Refs & VAR 2020/2021 Discussion

Bullhitter

Full Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
734
Location
in the opposite direction of crowds
Supports
Chelsea
It is a subjective decision. Which is why you were wrong to say that anyone thinking it was onside was wrong.

When it comes to a subjective decision it’s reasonable to ask why somebody thinks he was impacted and give a reasonable reason of how he was prevented from playing the ball. I haven’t seen anybody do that. It can be done for the Everton example you’ve used.
He is not listening to the other side, wasting your time.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
18,316
That's absolutely not the appropriate freeze frame in both instances, because it's not the first time the ball is played towards someone in an offside position, whether it was a shot or a pass is irrelevant. To demand it be judged on the shot is pointless. It can be a shot, it can be a pass, or it can be a deflection, the important bit is the player standing in an offside position, and whether he's interfering with play or not. Not least so because the header that ended up being a pass could have just as well been a shot. You have no way of knowing where the ball is gonna go as a keeper, and you have to position yourself in part according to the players around you.

If you understand the keepers ability to play the ball as his decision making process, players in such close proximity will always affect that, whether the keeper was able to save the shot in some alternate universe or not.
It wasn’t played towards somebody in an offside position though was it? It was played towards somebody in an onside position.

Can you give an example of offside being given under that interpretation of the law for the pass before somebody shoots?

It happens too quickly for Allison’s position to change. Just like the deflection on Bruno’s goal happened too quickly for his position to change. Had Phillips not been there it would’ve been the same result so he wasn’t prevented from playing the ball or attempting to play the ball. That’s where the big difference to the Everton goal comes in.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
24,714
Are these the rules about it being a shot on goal or just a pass just how you are reading them? Genuinely curious as I see the situations totally different if you’re saying it’s the same as the everton decision due to the rules. I thought everton was offside because sigurdson clearly got in the way and had to move. You are saying any kind of assist square there or cross to back post instead of a shot and goal would be ruled out and I just can’t see that.
Not exactly.

I'm saying that if instead of going through Siggurdson the ball had instead gone to the back post, the referee would have had the same subjective decision to make as the ref in the West Brom & Liverpool game. I can't say he would have come to the same conclusion, as the circumstances would be different (not least because the ball would have travelled the entire way across goal away from Siggurdson). Subjective calls are subjective after all and depend on the ref and the specific circumstances.

But in both cases the goalkeeper being able to see the ball wouldn't change the fact that there's a call to be made as to whether the offside player was a factor in the decision facing the goalkeeper. In the Siggurdson case the fact that he then effectively dummied the ball just made it a nailed on decision.
 

Makelele

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Apr 30, 2014
Messages
298
That offside call in the FA cup final isn’t talked about enough. The ref could easily have drawn the lines a few frames earlier then he did because there is no way you can with 100% accuracy say when the ball is no longer connected to the passing players foot. It’s a subjective call as far as I’m aware. Given that the benefit should go to the attacking player why on earth would you make such a call in a final? It’s a disturbing trend we are seeing.

VAR should eliminate obvious errors.How is an exception made for offsides?
 

Zlatan 7

We've got bush!
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
7,601
[
Not exactly.

I'm saying that if instead of going through Siggurdson the ball had instead gone to the back post, the referee would have had the same subjective decision to make as the ref in the West Brom & Liverpool game. I can't say he would have come to the same conclusion, as the circumstances would be different (not least because the ball would have travelled the entire way across goal away from Siggurdson). Subjective calls are subjective after all and depend on the ref and the specific circumstances.

But in both cases the goalkeeper being able to see the ball wouldn't change the fact that there's a call to be made as to whether the offside player was a factor in the decision facing the goalkeeper. In the Siggurdson case the fact that he then effectively dummied the ball just made it a nailed on decision.
well that’s what I’ve been saying from the start. If in the everton game the ball was squared and then scored the ref would have to make a subjective decision whether sigurdson impeded and he obviously wouldn’t have impeded from where he was so goal would likely stand. That’s how I view the West Brom goal
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
24,714
It is a subjective decision. Which is why you were wrong to say that anyone thinking it was onside was wrong.

When it comes to a subjective decision it’s reasonable to ask why somebody thinks he was impacted and give a reasonable reason of how he was prevented from playing the ball. I haven’t seen anybody do that. It can be done for the Everton example you’ve used.
I tried explaining it in that post but I may not have done so clearly.

In the moment of the header, the goalkeeper doesn't know what's going to happen next or where exactly the ball is going to go (or even that it won't end up going towards the offside player). He has to read the situation, judge it and react very quickly. In this case he was having to read the situation while that offside player was standing right in front of him, directly between him and the header he was trying to read.

So the question is: could the presence of the of the offside player he was having to look past to see the ball have intruded at all on his ability to read, judge or react to what was happening in front of him. Because if the offside player was even a slight distraction to the goalkeeper's ability to assess what was occurring in front of him, he's impacted the goalkeeper's ability to try and play the ball. Because "trying to play the ball" includes that reading, judging and reacting process.

And the important point here is that it doesn't matter if it actually did impact anything the goalkeeper physically did, or even if the goalkeeper was physically capable of doing anything anyway. Being a factor in his thought process is enough.

So to allow the goal in this instance you would have to be able to say "I'm sure that the player standing directly in front of the goalkeeper (who he had to look past to actually see the ball and who he didn't know wasn't going to get the ball from the header) didn't register in his thought process as he attempted to react to the header". Which is quite a hard thing to assert. So while it is still a subjective call, it's quite a straightforward one in this case.
 

Moonwalker

Full Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
3,631
It wasn’t played towards somebody in an offside position though was it? It was played towards somebody in an onside position.

Can you give an example of offside being given under that interpretation of the law for the pass before somebody shoots?

It happens too quickly for Allison’s position to change. Just like the deflection on Bruno’s goal happened too quickly for his position to change. Had Phillips not been there it would’ve been the same result so he wasn’t prevented from playing the ball or attempting to play the ball. That’s where the big difference to the Everton goal comes in.
It's not even clear that's a pass. It's a pass with hindsight, which Alisson, unlike you doesn't have. He has to position himself without the benefit of prolepsis. The positioning and the decision making process takes place before something you later know is a pass happens. You can't discount all that because of a weird demand that it must be a shot when he doesn't know that it isn't.

'It would have been the same' is speculative and unfalsifiable. We can't determine that arguing a day later, much less in a couple of minutes that the officials had, so they will apply a heuristic which comes down to line of sight and proximity, and on both those counts Phillips is guilty of being offside.

This all 'can you provide an example' thing is also quite weird. It's as if prior refereeing decisions have a legislative power like the US supreme court, and some precedent determines all subsequent judgements. Most of these incidents we are arguing about here fall in the rare and uncanny category anyway. It's only a recent phenomenon that we have the technology that places them on the radar. Not having a long history and tradition of similar calls shouldn't be the measure of them being correct or not.
 
Last edited:

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
18,316
I tried explaining it in that post but I may not have done so clearly.

In the moment of the header, the goalkeeper doesn't know what's going to happen next or where exactly the ball is going to go (or even that it won't end up going towards the offside player). He has to read the situation, judge it and react very quickly. In this case he was having to read the situation while that offside player was standing right in front of him, directly between him and the header he was trying to read.

So the question is: could the presence of the of the offside player he was having to look past to see the ball have intruded at all on his ability to read, judge or react to what was happening in front of him. Because if the offside player was even a slight distraction to the goalkeeper's ability to assess what was occurring in front of him, he's impacted the goalkeeper's ability to try and play the ball. Because "trying to play the ball" includes that reading, judging and reacting process.

And the important point here is that it doesn't matter if it actually did impact anything the goalkeeper physically did, or even if the goalkeeper was physically capable of doing anything anyway. Being a factor in his thought process is enough.

So to allow the goal in this instance you would have to be able to say "I'm sure that the player standing directly in front of the goalkeeper (who he had to look past to actually see the ball and who he didn't know wasn't going to get the ball from the header) didn't register in his thought process as he attempted to react to the header". Which is quite a hard thing to assert. So while it is still a subjective call, it's quite a straightforward one in this case.
Watch the goal in real time. He follows the trajectory of the ball at all times. The question to ask is would it have played out any differently if Phillips wasn’t there. If you can’t reasonably say how it would’ve been different then it didn’t impact the keeper. Could he come and contest the header? No. Could he stop the deflection from happening? No. I mean, it’s not even close as to whether he could or not.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
24,714
He is not listening to the other side, wasting your time.
Probably. Once Dale Johnson has spoken that’s it over.
I am listening and I am responding as best I can. But a lot of the points being made are wrong or make zero sense. For example, yesterday @acnumber9 tried to argue that we base offside on the moment the goalscorer scores rather than when the ball is played to him:

You judge offside from the moment the pass is played to the goalscorer, not when the goalscorer then takes a shot.
No you don’t. If the ball was rolled to somebody on the edge of the box for a shot, offside is judged from when the shot is taken. Not the pass before it. Look at the rules.
Luckily I don't need a twitter journalist to tell me how the most basic aspect of offside works. But posts like that are quite difficult to respond to, so if it seems like I'm dismissing them I do apologise. I can but try.
 

Zlatan 7

We've got bush!
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
7,601
I am listening and I am responding as best I can. But a lot of the points being made are wrong or make zero sense. For example, yesterday @acnumber9 tried to argue that we base offside on the moment the goalscorer scores rather than when the ball is played to him:




Luckily I don't need a twitter journalist to tell me how the most basic aspect of offside works. But posts like that are quite difficult to respond to, so if it seems like I'm dismissing them I do apologise.
To be fair at first I thought you was saying anyone who thinks it’s not offside is wrong because the rules say this or that. Now you’ve replied to me saying it’s a subjective call by the ref, so it seems your stance has changed somewhat.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
18,316
It's not even clear that's a pass. It's a pass with hindsight, which Alisson, unlike you doesn't have. He has to position himself without the benefit of prolepsis. The positioning and the decision making process takes place before something you later know is a pass happens. You can't discount all that because of a weird demand that it must be a shot when he doesn't know that it isn't.

'It would have been the same' is speculative and unfalsifiable. We can't determine that arguing a day later, much less in a couple of minutes that the officials had, so they will apply a heuristic which comes down to line of sight and proximity, and on both those counts Phillips is guilty of being offside.

This all 'can you provide an example' thing is also quite weird. It's as if prior refereeing decisions have a legislative power like the US supreme court, and some precedent determines all subsequent judgements. Most of these incidents we are arguing about here fall in the rare and uncanny category anyway. It's only a recent phenomenon that we have the technology that places them on the radar anyway. Not having a long history and tradition of similar calls shouldn't be the measure of them being correct or not.
Watch the goal again in real time. He’s constantly moving with the flight of the ball. The reason the ball goes in isn’t because of Phillips. It happens too quickly.

I ask for examples because people are indignant at the idea it was the wrong decision. If it was so obvious you could point to it happening before.

Can you give a reasonable example of how he was actually impacted? Not saying he could’ve been, actually explaining how you think he was. He moves to his right when the header is made so he clearly wasn’t impacted at that stage. After that there is no offside.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
18,316
I am listening and I am responding as best I can. But a lot of the points being made are wrong or make zero sense. For example, yesterday @acnumber9 tried to argue that we base offside on the moment the goalscorer scores rather than when the ball is played to him:




Luckily I don't need a twitter journalist to tell me how the most basic aspect of offside works. But posts like that are quite difficult to respond to, so if it seems like I'm dismissing them I do apologise. I can but try.
Maybe you do. Being in an offside position on its own isn’t an offence. The point I was making is when the rule is applied to a player being in the keepers line of sight. That is always when the shot is hit. I’ve literally never seen it not be considered from when the shot was hit before yesterday. Have you? I wasn’t referring to a regular offside when a pass is played to a player in an offside position.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
18,316
To be fair at first I thought you was saying anyone who thinks it’s not offside is wrong because the rules say this or that. Now you’ve replied to me saying it’s a subjective call by the ref, so it seems your stance has changed somewhat.
He blatantly said it wasn’t a mistake yesterday. He’s at least softened to subjective.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
24,714
Watch the goal in real time. He follows the trajectory of the ball at all times. The question to ask is would it have played out any differently if Phillips wasn’t there. If you can’t reasonably say how it would’ve been different then it didn’t impact the keeper. Could he come and contest the header? No. Could he stop the deflection from happening? No. I mean, it’s not even close as to whether he could or not.
The bold is the key point though. That might be the question you want them to ask, but it isn't the question they actually have to ask.

Even if it was physically impossible for the goalkeeper to save the ball and there was zero chance of a different outcome, interfering with the goalkeeper's futile attempt would be enough for the goal to be disallowed. Because they're not there to judge whether the outcome would have been different.

If that was the way the rule worked, then why wouldn't a different standard apply to, say, David De Gea rather than Scott Carson? After all, "would it have played out any differently?" would change depending on the goalkeeper and how likely they would be to pull off a miracle save. They can't get dragged into determining what is/isn't possible to save or whether the outcome would have been that outcome rgardless, so they don't decide based on that. They judge by whether it impacts their attempt to play the ball, as able as they are to do so.
 
Last edited:

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
18,316
The bold is the key point though. That might be the question you want them to ask, but it isn't the question they actually have to ask.

Even if it was physically impossible for the goalkeeper to save the ball and there was literally zero chance of a different outcome, interfering with the goalkeeper's futile attempt would be enough for the goal to be disallowed.
It is though. You saying it isn’t doesn’t make it the case. He didn’t interfere with the keepers attempt to play the ball. If it was as cut and dry as you think, they wouldn’t have spent several minutes on that Everton goal referenced previously.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
24,714
We're arguing in circles and I've nearly eaten through my phone battery so I'm tapping out. Peace. :)
 

Moonwalker

Full Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
3,631
Watch the goal again in real time. He’s constantly moving with the flight of the ball. The reason the ball goes in isn’t because of Phillips. It happens too quickly.

I ask for examples because people are indignant at the idea it was the wrong decision. If it was so obvious you could point to it happening before.

Can you give a reasonable example of how he was actually impacted? Not saying he could’ve been, actually explaining how you think he was. He moves to his right when the header is made so he clearly wasn’t impacted at that stage. After that there is no offside.
If I were to accept the grammar of your argument, I'd be accepting the very thing you fail to understand. I can't mind read, nor can you and most importantly the officials can't either. That's why the bar can't be the impossible (how it did affect his thought process) but instead how it could have (which isn't hard to see in this case at all).

As for your demand for examples -obviousness and frequency are two different things and one doesn't at all follow from the other.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
18,316
If I were to accept the grammar of your argument, I'd be accepting the very thing you fail to understand. I can't mind read, nor can you and most importantly the officials can't either. That's why the bar can't be the impossible (how it did affect his thought process) but instead how it could have (which isn't hard to see in this case at all).

As for your demand for examples -obviousness and frequency are two different things and one doesn't at all follow from the other.
Explain how it could’ve been impacted then. What position could he reasonably take up to stop the ball going in? Remember the rules specifically say they have to be prevented from playing or attempting to play the ball.

We know it didn’t affect his thought process because Phillips wasn’t in his thoughts. That’s why he points at Bartley when claiming offside and not Phillips.
 

Moonwalker

Full Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
3,631
Explain how it could’ve been impacted then. What position could he reasonably take up to stop the ball going in? Remember the rules specifically say they have to be prevented from playing or attempting to play the ball.

We know it didn’t affect his thought process because Phillips wasn’t in his thoughts. That’s why he points at Bartley when claiming offside and not Phillips.
That's begging the question. We don't know that nor can we.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
18,316
That's begging the question. We don't know that nor can we.
If you can’t give a reasonable explanation as to how he could be impacted it’s because there is none. If there is none, the goal should stand.

If Phillips was in his mind that’s who he would’ve claimed offside for. We know that he didn’t.
 

Moonwalker

Full Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
3,631
If you can’t give a reasonable explanation as to how he could be impacted it’s because there is none. If there is none, the goal should stand.

If Phillips was in his mind that’s who he would’ve claimed offside for. We know that he didn’t.
What part of directly in his line of sight and 5 feet away from him do you not find reasonable for could be impacted? In the absence of a broadcast of the keeper thought process, those are the objective factors to be taken into account. The players subsequent reaction isn't something good referees should consider, you don't referee based on reactions. Alisson could have taken both players into account in his decision making and thought both of them are offside but decided pointing at Bartley has a better appeal chance, or he could have thought Phillips is onside but still taken him into consideration when deciding how to position himself. He doesn't need to think Phillips is offside for his positioning and reaction to be affected by him.

'In his mind' for all intents and purposes for the referee - means an object in the player's field of vision that he takes into consideration, and that doesn't have to be same as who the player thinks is the offside culprit.
 

visiting villain

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 4, 2021
Messages
48
Supports
Aston Villa
There was an offsides like that when we played Arsenal earlier this year. McGinn blasted home I think like 20 seconds in and Leno clearly wouldn’t have gotten to it but Barkley was in his line of sight as offsides. Can understand why it was ruled out but then we go down that alley even further
 

Anustart89

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
10,939
It’s amazing the way people argue sometimes. The two incidents are very much similar in a myriad of fecking aspects. Both passive offsides, both standing directly in the line of sight, the keeper can still see the ball, despite the player being directly in his line of sight.

The fact that they are not identical is not an argument against them being similar.
“In no way similar” is a barking mad thing to say about those two incidents.
They're very different in that they're judged on different aspects of the same law. WBA were penalised for 'being in line of sight and may have influenced', whereas Everton were penalised for 'doing an action that distracts an opponent', or 'interfering with an opponent' if you will.

It's like comparing Suarez's deliberate handball with Kimpembe's handball against us. They're both handballs, but they're not comparable situations since they're deemed on different aspects of the handball law. So you couldn't say that "well, Suarez's handball against Ghana was penalised so Kimpembe should be too".
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
18,316
What part of directly in his line of sight and 5 feet away from him do you not find reasonable for could be impacted? In the absence of a broadcast of the keeper thought process, those are the objective factors to be taken into account. The players subsequent reaction isn't something good referees should consider, you don't referee based on reactions. Alisson could have taken both players into account in his decision making and thought both of them are offside but decided pointing at Bartley has a better appeal chance, or he could have thought Phillips is onside but still taken him into consideration when deciding how to position himself. He doesn't need to think Phillips is offside for his positioning and reaction to be affected by him.

'In his mind' for all intents and purposes for the referee - means an object in the player's field of vision that he takes into consideration, and that doesn't have to be same as who the player thinks is the offside culprit.
The part where he clearly still followed the flight of the ball. The part where he couldn’t possibly play the ball at any stage.
 

Speedy30

Liverpool Fan
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
1,398
Location
On the Kop
Supports
Liverpool


This is how I know that Alisson could clearly see the ball.

It was a shocking decision to disallow the goal.
In your eyes maybe. In the eyes of the officials and most people without a biased agenda, it wasn't. The player is in an offside position and is interfering with play by being about 2 yds in front of Alisson when the ball is played forward by a team mate. Pretty simple stuff really especially for an Oracle to understand
 

Moonwalker

Full Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
3,631
They're very different in that they're judged on different aspects of the same law. WBA were penalised for 'being in line of sight and may have influenced', whereas Everton were penalised for 'doing an action that distracts an opponent', or 'interfering with an opponent' if you will.

It's like comparing Suarez's deliberate handball with Kimpembe's handball against us. They're both handballs, but they're not comparable situations since they're deemed on different aspects of the handball law. So you couldn't say that "well, Suarez's handball against Ghana was penalised so Kimpembe should be too".
They are both offside decisions. They are both passive offside decisions. In both instances the keeper is influenced by a player who is in not only in his field of vision, but in his direct line of sight. In both instances an argument can be made that despite this - the keeper sees the ball. Those are four relevant similarities. There are two differences (that were brought up, and countless others that understandably were not). In one incident it was a pass and in the other it was a shot. This cannot be a relevant difference for any intent and purpose of determining whether it was offside or not, any more than the fact that the kits were different or the stadiums were different on those occasions, could count as a relevant difference. The second proposed difference is that in one incident the player moved his foot out of the way. You can argue this is important or not, only in so far as it makes interference more or less conspicuous, but whatever you conclude you would still be talking about a single difference.



This is such a niche category of incident that you are not likely to find very meny events for comparison, and unsurprisingly no one has found any better so far. With all that in mind, to claim that the two things are 'in no way similar' is just completely absurd.
 

The Oracle

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
444
In your eyes maybe. In the eyes of the officials and most people without a biased agenda, it wasn't. The player is in an offside position and is interfering with play by being about 2 yds in front of Alisson when the ball is played forward by a team mate. Pretty simple stuff really especially for an Oracle to understand
One of the fundamental rules of posting on the forums is to attack the post, NOT the poster.
 

UncleBob

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
4,501
I agree that the refs themselves are by far the biggest problem - I suppose I fundamentally disagree that VAR is generally an improvement. I personally would argue that a system that has "objective" standards mixed in with judgement calls is poorly designed and should be binned.

I keep saying this but for me the solution is to just get rid of freeze framing and slow motion - these are completely different ways of looking at the game and for me aren't necessarily reflective of the spirit of the laws. People wanted VAR to overturn egregious errors - the types that are visible at normal speed.
Not entirely sure i see your point.

It's always going to be objective standards mixed with judgement calls.

There's no point in adding more bias, doesn't matter if the mistake is obvious or not, just get the decision right. Harry Maguires two disallowed goals, for instance, if the referee had allowed them to stand then VAR wouldn't have changed those decisions or asked the referee to review them on the monitor. Which creates daft situations where same situations can result in two very different outcomes, even if the same match. Manchester United against Sheffield this season, for instance. VAR ignores the foul on De Gea for their opening goal, because it's not an "clear and obvious" error by the referee. Then Peter Bankes blows for less of a foul by Maguire on Ramsdale, but he blows just before the ball crosses the line so VAR can't even get involved. It's madness, situations like that shouldn't be allowed to continue
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
3,185
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
Not entirely sure i see your point.

It's always going to be objective standards mixed with judgement calls.

There's no point in adding more bias, doesn't matter if the mistake is obvious or not, just get the decision right. Harry Maguires two disallowed goals, for instance, if the referee had allowed them to stand then VAR wouldn't have changed those decisions or asked the referee to review them on the monitor. Which creates daft situations where same situations can result in two very different outcomes, even if the same match. Manchester United against Sheffield this season, for instance. VAR ignores the foul on De Gea for their opening goal, because it's not an "clear and obvious" error by the referee. Then Peter Bankes blows for less of a foul by Maguire on Ramsdale, but he blows just before the ball crosses the line so VAR can't even get involved. It's madness, situations like that shouldn't be allowed to continue
Guess my point is that it's farcical that VAR purports to be millimeter-accurate on offside decisions when it's a total crapshoot in terms of subjective decision making. I'd prefer something more like the MLS model - where there are no lines for offside, the referee goes and has a look and decides if a player is in line or not.

I'd rather just have everything be subjective with a system in place for egregious errors.
 

UncleBob

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
4,501
Guess my point is that it's farcical that VAR purports to be millimeter-accurate on offside decisions when it's a total crapshoot in terms of subjective decision making. I'd prefer something more like the MLS model - where there are no lines for offside, the referee goes and has a look and decides if a player is in line or not.

I'd rather just have everything be subjective with a system in place for egregious errors.
Essentially you want to make the decisions worse, then
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
3,185
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
Essentially you want to make the decisions worse, then
I want to make the decisions more in line with the spirit of the laws as written. Personally I'd argue that calling someone offside by a millimeter based on a freeze frame selected more or less arbitrarily is a worse decision, but maybe that's just me.
 

UncleBob

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
4,501
I want to make the decisions more in line with the spirit of the laws as written. Personally I'd argue that calling someone offside by a millimeter based on a freeze frame selected more or less arbitrarily is a worse decision, but maybe that's just me.
You'll still have a freeze frame selected the same way, you're just depending on a worse system to identify if the player is onside or not.
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
3,185
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
You'll still have a freeze frame selected the same way, you're just depending on a worse system to identify if the player is onside or not.
But that's what I'm saying. I want to get rid of all freeze framing and all slow motion. If someone is obviously wrong at normal speed then overturn it - reviews would be faster and less disruptive, benefit of the doubt goes back to attackers, matchgoing supporters don't have their days ruined, etc.
 

UncleBob

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
4,501
But that's what I'm saying. I want to get rid of all freeze framing and all slow motion. If someone is obviously wrong at normal speed then overturn it - reviews would be faster and less disruptive, benefit of the doubt goes back to attackers, matchgoing supporters don't have their days ruined, etc.
Benefit of doubt has never belonged to attackers, it's a myth.

Huzzah, there will be less delays but even more feck ups, potential detrimental effects on the outcome of the match but matchoing supporters supposedly don't have their days ruined..Yeah, i fail to see how that works.
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
3,185
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
Benefit of doubt has never belonged to attackers, it's a myth.

Huzzah, there will be less delays but even more feck ups, potential detrimental effects on the outcome of the match but matchoing supporters supposedly don't have their days ruined..Yeah, i fail to see how that works.
Genuine question - do you think VAR has had a net positive effect on refereeing standards? Personally I feel as though it's lowered the quality of refereeing, especially insofar as consistency between matches is concerned. Perhaps part of this is referees are not yet acclimatised to the new way of doing things and it might improve over time, but all in all I think it's fair to say it's been pretty calamitous this season.
 

Zlatan 7

We've got bush!
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
7,601
[
Benefit of doubt has never belonged to attackers, it's a myth.

Huzzah, there will be less delays but even more feck ups, potential detrimental effects on the outcome of the match but matchoing supporters supposedly don't have their days ruined..Yeah, i fail to see how that works.
football survived 100 years and grew and grew without VAR. It is now spoiling the experience for players managers and match goers.

kasper schmeichel said after the FA Cup final he didn’t even dare celebrate the goal because of var. wtf, is that really what we want football to be, just to ensure you get your 1mm offside right.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
24,714
Genuine question - do you think VAR has had a net positive effect on refereeing standards? Personally I feel as though it's lowered the quality of refereeing, especially insofar as consistency between matches is concerned. Perhaps part of this is referees are not yet acclimatised to the new way of doing things and it might improve over time, but all in all I think it's fair to say it's been pretty calamitous this season.
I don't think it has made the on-pitch referees worse. However, it has basically given them a second job to do as VARs, which they are also (to varying degrees) not doing well. Which kinda compounds the problem of bad officiating as it adds an extra layer to it. Especially when the protocols around VAR are still very messy in the PL especially.

One of the interesting points in the article you posted above relates to that. As it says, some refs are just better at being VARs than others. And where other competitions might have a dedicated panel of people who can focus entirely on being VARs (and be assessed on how well they do that job alone) the PL are swapping refs in and out as VARs, including some from lower divisions. Specialisation would make more sense, you'd think.

Though saying that, I see Lee Mason is the first ref retiring to become solely a VAR.... :nervous: