[Football] What about this VAR suggestion from Souness?

[GT49er]

That is too simple.

No it's not. It would be a huge improvement.

 

[kevo]

Think the ‘lines’ simply need to be made thicker to have a margin......can’t work on millimetres as they are doing now as it’s a level of precision that simply doesn’t work (as has been proven)

...is the correct answer. Has to be clear - if too tight to call, players should be deemed to be level and onside.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Leave onfield decisions to the officials. Train them better, pay them more.

People don't seem to fathom that ANY decision in a game of football can lead to different outcomes. A missed freekick, an offside that didn't directly result in a goal chance could favour the defending team, corners and throw-ins are still incorrectly called all the time and let's not open pandora's box by delving into injury time and how grossly inaccurate it is and how teams take the ****ing piss in the dying stages to see off a game.

Either ALL of it, EVERY decision has to be scrutinised or none of them. Leave them to the officials, human error is part of the game and just because the game is sickeningly inundated with money does not mean we have to ruin it. I'm not sure which is worse currently, celebrating a goal half-heartedly in the knowledge it has to be checked, or the half-hearted pantomime cheer when 30k people are looking at a screen to confirm it. It's a ****ing circus act.

Goal like tech is totally different as it provides a black and white decision within seconds. If only people had seen this coming eh.....

And all of that too.

 

[Driver8]

We’d only be having the same arguments just a few feet further forward. His finger was onside so it’s a goal!

 

[jessiejames]

Tell the referee that if in doubt to and look at the ****ing monitors, if he is still not sure go with his gut instinct. He is paid to ref the game and make the decision not someone 60 miles away from the action.

 

[Buffalo Seagull]

I’d just ditch offside altogether. You’d reduce the number of goal controversies by 90% overnight.

 

[amexer]

Rules now say any part of body you are off side so all VAR decisions are correct by book. However supporters are not happy with this so Rules need changing. However this would be complicated as any change would have to be world wide. Whatever peoples views are surely we dont want to go back to days when sides winning goal was yards offside.and there were many

 

[studio150]

If the attackers feet are onside, then the rest of their body is onside, and combine this with a maximum of 30 seconds to review the images, and if no decision is made within that time, then the on-field decision stands.

 

[Pavilionaire]

At last someone sees the problem with the suggestion. All attackers trailing an arm behind them.

This is why I think the position of the feet is the best solution.

Did it occur to anyone at the PL that 3 minutes to replicate an image of the laser security system of a bank vault was going to go down well with someone freezing their bollocks off in the stands in a northern town on a Sunday afternoon in winter?

 

[Seasider78]

Rules now say any part of body you are off side so all VAR decisions are correct by book. However supporters are not happy with this so Rules need changing. However this would be complicated as any change would have to be world wide. Whatever peoples views are surely we dont want to go back to days when sides winning goal was yards offside.and there were many

As many as the number of goals we have seen chalked off this week which nobody would have deemed as being offside before the lines and dots were introduced?

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

It might be good to ditch the 'clear and obvious error' rule. There is always going to be a huge amount of difference of opinion not just about the actual decision (which can be right or wrong, but it's still something that can be contested) and then adding an extra layer of subjectivity on whether a 'wrong' decision is 'clearly and obviously' wrong. Does it matter if it's not clearly and obviously wrong - it's still wrong. (I presume that this was introduced to protect the reputation and integrity of refs?)

Cricket, rugby and tennis can have a number of decisions during a game which might not materially effect the outcome. They are multi-points games. In football, matches can be decided by one goal and thus the key (wrong) decision just has so much more riding on it. This in itself puts enormous pressure on the decision-making system, whether that's just (old school) a half blind ref and two unfit linos, or (new school) the ref, the assistants, the techo hardware and the remote guys stuck in a studio.

I don't know of any sport which has deployed tech and then dumped it so I really think we are stuck with it. But it's got to evolve or it will lose credibility.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I suggested that yesterday. He clearly reads NSC.

I have suggested it several times including today. 'Clear blue daylight'

Since so many of us see the same solution, which is obvious...it will never happen. Fact.

 

[BensGrandad]

No it's not. It would be a huge improvement.

I was taking the p..s as it is so simple and obvious that it wont happen.,

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Mr Grumpy just suggested changing the rules rather than VAR by saying that if any part of the striker is onside then he is onside. Switch the line checking the other way around so you are checking if any part of him was onside rather than offside.

Not something I had thought of before and it could have some merit.

Doesn't really work, because there will still be a line that strikers will push and the narrow margins will exist. You're basically just changing the offside law. I do however agree with him that overlap should be considered onside, but would prefer it to be a 'linesman's call', ie if the flag goes up, it is offside if any part of his body is in front of the defender, but if the flag stays down, it is onside if any part of his body is level or behind the defender.

 

[GT49er]

I was taking the p..s as it is so simple and obvious that it wont happen.,

OK.

 

[Durlston]

There should be a maximum of two VAR checks a game for anything (for both sides). If they're correct then they keep their challenge. It would soon stop the ridiculous decision to deny Norwich's Teemu Pukki who was onside and strayed a toenail off when he wasn't in possession of the ball yesterday.

It works well in tennis and rugby (from what occasional matches I watch of it).

 

[southstandandy]

Prefer to do away with VAR altogether, but why not just make it that you are offside based on your foot position only.

It would be far easier to determine with the lines used on the screens to see if your foot was slightly ahead whereas the shoulder or armpit is never so clear with the lines used. I know technically your head or shoulder can score a goal but nearly all the goals ruled out are for shoulders being deemed to be fractionally ahead of the shoulder of the defender (which is still a bit subjective in my view).

Be easier and quicker in my view to make such a decision if this was the sole criteria and VAR continues to be used.

 

[amexer]

Prefer to do away with VAR altogether, but why not just make it that you are offside based on your foot position only.

It would be far easier to determine with the lines used on the screens to see if your foot was slightly ahead whereas the shoulder or armpit is never so clear with the lines used. I know technically your head or shoulder can score a goal but nearly all the goals ruled out are for shoulders being deemed to be fractionally ahead of the shoulder of the defender (which is still a bit subjective in my view).

Be easier and quicker in my view to make such a decision if this was the sole criteria and VAR continues to be used.

Agree foot position is solution and will not matter about rest of body

 

[trueblue]

Mr Grumpy just suggested changing the rules rather than VAR by saying that if any part of the striker is onside then he is onside. Switch the line checking the other way around so you are checking if any part of him was onside rather than offside.

Not something I had thought of before and it could have some merit.

It would be an improvement in that it would be more in keeping with the intention of the offside law - to stop attackers from having a ridiculous advantage. However, if the referees insist on judging it with tiny crosshairs we'll still be in the VAR hell of endless delays while they check whether the striker's stud was in line with the hair on the defender's knee.

That's the bit that needs binning. There needs to be a greater margin of error before VAR steps in for offsides. Determining
the boundaries of that margin for error is the awkward bit.

 

[Triggaaar]

Mr Grumpy just suggested changing the rules rather than VAR by saying that if any part of the striker is onside then he is onside. Switch the line checking the other way around so you are checking if any part of him was onside rather than offside.

Not something I had thought of before and it could have some merit.

I don't like it.

What we have now is too tough on the attacking side. Players being called offside when it was never intended that they'd be offside if only by 1cm.

What Souness is suggesting is too far the other way. Allowing players to be basically a yard offside, as long as they leave a little behind and the defender has a little poking forward.

I think somewhere in the middle would be better. It would be more in keeping with the original rules and spirit. If you're about level, you're fine. More than a foot ahead, and you're offside.

Of course it would mean having an arbitrary distance (say, the average width of a player, or 1 foot, or 30 / 40cm. But so what?


PS - Poll options too limiting.