Zlatan 7
We've got bush!
- Joined
- May 26, 2016
- Messages
- 11,942
ExactlyAnd that is the key as there are far more instance of yellow cards possibly leading up to red cards than direct red cards. The whole thing is flawed from the go
ExactlyAnd that is the key as there are far more instance of yellow cards possibly leading up to red cards than direct red cards. The whole thing is flawed from the go
This is probably true and I would not advocate it.No offside makes the game absurdly stretched, it works on smaller pitches/team sizes as it is easier to cover the ground but on a full size pitch the game is a mess without it, would completely change the balance of the game and the ease of scoring.
What ? Why ? If there's a clear mistake, correct it.The poll in this thread is still active, as opposed to the other. In case people want to vote.
However VAR is implemented, I don't think it should ever rule out a goal that was awarded by the officials on the field.
you realise we also had a goal ruled out by VAR which lifted the spurs team?This will never happen but I had the idea of canning the line-drawing & reviewing the film footage of offsides just by looking - it'd be quicker for a start.
And if you can't tell (identify a clear/obvious error) then the on field decision would stand - like for everything else kind of thing.
I do agree with the point that the line has to be drawn somewhere, somehow & that it is reasonable that that should stand whether it;s 1mm or whatever. But it's getting bogged down in the detail perhaps too.
As for anything, well... they're not actually hardly using it to make any actual decisions different to what their faultless refs have already decided on the park, so I sence that neither side of our heated debate is that impressed with it, atm.
Btw, Talksport commentary had had a full discussion of the implications of Spurs leading 2-0 this morning, winning the game & being back on the up before that goal got ruled out, it was farcical. Must have been 3 minutes.
And they said it changed the game. Lifted Leicester & the crowd allegedly/apparently.
But somehow, on the plus side, I do feel like there is more actual playing of football & less messing about by the players.
I think (1) was a bit of making excuses for Spurs, tbh. But I was only quoting what they said.you realise we also had a goal ruled out by VAR which lifted the spurs team?
Offside isn't subjective you either are or aren't, in a years time no one will be crying about it
because everyone will be used to it and find something new to whine aboutI think (1) was a bit of making excuses for Spurs, tbh. But I was only quoting what they said.
The line part of offside isn't 'subjective' at all obviously**. But we seem today to have been talking about prior play in offside being fairly subjective today.
**I did say that tbf, before moving on to justify my silly idea that VAR just watches, to avoid the dull detail of offside is still offside wherever the line is, if you're over it.
Why do you say it'll be fine in a year? Not arguing, just interested.
Is daylight rule that thing where linesmen should let play continue in doubt?Whatever happened to the daylight rule regarding offsides? Attackers getting the advantage never happened but defenders are definitely getting the advantages now with VAR.
because the GPS vest will only show where the vest is, the Law is any part of the body which can be used to score not just the upper back.seen some ridiculous offside decisions lately with this VAR bullcrap.
When i watch the footage i struggle to find the lines they draw conclusive.
WHY not end all debate and use the GPS vest that all players wear every game anyway with the tracker dead center of cest and just use that. Who cares if someones little toe is offside, just go off the GPS tracker, dead center of chest, job done.
Saw an interesting pieve earlier about the framerate vs the speed of running which can give around 20cms of error between frames - this i have no fix for.
just think it could be simpler by changing the law to the centre of chest as oppose to body parts. its beyond stupid and still not conclusive.because the GPS vest will only show where the vest is, the Law is any part of the body which can be used to score not just the upper back.
I find it amazing how people complained for years about poor decisions now they do something about it and people moan about that, if it bothers you so much go watch non-league for the purity of the game
That would never be applicable for lower-league football though. So essentially, you'd have one set of rules for the top leagues and one for the lower leagues/grassroots football, and you'd have it written into the laws of the game? Would never happen.just think it could be simpler by changing the law to the centre of chest as oppose to body parts. its beyond stupid and still not conclusive.
I think people were under the assumption that it was going to discount goals from the howlers that pop up from time to time via human error. And it has done that, yes, but it is being taken to the next level looking at 1.2cmI find it amazing how people complained for years about poor decisions now they do something about it and people moan about that, if it bothers you so much go watch non-league for the purity of the game
I'd agree with that.just think it could be simpler by changing the law to the centre of chest as oppose to body parts. its beyond stupid and still not conclusive.
Linesman are told to leave tight decisions to VAR though? What you would have is every non obvious offside not given that doesn't lead directly to a goal.I think it might help if there was a time limit after an offside during which any goal the attacking team score is ruled out. It could be used together with the current definitions of what constitutes a new phase of play. So for instance if the attacking team scores within say 10 seconds of the offside and no clear new phase of play has begun then the goal is ruled out.
Anything which reduces the subjectivity of decisions can only help.
Whats wrong with the proposal in the post directly before yours.Linesman are told to leave tight decisions to VAR though? What you would have is every non obvious offside not given that doesn't lead directly to a goal.
It would be madness.
The more I see complaints against VAR the more I realise its the best compromise simply because posters ideas don't actually solve their complaints.
Nobody can come up with anything better than what's being used now.
I mean that’s just wrong. VAR is failing because it always has been & always will be unsuitable for football.the only reason VAR is failing is that the VAR officials won't overrule their colleagues, it's obviously been agreed amongst themselves otherwise things like the Sokratis hand ball would be overruled
and yet it worked perfectly well at the last World Cup and fine in other league only in England can they not copeI mean that’s just wrong. VAR is failing because it always has been & always will be unsuitable for football.
No that’s another lie pro var people say- it isn’t perfect in other countries & many people hate how it:and yet it worked perfectly well at the last World Cup and fine in other league only in England can they not cope
I agree. Making offside decisions so "high resolution" makes little sense.just think it could be simpler by changing the law to the centre of chest as oppose to body parts. its beyond stupid and still not conclusive.
Referees are inept and they can't be seen to be shown up every match. That must be the reasoning behind the way these rules have been drawn up. There's so much holes in them, that they're screwing teams over every week because of them.1) Should have been a penalty for us. Though I'm not surprised it wasn't given how utterly stupid the PL decided to make their version of VAR. What the hell actually has to happen for a subjective decision to be overturned?
2) VAR did its job on the Arsenal goal but, more importantly, how the hell did they think it was ever offside in the first place? He was so far on side it should never have been necessary. .
Tells you everything doesn't it?Former Premier League referee Neil Swarbrick, in charge of the VAR hub said:
“When we looked at VAR and how to use it best, the fundamental emphasis was for refs to do what they do – and not even think about VAR. Telling them to forget VAR when it’s there may seem odd – but that’s how we operate. Make your decision and if it’s one that can be changed – a penalty, red card or build-up to a goal – explain to VAR why you gave it. So all the emphasis is on the referee.
If his reasons replicate what VAR is looking at – then it doesn’t matter what VAR thinks the decision should be.
That’s not what VAR is about. It’s about the ref making the right call – and setting the bar as high as possible.”
To the detriment of Utd! If he wasn't blind then obviously the game would have naturally unfolded without any outside interference.I don't know about VAR but how the linesman thought that was offside boggles my mind. The play occurred right in front of him, Auba was onside by a mile!
It's great when implemented properly but the Premier League's weird policy of not overruling decisions defeats the purpose.VAR showing why it's a good thing, calling off a completely unfair goal in the Libertadores semi that would never be called otherwise.
Exactly, that's why it baffles me that most of the criticism is drawn to the system and not to the people that use it incorrectly.It's great when implemented properly but the Premier League's weird policy of not overruling decisions defeats the purpose.
The only difference with the PL is that the refs aren't allowed to view a monitor in the dug out. That's my understanding anyway...It's great when implemented properly but the Premier League's weird policy of not overruling decisions defeats the purpose.
The on pitch refs have been informed to officiate like VAR doesn't exist while the officials monitoring the games have a policy of not overturning decisions unless they meet some imaginary "high bar" of "a clear and obvious error". The current PL policy basically gives everyone a cop out.The only difference with the PL is that the refs aren't allowed to view a monitor in the dug out. That's my understanding anyway...
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date