Regulus Arcturus Black
Full Member
Not me, there was a clear space on that one. Many a decision has been made where you have no fecking clue, it's like a pixel on a screen.I'd be annoyed if that went against us.
Not me, there was a clear space on that one. Many a decision has been made where you have no fecking clue, it's like a pixel on a screen.I'd be annoyed if that went against us.
No-ones denying that. It's the rules, and the fact that VAR enables them to be enforced in almost childishly pedantic ways, that's being criticized.If he's offside, he's offside. Dem da rulez
Yup, referees have been fecking them up for years. This one was right though.Not me, there was a clear space on that one. Many a decision has been made where you have no fecking clue, it's like a pixel on a screen.
Why's it pedantic? I don't really understand why anyone would complain about a key and potentially multimillion pound decision being awarded correctly.No-ones denying that. It's the rules, and the fact that VAR enables them to be enforced in almost childishly pedantic ways, that's being criticized.
It's not being pedantic when the difference can be champions league football or not. It's a matter of principle.No-ones denying that. It's the rules, and the fact that VAR enables them to be enforced in almost childishly pedantic ways, that's being criticized.
Before VAR, let's say a goal was scored and allowed to stand. After the game, some obsessive person decided to spend an hour of his precious time pausing and reversing replays and came back arguing that the goal should have been disallowed because the scorer's toe-nail was offside. What would you have told him?Why's it pedantic? I don't really understand why anyone would complain about a key and potentially multimillion pound decision being awarded correctly.
I listened to a cricket podcast earlier where they explained the issue with it quite well. In cricket DRS gives wickets as much as it takes them away, VAR seems to only be there to disallow goals for very marginal offsides despite the technology being flawed so it's effectively just making the game less enjoyable.It's not being pedantic when the difference can be champions league football or not. It's a matter of principle.
That happens already - MOTD/Sky Sports make up most of their post match analysis about marginal calls like this.Before VAR, let's say a goal was scored and allowed to stand. After the game, some obsessive person decided to spend an hour of his precious time pausing and reversing replays and came back arguing that the goal should have been disallowed because the scorer's toe-nail was offside. What would you have told him?
My bet is you would have told him to get lost and get a life because before VAR, common sense still prevailed. People understood that football was a game of margins and human errors, and that getting every single offside call right down to the last millimetre wasn't just impossible, it was unwanted.
Now, common sense has been replaced by pedantry, and the tosser who was laughed at for shouting "but is toe-nail was offside!" is now the tosser calling the shots.
It genuinely baffles me that there are football fans who don't see it this way.
I'm getting more enjoyment now knowing that I'm less likely to be annoyed at a referee.I listened to a cricket podcast earlier where they explained the issue with it quite well. In cricket DRS gives wickets as much as it takes them away, VAR seems to only be there to disallow goals for very marginal offsides despite the technology being flawed so it's effectively just making the game less enjoyable.
How is getting all offside calls right not something to aspire to? If I found out Iniesta's 2010 goal was offside by a metric so small it hasnt even be invented yet, I would petition FIFA for a replay of the final until the day I die.Before VAR, let's say a goal was scored and allowed to stand. After the game, some obsessive person decided to spend an hour of his precious time pausing and reversing replays and came back arguing that the goal should have been disallowed because the scorer's toe-nail was offside. What would you have told him?
My bet is you would have told him to get lost and get a life. Because before VAR, common sense still prevailed. People understood that football was a game of margins and human errors, and that getting every single offside call right down to the last millimetre wasn't just impossible, it wasn't even something to aspire to.
Now, common sense has been replaced by pedantry, and the tosser who was laughed at for shouting "but his toe-nail was offside!" is now the tosser calling the shots.
It genuinely baffles me that there are football fans who don't see it this way.
Before VAR, no sensible person would bemoan an offside call as marginal as the ones we're now seeing overturned week in, week out. That's simply not true. There was no-one, not a single person, who felt that the point of VAR was to overturn offside decision that requires pausing and reversing multiple replays. VAR was meant to correct obvious mistakes. A toe-nail offside can never be an obvious mistake.That happens already - MOTD/Sky Sports make up most of their post match analysis about marginal calls like this.
If that's the case, then I believe our understanding of what football is and should be is so far apart that there's no point discussing any further.How is getting all offside calls right not something to aspire to? If I found out Iniesta's 2010 goal was offside by a metric so small it hasnt even be invented yet, I would petition FIFA for a replay of the final until the day I die.
These calls feel shite and unfair, but they're not, they're fair. It's a fecking buzzkill for everyone but the team benefitting from it, but offside is a very clearcut rule.
I think using VAR for i terpretation calls like handball are much more suspect.
The problem is the technology and the people operating it aren't as accurate as they make it out to be, there has to be a margin of error accounted for in there somewhere (and I'm a big proponent of VAR). The frame after which the ball has been passed from the 'assist maker', the thickness of the line, and the parallax effect all have to be taken into account to get the correct decision, and this doesn't seem to be taken into account in that palace goal. I think with the introduction of VAR, the offside rule should be amended in some way (not sure what though to be honest).How is getting all offside calls right not something to aspire to? If I found out Iniesta's 2010 goal was offside by a metric so small it hasnt even be invented yet, I would petition FIFA for a replay of the final until the day I die.
These calls feel shite and unfair, but they're not, they're fair. It's a fecking buzzkill for everyone but the team benefitting from it, but offside is a very clearcut rule.
I think using VAR for i terpretation calls like handball are much more suspect.
I think it could actually be fixed, or at least improved, easily enough with some common sense: No pausing, no slowing down, no reversing or fast-forwarding and a 20 second time-limit. If you can't call it easily within two or three replays, then it's just not an obvious error, and so the call stands. Simple as that.The problem is the technology and the people operating it aren't as accurate as they make it out to be, there has to be a margin of error accounted for in there somewhere (and I'm a big proponent of VAR). The frame after which the ball has been passed from the 'assist maker', the thickness of the line, and the parallax effect all have to be taken into account to get the correct decision, and this doesn't seem to be taken into account in that palace goal. I think with the introduction of VAR, the offside rule should be amended in some way (not sure what though to be honest).
I disagree with having a time limit but I think the no editing of a picture may actually be a good idea.I think it could actually be fixed, or at least improved, easily enough with some common sense: No pausing, no slowing down, no reversing or fast-forwarding and a 20 second time-limit. If you can't call it easily within two or three replays, then it's just not an obvious error, and so the call stands. Simple as that.
Most of VAR's critics actually acknowledge that it leads to more correct calls (which it obviously does), we just think it kind of ruins the game in the process.Where's your bad VAR decision tonight?
Nothing clear/obvs imo on the pen to enable an overrule of the ref's decision.
You're all agreed it's offside.
Just saying.
Eh? Lindelof got nothing of the ball and all of the man. That's pretty clear and obvious to me.Where's your bad VAR decision tonight?
Nothing clear/obvs imo on the pen to enable an overrule of the ref's decision.
You're all agreed it's offside.
Just saying.
Well me, the ref and the VAR say it isn't clear.Eh? Lindelof got nothing of the ball and all of the man. That's pretty clear and obvious to me.
Apart from tonight, how?No doubt that Ole’s United has benefited most from Var. Probably have given him 20 pts this season
Exactly.Most of VAR's critics actually acknowledge that it leads to more correct calls (which it obviously does), we just think it kind of ruins the game in the process.
Anecdotally I don't think it's led to more correct calls in the premier league this season. So many dreadful mistakes, selective reviewing of incidents, even offside hasn't been applied consistently. Very obvious bias towards Liverpool till they won the title and Spurs till they couldn't make top 4.Most of VAR's critics actually acknowledge that it leads to more correct calls (which it obviously does), we just think it kind of ruins the game in the process.
You've never seen a linesman wrongly call a goal offside?!Exactly.
Not one person out of the millions watching this game would have had a problem with that Crystal Palace goal. It would never have been called offside at any stage in the history of football apart from this year.
I don't care about getting to tournaments if I can't celebrate a goal properly without worrying about it being overturned like that.
It's just not football. I don't understand people who like it
I think so too. I said at the beginning more correct decisions wasn't going to be better. They said it had to be.Most of VAR's critics actually acknowledge that it leads to more correct calls (which it obviously does), we just think it kind of ruins the game in the process.
How correct was it? No one really knowsAre people complaining again that VAR correctly disallowed a goal for being offside?
Seems that people have made their mind before VAR was even introduced. It does not matter that it is working correctly, that it is disallowing illegal goals, moaners gonna moan. Well, naught to do, maybe after a decade or two they will stop moaning.
Hush, linesman never did mistakes before VAR. In fact they might have done, but they weren't mistakes. Cause as we all know, a totally objective decision like offside, should be a subjective one and depend on the mood of the referee.You've never seen a linesman wrongly call a goal offside?!
About 5 inches correct or so.How correct was it? No one really knows
I never had a problem with an offside called wrong. It's wrong but it's immediate.You've never seen a linesman wrongly call a goal offside?!
I don't know about you, but I was elated about that goal being rescinded. So I guess the net elation was probably about the same.I never had a problem with an offside called wrong. It's wrong but it's immediate.
VAR sucks the life out of football. It removes the elation of scoring goals which is unforgivable for me
That kind of strawmanning doesn't suit anyone. Only makes you look childish.Hush, linesman never did mistakes before VAR. In fact they might have done, but they weren't mistakes. Cause as we all know, a totally objective decision like offside, should be a subjective one and depend on the mood of the referee.
The only childish ones are those who think that offside should not have been ruled out as an offside.That kind of strawmanning doesn't suit anyone. Only makes you look childish.
Nice oneAbout 5 inches correct or so.
You celebrate disallowed goals the same way you celebrate a goal scored?I don't know about you, but I was elated about that goal being rescinded. So I guess the net elation was probably about the same.