[Football] What about this VAR suggestion from Souness?

[dazzer6666]

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.

What Souness suggested would have the laser-lines working behind the players rather than in front, so wouldn’t actually change much.

 

[Triggaaar]

What Souness suggested would have the laser-lines working behind the players rather than in front, so wouldn’t actually change much.

That's not what it says in the OP.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

I don't like Souness's idea. It gives the attacking team precisely the advantage that the rule was supposed to guard against.

Personally I think we should be excluding the arm/hand from the measurements.
These are not parts of the body which you can play the ball with anyway, so why should it be considered offside.

 

[Nitram]

Don’t understand what happened to the idea of a clear and obvious error. Shouldn’t be any more complicated than that. The original idea was to rule out clear howlers. They should have a quick look to see if there is an obvious error. If it takes more than 30 seconds move on its obviously not a clear error. The measuring of offsides by millimetres by a jobsworth in an office is against the spirit of the game and killing the game as a spectacle.
The game has always been full of errors, just get rid of the glaring ones and leave marginal decisions alone.

 

[darkwolf666]

I think a better and quicker solution, and one that would be less controversial, is to decide based on the position of the attacker's most advanced foot and the defender's back foot.

If the heel of the defender is ahead of the toe of the striker then it's offside. All this armpits and elbows stuff is bollocks, it's really about the feet.

If it's too close to call then benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking side.

But it’s not all about the feet though, what if Burns head was further forward than the last defender’s and that cross had landed on Burn’s head, and had sailed over the keeper, Burns head was in an offside position, but his feet weren’t, so goal for you then?

 

[GT49er]

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.

Actually it isn't. Put an 'observer' into Stockley Park - someone who knows the game - like an ex-footballer, a former manager or a coach - but not a referee - and give him (or her) the task of deciding what is a 'clear and obvious' refereeing error that needs looking at it - the fully qualified VAR can then look at it. If they see somewhere where the ref has dropped a bollock, they can ask VAR to have a look - if they don't see anything worth reviewing, VAR doesn't get involved. Problem solved.

Four good goals disallowed this weekend wuld have stood. Would anyone have had issues about that? (if you're a representative of PGMOL - or Dermot Gallagher - please ignore!)

 

[darkwolf666]

Don’t understand what happened to the idea of a clear and obvious error. Shouldn’t be any more complicated than that. The original idea was to rule out clear howlers. They should have a quick look to see if there is an obvious error. If it takes more than 30 seconds move on its obviously not a clear error. The measuring of offsides by millimetres by a jobsworth in an office is against the spirit of the game and killing the game as a spectacle.
The game has always been full of errors, just get rid of the glaring ones and leave marginal decisions alone.

Hallelujah, this 100%

 

[dazzer6666]

Don’t understand what happened to the idea of a clear and obvious error. Shouldn’t be any more complicated than that. The original idea was to rule out clear howlers. They should have a quick look to see if there is an obvious error. If it takes more than 30 seconds move on its obviously not a clear error. The measuring of offsides by millimetres by a jobsworth in an office is against the spirit of the game and killing the game as a spectacle.
The game has always been full of errors, just get rid of the glaring ones and leave marginal decisions alone.

That..

 

[GT49er]

Don’t understand what happened to the idea of a clear and obvious error. Shouldn’t be any more complicated than that. The original idea was to rule out clear howlers. They should have a quick look to see if there is an obvious error. If it takes more than 30 seconds move on its obviously not a clear error. The measuring of offsides by millimetres by a jobsworth in an office is against the spirit of the game and killing the game as a spectacle.
The game has always been full of errors, just get rid of the glaring ones and leave marginal decisions alone.

Exactly - if it's only 'clear and obvious' after looking at it for two minutes from various camera angles in slow motion, it isn't actually 'clear and obvious' at all.

 

[tronnogull]

Or, how about giving each team one opportunity to appeal per game ? They would only appeal things which were reasonably clear and obvious, at least until quite late in the game.

Unless a team appealed then VAR does not kick in.

 

[Surrey Phil]

The margins VAR uses is essentially penalising players with big feet, armpits or other body parts. It’s cost poor old Dan Burn 3 goals already this season!

 

[Eeyore]

My feeling is that offside should be judged by the positioning of the feet and nothing else.

 

[Sue1983]

Don’t understand what happened to the idea of a clear and obvious error. Shouldn’t be any more complicated than that. The original idea was to rule out clear howlers. They should have a quick look to see if there is an obvious error. If it takes more than 30 seconds move on its obviously not a clear error. The measuring of offsides by millimetres by a jobsworth in an office is against the spirit of the game and killing the game as a spectacle.
The game has always been full of errors, just get rid of the glaring ones and leave marginal decisions alone.

This.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

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.

We are on the opposite ends of the spectrum here. But the middle is impossible to implement.

I like the feet suggestion. I would add - do it with the foot on the ground at the time (or nearest to the ground).

Actually, **** it, I'm going back to clear blue daylight.

 

[PaoloAlbioni]

Just ditch VAR full stop.

 

[The Upper Library]

The only way it will be changed , or hopefully ditched all together , is if Sky feel it is ruining their product. I thought at first sky would love the added dimension to the game that VAR would bring - but I think the tide is slowly starting to turn.

Obviously us paying fans who actually attend matches are an after thought but if we can get the stadium singing in unison “It’s not football anymore” (as we did against Bournemouth) this will may come across on live broadcasts. I know I may sound like a hopeless optimist but I think it maybe our only chance to ditch this failed experiment....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[clapham_gull]

We are on the opposite ends of the spectrum here. But the middle is impossible to implement.

I like the feet suggestion. I would add - do it with the foot on the ground at the time (or nearest to the ground).

Actually, **** it, I'm going back to clear blue daylight.

Daylight the way forward me thinks. I can't see how feet makes it any easier for VAR.

Personally I'd ditch the whole thing but that isn't going to happen.

 

[Megazone]

time to ditch offside.

 

[Titanic]

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.

No... It is just another line to be argued about.

What is needed is a margin for error.

Pick your 'moment' the ball was kicked... pick your armpit or toenail on the defender and the attacker... draw a FAT line (say 10cms wide) for each.

If the lino flagged for offside and the fat lines overlap in any way, the decision stands... it was not a 'howler'.

If the lino does not flag for offside and the lines do not overlap.. then VAR makes the offside call... it was a 'howler' and you can fix it.

There will still be the odd call that does go down to millimeters one way or the other... it will already be clearly several cms offside or onside so any sense of injustice will be removed.

 

[um bongo molongo]

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)

This