The VAR thread

[Legend_in_blue]

Tonight's VAR decision was absolutely right.  Even that clown Oliver and his partner in crime Dean can't do anything about it.  The technology gave it and rightly so, offside, move on.

 

Having said that, both that clown Oliver and his partner in crime Dean turn a blind eye to the shoulder barge in the area when a review was required.  This was a clear and obvious foul that, between them, they chose to ignore.  This is what needs sorting out.

 

Yet again the discussion over VAR is all about the wrong incident.

[Manwell Pablo]

1 minute ago, ttfn said:

It’s actually a great spot from VAR. I’m completely against the way VAR is implemented for offside but it’s a tough one to spot with the ball going backwards and how close it is.

Well I guess it depends if your sat on the offside is offside side of the fence or the game shouldn’t be forensically analysed side.

[Guest ttfn]

Just now, Manwell Pablo said:

Well I guess it depends if your sat on the offside is offside side of the fence or the game shouldn’t be forensically analysed side.

I’m sat on the latter side but the rules And interpretation  being as they are it’s a great spot.

[Manwell Pablo]

Just now, ttfn said:

I’m sat on the latter side but the rules And interpretation  being as they are it’s a great spot.

Well yeah from a technical side and knowledge of the rules of the game agreed.

[Lcfc-1992]

Compared to some of the decisions given this season from VAR, it wasn’t even close. Didn’t gain much of an advantage but it’s offside so don’t get the argument. 

[martyn]

Only contentious because of the strange circumstances leading to it given the fact that the offside player was retreating and the ball was played backwards. 

 

At least it was a clear offside rather than millimetres. 

 

Not sure any law you bring in for offside would make things any clearer than they are now tbh. 

Edited 14 February 2020 by martyn

[st albans fox]

I’m fed up with so many professional pundits talking about ‘clear and obvious’ when talking about offside 

 

it’s not relevant to offside ...... change the law, fine  but for the time being, stop talking about clear and obvious until PGMOL change the way the PL use VAR with factual offside calls 

[KrefelderFox666]

45 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

I’m fed up with so many professional pundits talking about ‘clear and obvious’ when talking about offside 

 

it’s not relevant to offside ...... change the law, fine  but for the time being, stop talking about clear and obvious until PGMOL change the way the PL use VAR with factual offside calls 

The law should be changed so that if a player runs back onside, like today, it's not offside. If a player is a yard offside but runs back to the offside line and then goes again, let play continue.

 

When a player goalhangs it's offside. Easy and fair and more modern.

[jammie82uk]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

I’m fed up with so many professional pundits talking about ‘clear and obvious’ when talking about offside 

 

it’s not relevant to offside ...... change the law, fine  but for the time being, stop talking about clear and obvious until PGMOL change the way the PL use VAR with factual offside calls 

It certainly is according to the general secretary at IFAB 
 

Lukas Brud, general secretary of the International Football Association Board, said: "With VAR we see some things that are going in a direction that we may need to re-adjust."

He said the body would reissue guidance on VAR's use after its annual general meeting in February.

"If you spend multiple minutes trying to identify whether it is offside or not, then it's not clear and obvious and the original decision should stand," he said.

He added: "What we really need to stress is that 'clear and obvious' applies to every single situation that is being reviewed by the VAR or the referee.

"In theory, 1mm offside is offside, but if a decision is taken that a player is not offside and the VAR is trying to identify through looking at five, six, seven, 10, 12 cameras whether or not it was offside, then the original decision should stand.

[funkyrobot]

2 hours ago, Manwell Pablo said:

Well I guess it depends if your sat on the offside is offside side of the fence or the game shouldn’t be forensically analysed side.

Define forensically analysed? They checked for any offsides, found one, checked it again and clearly offside. The decision was quick and correct. 

[Gordon the Great]

5 hours ago, funkyrobot said:

Define forensically analysed? They checked for any offsides, found one, checked it again and clearly offside. The decision was quick and correct. 

Nobody wants City to win more than me............but this is total and absolute sh*te, it`s killing the game we all love,it removes the excitement and the spontaneity of a game that lives on both.It is awful,dreadful and totally embarrassing.Somebody will win the league, the F.A. Cup or be relegated by a boot lace being tied wrongly..it is CRAP, GET RID OF IT..........PLEASE!!! 

[davieG]

The guy was clearly gaining advantage by goal hanging - offside!

[StanSP]

Goal was correct to disallow. 

 

Penalty was correct not to be given. 

 

Not sure what the issue is here? VAR worked efficiently. You can't make allowances for offside decisions because 'it doesn't feel right' when a player's foot is clearly offside. 

 

 

[Danny Clender]

9 minutes ago, StanSP said:

Goal was correct to disallow. 

 

Penalty was correct not to be given. 

 

Not sure what the issue is here? VAR worked efficiently. You can't make allowances for offside decisions because 'it doesn't feel right' when a player's foot is clearly offside. 

 

 

I completely agree with this...NES quoted as using "daylight" to consider the margins, eh? 

Even the suggestions to add in an offside tolerance doesn't make sense to me.

I'm so binary when it comes to VAR, so I don't see how a tweak with "daylight" helps.

The offside rule is need of a review, but what are the valid solutions? 

[st albans fox]

8 hours ago, jammie82uk said:

It certainly is according to the general secretary at IFAB 
 

Lukas Brud, general secretary of the International Football Association Board, said: "With VAR we see some things that are going in a direction that we may need to re-adjust."

He said the body would reissue guidance on VAR's use after its annual general meeting in February.

"If you spend multiple minutes trying to identify whether it is offside or not, then it's not clear and obvious and the original decision should stand," he said.

He added: "What we really need to stress is that 'clear and obvious' applies to every single situation that is being reviewed by the VAR or the referee.

"In theory, 1mm offside is offside, but if a decision is taken that a player is not offside and the VAR is trying to identify through looking at five, six, seven, 10, 12 cameras whether or not it was offside, then the original decision should stand.

But that’s not the way PGMOL/premier league are using it this season 
 

i suppose this will change for next season - whether that dangling foot will be far enough offside to be judged ok with the ‘margin for error’ remains to be seen but it will still involve still frames and excruciating examination to see if it is! 

my view -  if the player visually looks level on still frame then it’s onside ....only one look needed, no multiple lines and that would have been a goal last night 

 

[Countryfox]

Just think ...   if the silly tw@t hadn’t left his heel dragging behind it would have been a goal !! ....  a basic skill that should be drummed into young players when they first start playing the game.    Schoolboy error in my opinion and this VAR debate is masking a flaw in the players game.

[Guest]

We all know the rules for this year, so do the players. Why all the fuss?

 

If VAR is removed and Liverpool win every match with offside goals and handball goals and don't get called for penalties - you know like the big teams in the old days - is everyone going to be happy because this is real footnall?

[Kopfkino]

9 hours ago, jammie82uk said:

It certainly is according to the general secretary at IFAB 
 

Lukas Brud, general secretary of the International Football Association Board, said: "With VAR we see some things that are going in a direction that we may need to re-adjust."

He said the body would reissue guidance on VAR's use after its annual general meeting in February.

"If you spend multiple minutes trying to identify whether it is offside or not, then it's not clear and obvious and the original decision should stand," he said.

He added: "What we really need to stress is that 'clear and obvious' applies to every single situation that is being reviewed by the VAR or the referee.

"In theory, 1mm offside is offside, but if a decision is taken that a player is not offside and the VAR is trying to identify through looking at five, six, seven, 10, 12 cameras whether or not it was offside, then the original decision should stand.

 

Except he then later confirmed in the German press that for competitions using calibrated lines, offside is offside. And given hawkeye is recommended and the Premier League like all other major comps uses it, that means offside is offside. 

 

 

[Spudulike]

Perhaps karma for the offside winner in this fixture last season. 

[Manwell Pablo]

12 hours ago, funkyrobot said:

Define forensically analysed? They checked for any offsides, found one, checked it again and clearly offside. The decision was quick and correct. 

 

Checking fine lines for trailing heals of boots and calling players up for being half a cm offside.

 

Thankfully it sounds like they are going to do something about it soon.

[Legend_in_blue]

If they bring in an element of uncertainty regarding offsides by using "a margin of error", we'll be having the same discussions about every incident that VAR reviews.  The problems arise for incidents which allow for precisely this, "a margin of error" aka "clear and obvious", an interpretation of the events.  This is where the inconsistencies come in.

 

Offsides, as frustrating as they are (when they go against you), are the only thing that is consistently good in terms of how VAR is applied.  

 

An overhaul of the system is needed so that every situation is reviewed in a fair and consistent manner.  "Clear and obvious" allows for inconsistency and the merry-go-round of officials in the Stockton Park hot seat does nothing to alleviate this.

Edited 15 February 2020 by Legend_in_blue

[orangecity23]

VAR CONTROVERSY AS COMPLETELY NON-SUBJECTIVE DECISION GOES AGAINST WOLVES.

 

There was more VAR controversy last night, as VAR correctly disallowed a Wolves goal that was a foot offside. Wolves captain Connor Coady emitted a high pitched whining sound, as he revealed he actually hadn't bothered to read how the offside rule actually works, as it has nothing to do with passing the ball backwards. Wolves manager Super Nintendo Santo was outraged, and said in an interview with BT Sports "This is a bad decision. What is this offside? He is only a bit offside. How are we supposed to score? They say we can't punch the ball into the net. They take my goals away when we goal hang. What do we have to do? Kick the ball into the net from an onside position? That's not football any more, if Wily can't punch the ball into the net while a referee completely misses it happening 2 foot in front of his face, then the game really isn't fair any more"

[Super_horns]

It's people in the media who wanted VAR as they thought it would clear up bad mistakes from officials that they kept talking about..

Usually after spending 5 minutes looking at a screen then giving their own subjective view.
 
I haven't got a lot of sympathy for such people.

It's the fans that feel left out and confused .

[st albans fox]

2 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

It's people in the media who wanted VAR as they thought it would clear up bad mistakes from officials that they kept talking about..

Usually after spending 5 minutes looking at a screen then giving their own subjective view.
 
I haven't got a lot of sympathy for such people.

It's the fans that feel left out and confused .

The plus side of var is the general football law education of fans which is thankfully increasing, albeit quite slowly with many 😉

[justfoxes]

15 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

Agree. In this case, had there been a thicker line, he'd still have been offside. A good 20cm offside. It wasn't millimetres

Wolves fans I know are still whinging saying he wasn’t off side even tho the linesman had a great view from where he was standing and VAR confirmed that he was offside !