[Football] Right then. After that demonstration... VAR? Yes or No?

[The Wizard]

I think the Spurs one yesterday was the worst yet. I was pro VAR but have fast gone off it with these ridiculously tight offsides being given and the refusal to overturn blatant decisions elsewhere on the pitch. In its current form it doesn't work.

Ridiculous, he’s clearly 0.0074 nanometers offside.

 

[Sorrel]

It would be nice if there was some kind of "umpire's call" like there is in cricket. For example, if the offside was not picked up on the pitch by the officials and it's a really close decision, then the pitch decision gets the benefit of the doubt. VAR could then be used to clear up clear and obvious mistakes, not highly marginal calls.

 

[METALMICKY]

Further proof that current application of VAR is farcical. It can show when someone is offside by the width of gnats whisker but fail to spot the nailed on penalty for Villa against Arsenal today. Player clearly moves his arm to the ball but review says decision is correct. However, on tonight's Match of the Day 2 they actually got a quote from the FA saying that had the referee given the penalty VAR would have looked at and approved it as the CORRECT decision! They are making it up as they go along surely

 

[Quinney]

It would be nice if there was some kind of "umpire's call" like there is in cricket. For example, if the offside was not picked up on the pitch by the officials and it's a really close decision, then the pitch decision gets the benefit of the doubt. VAR could then be used to clear up clear and obvious mistakes, not highly marginal calls.

This will hopefully be the way it goes, 2 “appeals” each half for each team, at the moment it’s becoming farcical.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[darkwolf666]

So funny to see the usual NSC clique moaning about VAR!
It clearly improves the game or would you all prefer bad desicions to go even more the way of the top 6 teams?
As for all your bleating and whining about offside: your problem is with the law not VAR you bloody idiots. VAR is just applying the law.

If you really believe that, take a look at the graphic in the post above yours (#627), and tell me that decision improved the game. No linesman would have given that offside, so I am not sure why the VAR officials do? That's not an application of the law, that is an application of technology.

VAR in it's current form is ruining the game...

 

[Brovion]

Well, there we are then, clearly and obviously... only a blind fool would have failed to see that.

VAR, leave our game alone. We don't need you.

Yup. I'm just repeating myself but I, I guess like most, have no objection to VAR in principle. Video technology is used in other sports with varying degrees of success, but the current way football uses it is really killing it for me. It's got so bad that I just couldn't be arsed to watch our game against Newcastle. I'm a Sky subscriber, I had nothing else to do, but I didn't want to waste an hour and a half of my life watching a football match. All I'm interested in is the result.

Help me.

 

[Perfidious Albion]

It seems to me that the offside rule needs to be clarified.
As I understand, its purpose is to prevent an attacker lurking close to the goal, taking a long ball upfield and scoring an easy goal. That is different from when someone is so marginally offside ,or his leg extends beyond the defence.
To be "off" there should be clear daylight between the attacker and the second defender.

If it takes umpteen camaras and freeze frame tech to see it, what the hell?

 

[amexer]

Whilst happy with what we had before you cannot have technology available and not use it. A positive is that games will no longer be decided on a dodgy offside goal. Its the implementation that needs tweaking. Assistants should start flagging which they should have done with both Brighton incidents. Its only the very close ones like Spurs that seem to be contention so maybe change rules and say like cricket it is both feet have to be behind.
People saying Villa should have had penalty. Why. Do we really want penalty decided by VAR for just hitting arm. Long may it continue that apart from obvious ones Refs make decisions in box

 

[nicko31]

VAR, we're trying to let the perfect be the enemy of the good...

 

[sussex_guy2k2]

The biggest issue they've got with VAR isn't the technology, it's the human application. In principle, the technology should be used to improve human decisions, but this idea of only changing "clear and obvious" errors is actually done to protect the referees at the expense of getting the decisions right, which defeats the object of using the technology at present. Mic the refs and change the application to "has the referee or AR got the decision wrong?" and you'll start getting a lot more correct decisions from VAR which is what we all want.

What's also clear, and I've read this and heard this on a podcast, is that the rules at the moment simply aren't fit for purpose which is why the body (IFAB I believe) who's in charge of VAR have had to rewrite the rules for VAR application 15 times already (which is ludicrous). Until the man-made laws are usable, we'll continue to see decisions like the offside goal for Spurs where less than an inch is deemed offside when it's not conclusive that it's even was an inch.

Overall though, VAR isn't the issue, the humans implementing it and our man made rules are.

 

[McTavish]

It would be nice if there was some kind of "umpire's call" like there is in cricket. For example, if the offside was not picked up on the pitch by the officials and it's a really close decision, then the pitch decision gets the benefit of the doubt. VAR could then be used to clear up clear and obvious mistakes, not highly marginal calls.

But what is the difference between a marginal call and a clear and obvious mistake. You are just moving the line of argument.

It seems to me that the offside rule needs to be clarified.

To be "off" there should be clear daylight between the attacker and the second defender.

Again, you are just moving the line of argument - is there a millimetre of daylight between the attackers back heel and the defenders shin? Or if a millimetre isn't clear what is? A centimetere? 5 centimetres? You have to define it somehow and once you have a definition you come back to exactly the same argument as now.

 

[Gazwag]

But what is the difference between a marginal call and a clear and obvious mistake. You are just moving the line of argument.


Again, you are just moving the line of argument - is there a millimetre of daylight between the attackers back heel and the defenders shin? Or if a millimetre isn't clear what is? A centimetere? 5 centimetres? You have to define it somehow and once you have a definition you come back to exactly the same argument as now.

Margin of error, it is a fact that technology is reliant on frames of a recording which cannot be 100% accurate so there currently has to be a + or - when the on-field decision is not changed.

 

[Dave the OAP]

Trouble is it is not the clubs who are appealing...it’s the jokers in some bunker in Berlin who are reviewing every decision from a sedentary position ( as the honourable speaker would put it)

This will hopefully be the way it goes, 2 “appeals” each half for each team, at the moment it’s becoming farcical.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Bold Seagull]

Cricket got over this controversy through the on field decision having prevalence over the technology.

Rather than proving whether a player is offside to the nearest mm, the technology should be deciding whether the on field decision was inherently wrong, maybe using an arbitrary test like the radius of the football as a margin of error that can overturn an on field decision.

What infuriates me is that football has decided not to use technology to support officiating, it has used it to overrule with no margins included. It is a mess.

 

[Brovion]

Cricket got over this controversy through the on field decision having prevalence over the technology.

Rather than proving whether a player is offside to the nearest mm, the technology should be deciding whether the on field decision was inherently wrong, maybe using an arbitrary test like the radius of the football as a margin of error that can overturn an on field decision.

What infuriates me is that football has decided not to use technology to support officiating, it has used it to overrule with no margins included. It is a mess.

The NFL uses a similar system. When a decision is reviewed and the result of the review announced to the crowd the form of words is:
"The decision on the field is confirmed. " (When it was correct)
"The decision on the field is changed. " (when it was blatantly wrong)
And ...
"The decision on the field stands." (When they really can't decide, and so the ruling of the officials on the field takes precedence over any TV official)


And another thing ...

If VAR was supposed to remove any controversy - it's failed miserably. (Not least because it doesn't cover all aspects of decision-giving).

 

[Iggle Piggle]

The biggest problems with VAR are

1. If you are at the game, you have no idea what is going on. No Announcements (see the NFL reply above for how that works elsewhere), No replays on a big screen just a ref with his finger against his ear. It's ridiculous that you then watch illegal footage on your phone to find out what's gone on at a game you've paid through the nose to be at. If it here to stay, at least involve the crowd. I
2. Offside needs to have a margin of error and the decisions need to be made sooner. Yes, Mason Mount was offside yesterday but why wait until the ball is in back of the net before you call it?
3. Video ref is not ideal in Rugby but at least the ref and video ref converse with each other. In football there is no questioning between one and other. 'Did he handball it? Did he stamp on his ankle? It's just one persons opinion that the other seems unwilling to overwrite (such as the Leicester maiming a week ago which was as clear a day Red as you will see but got given as a yellow)

It could work but they've made such a dogs dinner of it.

 

[Albion my Albion]

It's clear that most of you that don't like VAR have simply hated some of the decisions that have come from VAR more often. It's fine when the decision goes in your favour.

 

[Triggaaar]

If you really believe that, take a look at the graphic in the post above yours (#627), and tell me that decision improved the game. No linesman would have given that offside

Actually, they would. Not because they can see that it's a millimetre offside, but because they make their best guesses, and sometimes that means giving someone offside even when they're clearly onside. We've had a couple of goals like that disallowed by a linesman, when replays have clearly shown they were onside.

That's what we're missing this season. There have been goals allowed, where it's been really close, which would have been incorrectly disallowed in previous seasons. That's a great improvement, but no one notices.

Goals disallowed for being a mm offside is annoying most fans, so perhaps the offside rule should be relaxed a little. For example, it could be on the closest part of the torso (ignoring legs altogether, as in a running race), and they could say that daylight (between attacker and defender) is needed for it to be offside.

We'd still have just as tight calls (whether it's 1mm offside or not), but maybe the fans would be happier with it being more lenient for the attacking side.

 

[Arthritic Toe]

I just don't get it. If you're in favour of VAR, surely you want it to be precise. How can you have it and then want it to rule on only clear and obvious offsides. Perhaps those who were always bleating on about wanting it didn't really think it through...

 

[Arthritic Toe]

Goals disallowed for being a mm offside is annoying most fans, so perhaps the offside rule should be relaxed a little. For example, it could be on the closest part of the torso (ignoring legs altogether, as in a running race), and they could say that daylight (between attacker and defender) is needed for it to be offside.

.

This obsession with 'daylight' is very odd. It's never been a rule or directive of any kind, but there seems to be a generally held belief that in the olden days it used to be 'daylight' etc etc.

I realise that isn't your point, but what would be the advantage in moving the frame of reference to 'torso', 'daylight', 'feet' or anything else? It doesn't make any difference! Wherever you draw the line, there will be a point that is 1mm past that line - and that will be offside. You therefore still have a situation where the player is 1mm offside.