[Football] VAR whats worse waiting to celebrate a goal or going one down to an illegal goal?

[Acker79]

Right, so there's your answer to my question above. You'd draw the line at 'daylight' between the players. So we're going to be pausing it and looking at whether it's 1mm of daylight, or not. If it's not, the goal stands, and if it's 1mm, the goal is ruled out. Presumably the daylight has to be between each player's torso. Sometimes there will be 1mm of daylight between the bodies, but the defenders leg will be stretched towards the goal, and may even be ahead of the attacker, meaning that although there is daylight between the players, the striker isn't offside anyway. Or maybe he is by 1mm. I really can't see what you've gained by this change.

So we'll be looking at the trailing leg of the striker, and seeing if it overlaps the stretched out front leg of the defender by 1mm. Decisions will be as tight as they are now, but it will give a decent advantage to strikers. The problem with this is that it's really changing the offside law. The current system means even a little offside is offside, but at least it's the same law we've always had, just enforced more accurately. Changing it as you suggest would be strikers don't have to run off the shoulders of the defender, they can actually be ahead of them. If it goes that way I'll be fine with it, but I still don't see the advantage over what we have this season (as I say, it's still going to be mm decisions on whether the feet overlap). Murray would certainly be pleased, but the change would come too late for him.

That is the crux of it for me. Wherever the line is drawn, there will be close calls that will feel unfair. I know some people are accusing me of loving VAR, in truth I'm currently indifferent and am waiting for it bed in and everyone get used to it, but I'm not getting worked up over tight offside decisions because of this point here. Wherever the line is drawn there will be people complaining that it's too tight, there needs to be more leeway.

Maybe there won't be another decision this tight, and all these discussion with seem weird and doomsayer-y. Maybe there'll be a couple every week and either people will accept them (when opposition goals get cancelled) or the law will get reviewed. Beyond abandoning the law, though, or introducing inconsistency by adding subjectivity with Linos/Refs/VARs using "common sense" and making seemingly identical situation have different outcomes depending on who officiates. Leading to more criticisms and bemoaning the standard of refereeing.

 

[gnjd_85]

My problem is that as it is now- we're effectively saying that a striker can no longer aim to be level with the defender. If you're standing level with someone, even if both of you are actually trying to be exactly in line, one of you is going to be a fraction ahead of the other.

This means that if you're timing a run, you're now really going to have to time it to be behind rather than level with the last defender, which disadvantages the attacking player, and in the long run will make the game more boring.

So, yes you've got to draw the line somewhere, but I would like it to be a bit more forgiving for the striker so at least they can continue to try to stay level with the last man.

One option would be just to have a replay and if it's not obviously offside then give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker. Another would be just to make it slightly more generous by saying that the attacker only has to have his feet level or behind, so at least he can lean into a run. I think there's various options but as a former moderately serious striker myself, I worry about the way rulings like the Sterling one might alter the way people have to play.

 

[Mr Putdown]

I’m off for a lie down in a darkened room. I completely agree with Easy 10 regarding VAR.

 

[Creaky]

My main objection to VAR is that we can’t see what the ref is looking at. All we get is the decision.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Terrible decision by ref tonight for a penalty and backed up by useless VAR. What an appalling thing we have introduced.

 

[johnjim]

The best thing about VAR is it takes some pressure off the Ref. Influential managers in the old Ferguson mode will have far less impact on the game and this can only be good for BHA.
If we are realy lucky it will give TV pundits less to go on about and get them off the screen quicker as well.
Correct decisions, less Shearer and his pals, bring it on.

 

[Easy 10]

I’m off for a lie down in a darkened room. I completely agree with Easy 10 regarding VAR.

You secretly agree with me on everything. You'd just never admit it.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

This thread is useless, USELESS, without a poll.

Incidentally, a propos of nothing, would you rather wait a few minutes for considered deliberation, or just have the jury go '**** it. Guilty. Bang him up'? Would you rather wait to have the evidence considered or just say 'no, its a fair cop, rough me up a bit in the cell, and I'll do me bird'?

I think you know the right answer to this question, my little VAR-allergic chums

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

My main objection to VAR is that we can’t see what the ref is looking at. All we get is the decision.

Whereas before VAR - we had . . .

Mindreading!

My how I hanker for the good old days

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

My problem is that as it is now- we're effectively saying that a striker can no longer aim to be level with the defender. If you're standing level with someone, even if both of you are actually trying to be exactly in line, one of you is going to be a fraction ahead of the other.

This means that if you're timing a run, you're now really going to have to time it to be behind rather than level with the last defender, which disadvantages the attacking player, and in the long run will make the game more boring.

So, yes you've got to draw the line somewhere, but I would like it to be a bit more forgiving for the striker so at least they can continue to try to stay level with the last man.

One option would be just to have a replay and if it's not obviously offside then give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker. Another would be just to make it slightly more generous by saying that the attacker only has to have his feet level or behind, so at least he can lean into a run. I think there's various options but as a former moderately serious striker myself, I worry about the way rulings like the Sterling one might alter the way people have to play.

This is about the rules, not VAR.

I think the rules need to be changed for offside: clear blue daylight. Then we can knicker-wet over the millimeter decisions as opposed to anything up to a body thickness plus stray limbs/nose/cock as we are doing now (and did before VAR).

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

That is the crux of it for me. Wherever the line is drawn, there will be close calls that will feel unfair. I know some people are accusing me of loving VAR, in truth I'm currently indifferent and am waiting for it bed in and everyone get used to it, but I'm not getting worked up over tight offside decisions because of this point here. Wherever the line is drawn there will be people complaining that it's too tight, there needs to be more leeway.

Maybe there won't be another decision this tight, and all these discussion with seem weird and doomsayer-y. Maybe there'll be a couple every week and either people will accept them (when opposition goals get cancelled) or the law will get reviewed. Beyond abandoning the law, though, or introducing inconsistency by adding subjectivity with Linos/Refs/VARs using "common sense" and making seemingly identical situation have different outcomes depending on who officiates. Leading to more criticisms and bemoaning the standard of refereeing.

Yes.

The alternative to VAR is letting the ref and linos guess, whether a decision is a bit challenging or really tight. Guess or use VAR. What is better?

Its VAR isn't it?

 

[Easy 10]

Incidentally, a propos of nothing, would you rather wait a few minutes for considered deliberation, or just have the jury go '**** it. Guilty. Bang him up'? Would you rather wait to have the evidence considered or just say 'no, its a fair cop, rough me up a bit in the cell, and I'll do me bird'?

I think you know the right answer to this question, my little VAR-allergic chums

I was part of a jury once that deliberated over a case for two and a half days, and still ended up as a hung jury. Not sure I'd want that introduced on an offside call tbh.

 

[Triggaaar]

Maybe there won't be another decision this tight, and all these discussion with seem weird and doomsayer-y. Maybe there'll be a couple every week and either people will accept them (when opposition goals get cancelled) or the law will get reviewed.

In truth these close calls have always happened, but in the past the linesman has given their best guess as to whether it's offside or not. There would regularly be goals disallowed (or a 1 on 1 opportunity stopped by the flag before the goal) which when replayed looked like the benefit of the doubt should have been with the attacking team. As well as the clear errors of course. It's always been a fine line, it's just that we couldn't see where the line was.

The only real argument against it is that people will celebrate some goals, only to see them later disallowed. I think that's a tiny price to pay, others think that's a massive price, and will change the joy of football for the worse.

 

[Triggaaar]

My problem is that as it is now- we're effectively saying that a striker can no longer aim to be level with the defender. If you're standing level with someone, even if both of you are actually trying to be exactly in line, one of you is going to be a fraction ahead of the other.

That's a fair point, but actually for years we've seen video replays where they've looked at whether the striker is a foot ahead. It has now come down to much smaller margins.

This means that if you're timing a run, you're now really going to have to time it to be behind rather than level with the last defender, which disadvantages the attacking player, and in the long run will make the game more boring.

If it really disadvantaged them that much, then they'd simply have to change it. We're not going to put up with a boring sport.

So, yes you've got to draw the line somewhere, but I would like it to be a bit more forgiving for the striker so at least they can continue to try to stay level with the last man.

One option would be just to have a replay and if it's not obviously offside then give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker. Another would be just to make it slightly more generous by saying that the attacker only has to have his feet level or behind, so at least he can lean into a run.

They could adjust it to be less stringent against the striker. I don't like your first option, as it's all down to interpretation, and we'd get different decisions for each game. You could just measure the feet, but the feet move in a stop-start motion, so a lot will be down to luck as to the precise timing of the pass. They could go on the torso alone. They could even say that the intention was to play on when players were roughly level, and with that in mind, they would be onside unless their torso was (say) 20cm ahead of the defender. That would of course still result in extremely marginal decisions, but it would prevent the strikers being disadvantaged, as you think they are with the new system.

 

[Triggaaar]

Terrible decision by ref tonight for a penalty and backed up by useless VAR. What an appalling thing we have introduced.

Would have still be a penalty without VAR, so it didn't make that decision worse.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Would have still be a penalty without VAR, so it didn't make that decision worse.

It did make the decision worse. One of the points of VAR we were told was to help clear up cases where a player has feigned fouled contact as Abraham did last night. It is absolutely ridiculous that the incorrect decision was not overturned, VAR is already very messed up but when it can't see what everyone else (barring the ref) sees straight away, then I am afraid it is far worse than what we had before as it tantalises us but ultimately it's as inconsistent as the ref it is supposed to help.

 

[Triggaaar]

It did make the decision worse. One of the points of VAR we were told was to help clear up cases where a player has feigned fouled contact as Abraham did last night. It is absolutely ridiculous that the incorrect decision was not overturned, VAR is already very messed up but when it can't see what everyone else (barring the ref) sees straight away, then I am afraid it is far worse than what we had before as it tantalises us but ultimately it's as inconsistent as the ref it is supposed to help.

Without VAR it would have been a penalty. With VAR, it was a penalty. And you think it's worse because you were tantalised. Ok.

The way VAR is going to be used has been explained to us. We were told there would be decisions like this, where pundits think the decision should be overturned, but they wouldn't be if the VAR officials could see why the ref gave the decision. I assume Jorginho dived (and if he did I'd like decisions like that to be overturned), but I haven't seen a replay that shows he did, as the angles I've seen are from behind the keeper.

Also note, this wasn't a PL game.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Without VAR it would have been a penalty. With VAR, it was a penalty. And you think it's worse because you were tantalised. Ok.

The way VAR is going to be used has been explained to us. We were told there would be decisions like this, where pundits think the decision should be overturned, but they wouldn't be if the VAR officials could see why the ref gave the decision. I assume Jorginho dived (and if he did I'd like decisions like that to be overturned), but I haven't seen a replay that shows he did, as the angles I've seen are from behind the keeper.

Also note, this wasn't a PL game.

It is tantalising as there was a chance that VAR could actually do some good and rectify the poor decision of the ref.

 

[Triggaaar]

It is tantalising as there was a chance that VAR could actually do some good and rectify the poor decision of the ref.

Can you post a link to footage that shows she got it wrong?

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

Can you post a link to footage that shows she got it wrong?

No idea where it would be but bt showed it after the game. Joe Cole suggested VAR didn't overturn the decision for other reasons, one can only assume he meant they were going easy on her. I have no idea if that's true, but the new angle showed that it was a very weak claim for a penalty.