rather have a bad, quick, human decision to debate in the pub than an accurate to the point of ridiculousness, slow, technology based decision. I'm a Luddite

But the analogy was poor for the reasons I stated - VAR is the CCTV and not the drink drive limit. CCTV doesn't stop you doing stupid things - it just rachets up the possiblity that you'll get caught.

Yes, that's right (my point).

VAR is CCTV? Yes, perhaps. So, you are against CCTV, then?

Perhaps a better analogy for VAR would be the blood alchohol test.

Anyway, you know what I mean, and you disagree, so there we are.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I’m not sure you’re getting this argument at all.
No one wants a wrong decision. Supporters want a decision which is made quickly and not take 1 minute and 42 seconds to decide as on Saturday.
People also want consistency.
If VAR corrects incorrect onsides and offsides then it should correct missed penalty calls and incorrect penalty calls.
That did not happen at the weekend.

What happened was that this useful technology, (of which there are still some doubts apparently), was not used in cases which have subsequently been shown to be incorrect decisions. (Eg City penalty vs Spurs).

If we are going to use this technology, it must be quick and seamless, so that paying customers are not sacrificed to the TV Gods, and it must be used to redress all incorrect decisions not just some of them.

Otherwise, we have no difference to the non VAR past, when some decisions were correct and some not.

Yes, yes, I agree with every word! I want VAR to be quick and I want laws changed so VAR informs (some) different decisions to the ones we have seen this season that have caused the most venting. I want VAR used better.

My ire is directed at folk who object to VAR because they appear to think it can never work, many of whom appear to favour swift incorrect decisions over delayed correct ones, and who cnflate VAR with bad laws.

I also direct my ire against the clowns who have failed to ensure the laws make sense and the use of VAR is optimal. But I think things will get better with VAR tweaking, and don't see binning of VAR as remotely desirable.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Personally, my beef isn't with the microscopic accuracy. I'd say if we have to have it, lets have it precise. My beef is with the whole idea of VAR and that it just saps the life out of the game. Not knowing whether a goal is a goal until several minutes later just destroys it.

If it continues to be several minutes there could well be repercussions. It will have to be faster. Humans are clever, though and solutions will be forthcoming.

How about this: a 30 second rule. For offsides if VAR can't check the pix in 30 seconds the VAR team should be sacked. For handball and penalties, if it is going to take more than 30 seconds it is clearly a coin toss call, in which case a policy can be made to favour the attacking side (or defending side - that can be discussed). It is better to have a policy to deal with 'too close to call' decisions than rely on the whims of either the VAR team or the ref (the latter either with or without the assistanmce of VAR).

Anyway as I said before, VAR can no more be uninvented than can genetic tests for heritable diseases. The trajectory is towards more use of technology, not less.

 

[brightn'ove]

I said this at the time that UEFA should have paid a mid-tier European League to trial VAR for a whole season, i.e. tech up the SPL grounds, give each club £5 million to participate then run the whole season and monitor the results.

I agree that the handball laws are unclear and so an attacker gets penalised for accidental handball in the box but a defender doesn't.

I felt gutted at Trossard's first goal being chalked off, so I imagine the Citeh fans must feel sick about Laporte's "handball" in extra-time denying them the 3 points and the impact that has on the title race.

Errr... VAR started being trialled in small European leagues 3 years ago, and has been in big European leagues for 2 years.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

No-one was saying that after Cardiff away last season !

Which is what VAR should be for.

Not 2mm off side

 

[Guinness Boy]

Yes, that's right (my point).

VAR is CCTV? Yes, perhaps. So, you are against CCTV, then?

I wouldn't say for or against. For if it finds a lost child or catches toads that have stuck some poor bloke's business up whilst terrifying him. Against if it is used as a 1984 style catch all to restrict freedom and justify binning off police on the ground. All technology has pros and cons, even the stuff I sell. Progress and change are desireable but, my word, it has to be the RIGHT technology.

Do I want a computer writing Mozart style symphonies, attempting to paint masterpieces or cooking my wagyu beef? Not on your nelly. Do I find youtube and spotify great for finding music or the internet useful for background on it, telling me when the gallery is open or what wine pairs best within a £15 price range? Absolutely. Science has its place and art has it's place. But, as I said, football is art.

I guess my biggest beef is what do you expect VAR to achieve. If the answer is "the right result" you've already lost me, You cannot legislate for what effect the stop in momentum cost us on Saturday. Irresepective of THAT decision the wind comes out of your sails, the crowd go silent and their herberts pipe up instead. The whole dimension of the game changes. Butterfly's wings and all that. Last season Trossard's first "goal" either would have stood, leaving probably less than 5% of the away end questioning it, or the flag would already have been up and we'd have accepted it, barely celebrated, and pushed on for the win.

VAR won't stop Liverpool or City winning the title this season. It won't stop Palace being a one man team coached by someone who looks like a senile lesbian. It won't stop Madrid and Barca being the big two in Spain, Celtic winning Monkey Tennis or England charging towards glorious failure in a semi final. It will not IMPROVE results but it will ruin my day out as a paying punter.

Anyway, we're not going to agree but if I can get my kids to let me downstairs at HT on Sat I will happily discuss this (or perhaps other stuff) over beer.