VAR and rule changes

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

What do you think of this?

 

I don’t see why the rules of the game should change to suit technology and the TV viewer? This will lead to more goals, and maybe reduce the amount of offsides - but there will surely still be extremely marginal calls where it’s not possible to tell if someone is offside by the width of a pubic hair?

 

Just massively feels like the tail is wagging to dog here.

[Mark_w]

Both of those are blatant offsides that shouldn't result in goals. Absolutely pointless IMO, leave it as it is and wait for people to get over it.

[Super_horns]

1 hour ago, Mark_w said:

Both of those are blatant offsides that shouldn't result in goals. Absolutely pointless IMO, leave it as it is and wait for people to get over it.

But people don’t want goal ruled out for toe nail offsides so will this lead to less fuss and “controversy “ if there is more leeway given to the attacker?

[Aus Fox]

In a goal situation the whole of the ball needs to be over the whole of the line, same for any out of play moment. For off side it should be the same. The whole of the attacker needs to be past the whole of the defender.

[Leicester_Loyal]

Aslong as the technology is ok, then the offside rule should stay as it is. It's the only thing about the new rules regarding VAR which I agree with tbh.

[tom27111]

The rule surrounding offside is always changing. It was daylight years ago, way before VAR existed.

 

It used to be the case that level was offside.

[nnfox]

It won't make any difference!  Same line, different scenario.  The camera angles, timing of the ball being played and image quality all remain the same.  The only thing that will be different is the question will change from "Was his toe ahead of the other guy's toe?" to "Can you really say there was daylight between them?"

 

Just keep it as it is imo, or scrap it completely (which I don't think they should).

[davieG]

They should change the line (halfway) from where you are offside, move it to the penalty box line.  Being offside just inside the opponents half is not 'goal hanging' which was why it was brought in.

It'll open the game and reduce the number of times it's even relevant. 

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

2 hours ago, Super_horns said:

But people don’t want goal ruled out for toe nail offsides so will this lead to less fuss and “controversy “ if there is more leeway given to the attacker?

I think you’d get those scenarios with this change though. That’s why I don’t understand it. It won’t change marginal calls, it just makes them different marginal calls.

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

33 minutes ago, nnfox said:

It won't make any difference!  Same line, different scenario.  The camera angles, timing of the ball being played and image quality all remain the same.  The only thing that will be different is the question will change from "Was his toe ahead of the other guy's toe?" to "Can you really say there was daylight between them?"

 

Just keep it as it is imo, or scrap it completely (which I don't think they should).

Exactly 

[ozleicester]

oh good more var discussions ruining games

[Rain King]

20 minutes ago, davieG said:

They should change the line (halfway) from where you are offside, move it to the penalty box line.  Being offside just inside the opponents half is not 'goal hanging' which was why it was brought in.

It'll open the game and reduce the number of times it's even relevant. 

Should add the subbuteo line and use that.

 

 

[davieG]

8 minutes ago, Rain King said:

Should add the subbuteo line and use that.

 

 

We can't afford the paint for the extra lines on all our pitches.

[CheeseHead]

26 minutes ago, Wasyls Pec Deck said:

I think you’d get those scenarios with this change though. That’s why I don’t understand it. It won’t change marginal calls, it just makes them different marginal calls.

Agreed but I would much rather move the marginal calls to the daylight issue where the attacker has much more of an advantage than when being a toenail ahead, where he has no advantage. Remember it was bought in to stop goal hanging

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

2 hours ago, CheeseHead said:

Agreed but I would much rather move the marginal calls to the daylight issue where the attacker has much more of an advantage than when being a toenail ahead, where he has no advantage. Remember it was bought in to stop goal hanging

There will still be instances where it will be impossible to tell, perhaps less but still  feels pointless 

[davieG]

12 minutes ago, Wasyls Pec Deck said:

There will still be instances where it will be impossible to tell, perhaps less but still  feels pointless 

I'd presume if you can tell it's because you can't see any light so onside.

[Mark_w]

10 hours ago, Super_horns said:

But people don’t want goal ruled out for toe nail offsides so will this lead to less fuss and “controversy “ if there is more leeway given to the attacker?

I want goals ruled out for toe nail offsides, the Ben Chilwell one in the cup final was phenomenal, and Cov's was pretty great too, it's definitely made football funnier.

[martyn]

I'm not sure what problem this is solving.

 

We're still going to get millimetre offside decisions, which people will still moan about, just the measuring point is different.

Edited 12 May by martyn

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

8 hours ago, Mark_w said:

I want goals ruled out for toe nail offsides, the Ben Chilwell one in the cup final was phenomenal, and Cov's was pretty great too, it's definitely made football funnier.

Haha yea it’s different when it works in your favour. The Chilwell incident in the Cup Final was just superb.

[davieG]

9 hours ago, martyn said:

I'm not sure what problem this is solving.

 

We're still going to get millimetre offside decisions, which people will still moan about just the measuring point is different.

But the millimetres will relate to the whole body not just a toenail surely if the debate is whether it's 99.999% of a body is enough is much more palatable.

[Mark_w]

56 minutes ago, davieG said:

But the millimetres will relate to the whole body not just a toenail surely if the debate is whether it's 99.999% of a body is enough is much more palatable.

If we concede a goal to a player whose trailing leg is fractionally in line with our last defender, when we’re playing a great coordinated offside trap, are you going to find that palatable?

[davieG]

35 minutes ago, Mark_w said:

If we concede a goal to a player whose trailing leg is fractionally in line with our last defender, when we’re playing a great coordinated offside trap, are you going to find that palatable?

I'm never happy to concede a goal and even more so when we've messed up. They'll always been some like that where ever we set it with the light option at least it becomes more difficult to defend against that means more goals.

 

I think the whole offside rule has become a nonsense considering it's reason for being. The fact you can be offside in your own half because you've moved away from the goal from an offside position is crazy for a start.

[Vlad the Fox]

Premier league to vote on scrapping VAR.

 

Please, please please.

 

Never thought it would happen but there must be people in the game as fed up with it as us fans to get this opportunity. 
 

Edited 15 May by Vlad the Fox

[SemperEadem]

 

[Vlad the Fox]

Come on premier league get rid.