[Football] This is utterly ridiculous

[darkwolf666]

Or go back to the Watney Cup trial, where there was no offside outside of the penalty area.

God I'm old, I remember that!!!!

 

[Bry Nylon]

If you want VAR this is what you get. Maybe you pro-VAR lot should have thought it through.

There is no way to make it better.

Its a complete dogs breakfast and it was always going to be - there is no way to make it better. If you wanted VAR you've got it. Just shut up and lump it.

Pretty much sums it up for me.

On 5 Live last night they were saying there is an air of panic running through Stockley Park. I think they are beginning to realise that their half-baked, poorly executed solution is running the very real risk of turning what is the best and most watched league in the world into a complete farce. The PGMOL are being battered by events and have no strategy to get themselves out of the mess they have landed themselves in with players, managers, the media and supporters.

Suspending VAR for the rest of the season isn't just their best option - I believe it is quickly becoming their only option.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Unless there's a clear reason not to, give the goal. If you need to look at something a dozen times, it's not clear and therefore, it's not a reason to deny a goal. Firmino's goal was perfect, look at it once, put up the lines and then decide there's no reason to disallow the goal so overrule the linesman and give the goal.

They need to start simplifying the decisions and showing them on the screens. In the case of Firmino, no Villa fan would reasonably want that disallowed for the precedent. Nobody cares that his armpit was offside, the goal should have stood.

 

[portlock seagull]

As millions have already said, VAR has destroyed football and presents a new Axis of Evil when partnered with global TV rights.

We, the fans, never stood a chance.

 

[Joey'The Bull'Gambino]

Unless you've been to a few games and witness VAR you don't fully appreciate how ridiculous it is to hold yourself back after celebrating a goal to see if it actually was a goal.Waiting to see if we got a pen last week for what must have been at least 2 minutes was a joke.If you want to stand up for VAR you got say that suspense adds to the excitement of a game but I'd rather not have it.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

We, the fans, never stood a chance.

What does that actually MEAN? It's a very sweeping and doom and gloom statement, but does it actually mean anything?

 

[Triggaaar]

The advantage should lie with the attacker with the emphasis being on only disallowing goals if it is CLEAR they were not correct.

That's your opinion, but it's not what the rules are.

That is the WHOLE POINT of the recommendation that the linesman keeps the flag down and the refs check the goals regardless.

No it isn't. You've just imagined that. The point that the linesman keeps their flag down is so they don't incorrectly disallow a goal just before it's scored, in case there was no offside.

If you can't be CONCLUSIVE that a goal was offside then clearly it wasn't offside enough to care. Allow the goal for goodness sake.

You want the rules to change, fine. You want offsides to be allowed if it's just a few centimetres right? Just for clarity, how many centimetres would you think it ok to allow offside players to be onside?

Clearly we are looking at this from different viewpoints and that's fine, but the one question I would ask is, do you honestly think a VAR system which sees the HQ determining (with no proven accuracy at all) that a players armpit is offside how you want VAR to be? I'd be STAGGERED if that's how the authorities wanted it to be.

Overall VAR isn't working very well at the moment, for a variety of reasons. How tight the offside decisions are is not the worst part of VAR. Maybe they could do a version of umpires call, so if a linesman allows the goal, VAR only intervenes if the attacker was at least (for example) 20cm offside. Meanwhile, if the linesman flags offside (after a goal), the goal stands if VAR says they were the smallest measurement onside. I think fans would prefer that. Then if VAR calls it offside when the linesman didn't, you'd know it wasn't ridiculously close. Obviously that wouldn't affect the decision we were discussing, as the linesman gave it offside, and VAR has determined it was probably correct.

In answer to your previous question, I would want that overturned as the technology is not good enough, in that situation, to prove CLEARLY he is offside.

I think that's a bit mad, but each to their own.

In such a marginal situation, the advantage should be with the attacker. Again, happy to accept I'm holding a different viewpoint to you on this.

 

[maffew]

Photo finishes belong in horse racing. Not football

 

[monty uk]

Photo finishes belong in horse racing. Not football

To misquote PPF:

Rules is rules.

Sorry, RULES IS RULES.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I'm sorry, I know the rule states A player is in an offside position if any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent. But FFS this is beyond ridiculous. I have always wanted VAR, but not when it is being used like this. What is happening here are the rules are being applied with a degree of accuracy the writers of the rules could have never imagined possible. Offside was not not introduced to prevent a players underarm being in front of another's players knee. VAR is taking the rules out of the context they were designed for

View attachment 116875

Clear Blue Daylight.

Yes there will still be quibbles but it feels so much better when your man is offside because there is clear blue daylight rather than because his foreskin is a millimeter thicker than the defender's (although this of course would never be the case).

 

[Sheebo]

Yep, applying too much precision to something that needs a margin. There have been studies already that show it’s impossible to pinpoint the exact position of the ‘offside’ player as the ball is played because the player can move a certain distance whilst the ball is in contact with the players foot........

Using the above example, I think the ‘offside’ line needs to be thicker (equating to maybe a foot/18 inches) and unless the player has something ahead of that then it’s not deemed ‘clear and obvious’ so not called offside.

I'm sorry, I know the rule states A player is in an offside position if any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent. But FFS this is beyond ridiculous. I have always wanted VAR, but not when it is being used like this. What is happening here are the rules are being applied with a degree of accuracy the writers of the rules could have never imagined possible. Offside was not not introduced to prevent a players underarm being in front of another's players knee. VAR is taking the rules out of the context they were designed for

View attachment 116875

Wow - if only FIFA could read these 2 posts on a BHA message board - it kind of sums up what all football fans with half a brain want. You two fancy a new job? Could do with this common sense approach in football. Well said.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Unless you've been to a few games and witness VAR you don't fully appreciate how ridiculous it is to hold yourself back after celebrating a goal to see if it actually was a goal.Waiting to see if we got a pen last week for what must have been at least 2 minutes was a joke.If you want to stand up for VAR you got say that suspense adds to the excitement of a game but I'd rather not have it.

I feel the exact opposite. I have never celebrated a goal until I know it is a goal. Quite often that is immediately. Quite often it isn't. And I would rather have the correct decision than a wrong one. Especially when we lose a game because of a 'goal' that was offside being given.

The problem with VAR as I have said repeatedly is that the rules are ambiguous and referees and people in the VAR hut are not curating the process properly. Together that creats an omnishambles. Sometimes. Not every time but too often. Take that 'handball' on MOTD (Everton game I think it was); ball pings off attackers shoulder on to defender's arm. One yard of deflected ball. Two seconds required to conclude 'not handball'. Instead we had two minutes of idiocy. What were they actually looking for, and with what purpose? Nobody knows.

As I have also said many times, consider the breatherliser; one milligram over and it is 'guilty'. It is arbitrary. It is a rule. A cut off is unavoidable. The issue is where should that be and how do you decide what to do with the result? One milligram, cut the goolies off, or some points, or a ban? Separate issues.

If you want jumpers for goal posts, old fashioned challenges and a beer at your elbow, watch park football

 

[darkwolf666]

I feel the exact opposite. I have never celebrated a goal until I know it is a goal. Quite often that is immediately. Quite often it isn't. And I would rather have the correct decision than a wrong one. Especially when we lose a game because of a 'goal' that was offside being given.

The problem with VAR as I have said repeatedly is that the rules are ambiguous and referees and people in the VAR hut are not curating the process properly. Together that creats an omnishambles. Sometimes. Not every time but too often. Take that 'handball' on MOTD (Everton game I think it was); ball pings off attackers shoulder on to defender's arm. One yard of deflected ball. Two seconds required to conclude 'not handball'. Instead we had two minutes of idiocy. What were they actually looking for, and with what purpose? Nobody knows.

As I have also said many times, consider the breatherliser; one milligram over and it is 'guilty'. It is arbitrary. It is a rule. A cut off is unavoidable. The issue is where should that be and how do you decide what to do with the result? One milligram, cut the goolies off, or some points, or a ban? Separate issues.

If you want jumpers for goal posts, old fashioned challenges and a beer at your elbow, watch park football

Not often I disagree with you, a fellow man of Kent, but on this occasion I think you are wide of the mark.

Whatever the ins and outs of VAR it is undeniable it has taken away the spontaneous outpourings at a goal.

I've always taken a cursory glance at the linesman and checked the ref before going bat shit crazy - now those days are gone. Instead I'll wait for 5 minutes while VAR decide if they can disallow it, before waiting for the VAR decision words on the big screen "GOAL" - not the same is it!

 

[Easy 10]

Not often I disagree with you, a fellow man of Kent, but on this occasion I think you are wide of the mark.

Whatever the ins and outs of VAR it is undeniable it has taken away the spontaneous outpourings at a goal.

I've always taken a cursory glance at the linesman and checked the ref before going bat shit crazy - now those days are gone. Instead I'll wait for 5 minutes while VAR decide if they can disallow it, before waiting for the VAR decision words on the big screen "GOAL" - not the same is it!

Very much this.

I had the celebration brakes on for BOTH our goals on Saturday, because in both instances I could see that the ref had his finger in his ear. It felt like a very real chance we were going to get the dreaded "GOAL REVIEW" on the big screens. Of course this time, it didn't. But by then the moment has gone. That spontaneous moment when you just leap up out of your seat and go "YYYYEEESSS" had been removed.

I don't care what [MENTION=1200]Harry Wilson's tackle[/MENTION] says, you CANNOT recreate that moment, that adrenaline rush, when its been put on hold because of VAR.

 

[Wardy's twin]

It was a poor decision where the advanced technology has not really understood the rule, there is no advantage gained by his little finger being out and if we are pedantic at what point is this measured because unless there is a sensor in the ball how can you correlate the time line a camera might show the foot still an inch from the ball or in indeed might be when there has been .01 of a second of contact in which time the hand and finger has moved forward.

 

[perseus]

I'm sorry, I know the rule states A player is in an offside position if any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent. But FFS this is beyond ridiculous. I have always wanted VAR, but not when it is being used like this. What is happening here are the rules are being applied with a degree of accuracy the writers of the rules could have never imagined possible. Offside was not not introduced to prevent a players underarm being in front of another's players knee. VAR is taking the rules out of the context they were designed for

View attachment 116875

the camera distorts
corrected to assistant referee running the line's view

 

[Joey'The Bull'Gambino]

I feel the exact opposite. I have never celebrated a goal until I know it is a goal. Quite often that is immediately. Quite often it isn't. And I would rather have the correct decision than a wrong one. Especially when we lose a game because of a 'goal' that was offside being given.

The problem with VAR as I have said repeatedly is that the rules are ambiguous and referees and people in the VAR hut are not curating the process properly. Together that creats an omnishambles. Sometimes. Not every time but too often. Take that 'handball' on MOTD (Everton game I think it was); ball pings off attackers shoulder on to defender's arm. One yard of deflected ball. Two seconds required to conclude 'not handball'. Instead we had two minutes of idiocy. What were they actually looking for, and with what purpose? Nobody knows.

As I have also said many times, consider the breatherliser; one milligram over and it is 'guilty'. It is arbitrary. It is a rule. A cut off is unavoidable. The issue is where should that be and how do you decide what to do with the result? One milligram, cut the goolies off, or some points, or a ban? Separate issues.

If you want jumpers for goal posts, old fashioned challenges and a beer at your elbow, watch park football

I use to be all for VAR like you before I witnessed first hand what a shambles it is and what it takes from the spectator who are the life and blood. Accuracy isn't everything.

 

[Albion my Albion]

I'm sorry, I know the rule states A player is in an offside position if any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent. But FFS this is beyond ridiculous. I have always wanted VAR, but not when it is being used like this. What is happening here are the rules are being applied with a degree of accuracy the writers of the rules could have never imagined possible. Offside was not not introduced to prevent a players underarm being in front of another's players knee. VAR is taking the rules out of the context they were designed for

View attachment 116875

How in the world do you know so well what kind of degree of accuracy the writers of the rules intended? ? ? ? ?

The rules were written and are interpreted as they are written--period!!!!

Just because referees in previous years couldn't "see" the play as well as VAR that the writers of the rules intended it that way.

 

[Albion my Albion]

I use to be all for VAR like you before I witnessed first hand what a shambles it is and what it takes from the spectator who are the life and blood. Accuracy isn't everything.

When it determines if the Albion are relegated or not then Accuracy is everything.

 

[rocker959]

Take the offside rule away