Refs & VAR 2020/2021 Discussion

[diarm]

It is football. Yes you can score with other parts of your body but making a decision that offside is determined by players feet is easier to police and makes just as much sense as any of the other arbitrary rules we have. If a players armpit goes over the touchline while he's dribbling down the wing we don't blow up for a throw in.

The line needs to be drawn from the last defenders foot and if the back foot of the attacker is anywhere onside, then he is onside.

Once we need to start drawing questionable dotted lines and bringing armpits into the equation the game is fecked. Make it simple - technology can easily show a line across the pitch from the foot of the last defender that is closest to the goal, and can easily determine if the attacker has a foot behind that line.

We're here to watch good attackers attack and good defenders defend - not to watch visually impaired morons in a teched out caravan, drawing diagrams of right angles to determine who managed to synchronise a line better. Give attackers more benefit and make defenders get back to focusing on how to actually defend rather than tricking the system.

 

[48 hours]

Personally I think they could make it clearer by just measuring from the lead foot. Or ruling if you have to draw the lines then it isn’t clear and obvious so leave it as the ruling on the field

 

[RK]

Personally I think they could make it clearer by just measuring from the lead foot. Or ruling if you have to draw the lines then it isn’t clear and obvious so leave it as the ruling on the field

Yeah agree, this was quite a simple one they could've got right. It wouldn't really fix the underlying issue, but it's logical for football and moves the problem towards a 2D space from 3D.

 

[sullydnl]

To @noodlehair's point, they actually still aren't using the sideline monitors "properly". Rather it has been largely used as a confirmatory process. In fact the first referee to stick to his original decision despite looking at the monitor was Graham Scott last week who, almost inevitably, was hilariously wrong to do so.

After 56 games this season, there had only been 7 subjective (non-handball) interventions by VAR. 2 penalties given, 1 penalty rescinded, 3 red cards given and 1 red card rescinded. I don't think anyone seriously believes that only seven of those errors were made by referees across nearly 60 games.

For context, the Bundesliga had 1 penalty related overturn approx. every 6.90 games last season, as opposed to the PL having 1 approx. every 14.30.

There will always be individual decisions we can argue about but those sort of stats indicate a system that isn't functioning as effectively as it could. And that's down to how it has been implemented.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

The below offside calls were made by the linesmen. Seem pretty marginal to me. So marginal calls will still be made, just as they were before VAR ever came in and just as they will be until the offside law changes. They'll just be made with less accuracy if left to linesmen.

Spoiler

And as for VAR judging based on the naked eye, that can be hugely misleading depending on the camera angle. The below onside decision wasn't even particularly marginal, yet how many people would have got it right based on the naked eye? Posters on here certainly thought it was an obvious offside.

Spoiler

Plus we already know exactly how your suggestion would play out, because they tried it in other leagues. It resulted in incidents like the below, where offside was given by both the linesman and the var's naked eye, even though he was actually onside.

Spoiler

You'll note there's still a line in that picture. That's because broadcasters keep applying their own lines to such calls, gleefully highlighting each and every mistake made. Which then results in fans complaining about bias, corrupt refs, useless VAR and the league stupidly not letting VAR use lines like every other major league does. Which inevitably resulted in them adopting the same system the PL are using.

Thing is I'd be far more happy with the last example because at least you know its subjective... Plus with the one line method I think incidents like this will be much rarer then the daft tight offside calls we currently get

Plus this current offside mechanism isn't 100% accurate anyway (like Bamford yesterday was definitely not 100%) offside and accounts for human error, so at least if you know its subjective then this isn't an issue.

Plus what's wrong with subjective offsides? 90% of the rules in football rely on subjectivity

 

[UncleBob]

Because everyone can accept a boot being offside. This situation isnt how close or how far, its the fact its his shirt sleeve.

His shirt sleeve is his upper arm. Why does it matter if it's his upper arm, which he can score with, or his chest, head or boot

 

[Annihilate Now!]

His shirt sleeve is his upper arm. Why does it matter if it's his upper arm, which he can score with, or his chest, head or boot

Worth saying that there is way more subjectivity from the VAR official about where the shirt sleeve point is then where a boot starts /ends.

Due to this an other factors no one can 100% say Bamford is offside

 

[UncleBob]

Worth saying that there is way more subjectivity from the VAR official about where the shirt sleeve point is then where a boot starts /ends.

Due to this an other factors no one can 100% say Bamford is offside

You can't 100% say that the tip of the boot is offside either, but everyone accepts the tolerances.

 

[sullydnl]

Because everyone can accept a boot being offside. This situation isnt how close or how far, its the fact its his shirt sleeve.

The argument I've seen against just using feet is that it's then a lot harder for linesmen in leagues without VAR to make correct offside calls, as they apparently use shirt-colour-on-shirt-colour a lot as is.

Having one rule for all levels of the games can make things tricky.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

You can't 100% say that the tip of the boot is offside either, but everyone accepts the tolerances.

No but its a much easier thing to call then a shirt sleeve.

And we don't really accept the tolerance because if we did VAR would have measures in place for the tolerance. Instead it sticks with the "Your offside or you're not" mantra which isn't actually true.

 

[arnie_ni]

His shirt sleeve is his upper arm. Why does it matter if it's his upper arm, which he can score with, or his chest, head or boot

Im arguing they should all be onside except his foot.

Its football, your feet, where you run from, where the true advantage is gained, is what should be used.

Edit. What i mean here by true advantage gained is, you can be 5 yards offisde when a ball is passed but if you still don't move your feet the defender will beat you to the ball. Its all about the feet

Its clear, easy, understood, no ambiguity, easier to play/beat offside as an attacker/defender as you know exactly where you can and shouldn't be.

It would just simplify the whole process.

Why do you think it shouldn't be?

 

[arnie_ni]

The argument I've seen against just using feet is that it's then a lot harder for linesmen in leagues without VAR to make correct offside calls, as they apparently use shirt-colour-on-shirt-colour a lot as is.

Having one rule for all levels of the games can make things tricky.

Thank you. This is the first post in here that has actually made a legitimate point against it.

Not something i thought of and is a good point. We cant really have one rule in the championship and another in the PL

 

[UncleBob]

No but its a much easier thing to call then a shirt sleeve.

And we don't really accept the tolerance because if we did VAR would have measures in place for the tolerance. Instead it sticks with the "Your offside or you're not" mantra which isn't actually true.

I'm not sure who you refer to when you say "we", but everyone that matters know the tolerances of VAR and have accepted the use.

 

[UncleBob]

Im arguing they should all be onside except his foot.

Its football, your feet, where you run from, where the true advantage is gained, is what should be used.

Edit. What i mean here by true advantage gained is, you can be 5 yards offisde when a ball is passed but if you still don't move your feet the defender will beat you to the ball. Its all about the feet

Its clear, easy, understood, no ambiguity, easier to play/beat offside as an attacker/defender as you know exactly where you can and shouldn't be.

It would just simplify the whole process.

Why do you think it shouldn't be?

Can you refer to where the rule says something about advantage?

 

[arnie_ni]

Can you refer to where the rule says something about advantage?

Thats not what i meant. See the edit that you even quoted.

 

[UncleBob]

Thats not what i meant. See the edit that you even quoted.

That's not the point.

The point is that you and other users keep talking about advantage, or true advantage, there's no consideriation of advantage so why keep referring to it?

 

[arnie_ni]

That's not the point.

The point is that you and other users keep talking about advantage, or true advantage, there's no consideriation of advantage so why keep referring to it?

Oh ffs Im not talking about gaining an advantage, it was a poor choice of words, i even edited the post and you know rightly thats not what i mean.

When your playing football to get past a defender and get on the end of the cross its all about moving your feet. If your head is offisde when a ball is passed the defender will cut it out if he moves and you dont.

So i think offsides should come from the feet because that is the true factor in whether you will actually get to the ball or not, whether you are offisde or not.

You're just arguing for the sake of it now, you have actually posted a counter arguement or an opinion, you're just trying to pick apart others posters points without giving your own.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

I'm not sure who you refer to when you say "we", but everyone that matters know the tolerances of VAR and have accepted the use.

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing... But I don't see anywhere in the VAR use that accounts for margin for error? (which would be the tolerance for error in referring too)

 

[UncleBob]

Oh ffs Im not talking about gaining an advantage, it was a poor choice of words, i even edited the post and you know rightly thats not what i mean.

When your playing football to get past a defender and get on the end of the cross its all about moving your feet. If your head is offisde when a ball is passed the defender will cut it out if he moves and you dont.

So i think offsides should come from the feet because that is the true factor in whether you will actually get to the ball or not, whether you are offisde or not.

It's not the true factor. It's the factor in some cases, not all. On freekicks and crosses close to the goal, your new offside rule could create plenty of daft situations where players lean in to get a tap in and they're judged onside because their feet are on the right side.

 

[UncleBob]

I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing... But I don't see anywhere in the VAR use that accounts for margin for error? (which would be the tolerance for error in referring too)

They know the accuracy of VAR and it's accepted

 

[arnie_ni]

It's not the true factor. It's the factor in some cases, not all. On freekicks and crosses close to the goal, your new offside rule could create plenty of daft situations where players lean in to get a tap in and they're judged onside because their feet are on the right side.

A counter point

Id argue its the factor in most cases. We seem to be arguing daft offside decisions multiple times each game week.

I think feet wold simplify it considerably.

I dont think you do. We're going round in circles here

 

[Annihilate Now!]

They know the accuracy of VAR and it's accepted

Its not accepted though otherwise there would be some sort of allowance? Like in Cricket.

If you know something isn't 100% accurate - but then operate it as if it is - literally doesn't account for the inaccuracy

 

[UncleBob]

Its not accepted though otherwise there would be some sort of allowance? Like in Cricket.

If you know something isn't 100% accurate - but then operate it as if it is - literally doesn't account for the inaccuracy

Here is VAR, here is how we intend to operate it, here is the accuracy, do you accept yes or no. Ofcourse it's fecking accepted.

 

[MikeeMike]

It is. You shouldnt be able to be offside by your shirt sleeve. Its completely stupid and a silly law

Unreal. The sleeve is not the stated thing that caused the offside. The attacker was in front of defender . Look a video frame. This is offside. Shorts, socks, nose, it makes no difference. Offside. What is so hard to grasp about this rule?

 

[sincher]

Unreal. The sleeve is not the stated thing that caused the offside. The attacker was in front of defender . Look a video frame. This is offside. Shorts, socks, nose, it makes no difference. Offside. What is so hard to grasp about this rule?

They are trying to measure the unmeasurable. Unless it is clear enough on the replay for a human to tell it is offside without the silly lines and dots and the very debatable pause point when the ball leaves the passer's foot, it shouldn't be given offside.

 

[MikeeMike]

“Its not accepted though otherwise there would be some sort of allowance? Like in Cricket.

If you know something isn't 100% accurate - but then operate it as if it is - literally doesn't account for the inaccuracy”

This literally makes no sense. What allowance is there in cricket? He was just nearly run out by an innaccuracy so common sense deems something else. It is accurate to the fps and offside is so easy to determine I cannot understand the crazy concepts being touted.

 

[UncleBob]

A counter point

Id argue its the factor in most cases. We seem to be arguing daft offside decisions multiple times each game week.

I think feet wold simplify it considerably.

I dont think you do. We're going round in circles here

Please, before VAR everyone was complaining about wrong decisions, now we're just complaining about the margins when the decisions are made.

 

[arnie_ni]

Unreal. The sleeve is not the stated thing that caused the offside. The attacker was in front of defender . Look a video frame. This is offside. Shorts, socks, nose, it makes no difference. Offside. What is so hard to grasp about this rule?

Hence the dicussion. We are saying the rule should change. We know what the rule is, we grasp it, we know its offside by the rule. Please read the posts before jumping in

 

[arnie_ni]

Please, before VAR everyone was complaining about wrong decisions, now we're just complaining about the margins when the decisions are made.

Again. No one is complaining about the margin in this decision. We all know its offisde by the rule. We just think its stupid that you can be able to be offside by your shirt sleeve.

With that im bowing out because we're going around in circles.

We'll probably have another decision to discuss after todays games anyway

 

[LordNinio]

“Its not accepted though otherwise there would be some sort of allowance? Like in Cricket.

If you know something isn't 100% accurate - but then operate it as if it is - literally doesn't account for the inaccuracy”

This literally makes no sense. What allowance is there in cricket? He was just nearly run out by an innaccuracy so common sense deems something else. It is accurate to the fps and offside is so easy to determine I cannot understand the crazy concepts being touted.

There is an allowance in cricket, if the ball is hitting the wickets by less than half a ball on the projection, it stays with the original decision. Its done like that as they know there is a margin of error in the way its done.

 

[arnie_ni]

“Its not accepted though otherwise there would be some sort of allowance? Like in Cricket.

If you know something isn't 100% accurate - but then operate it as if it is - literally doesn't account for the inaccuracy”

This literally makes no sense. What allowance is there in cricket? He was just nearly run out by an innaccuracy so common sense deems something else. It is accurate to the fps and offside is so easy to determine I cannot understand the crazy concepts being touted.

Do you watch cricket? They have an umpires call which is their allowance, meaning its to close to over ride so they go back to the umpires original decision.

 

[James Peril]

Why does the referee have to watch that handball on a screen? VAR is obviously saying it’s a penalty, they are more refs in a room and not tied to a decision - just tell the ref it’s a penalty by the book. When so happens, the players on the pitch cannot bitch to the ref as he didn’t make the decision. Stupid - as most other stuff with VAR.

 

[UncleBob]

I have a much bigger issue with handball decisions like that rather than offsides

 

[Judas]

Why does the referee have to watch that handball on a screen? VAR is obviously saying it’s a penalty, they are more refs in a room and not tied to a decision - just tell the ref it’s a penalty by the book. When so happens, the players on the pitch cannot bitch to the ref as he didn’t make the decision. Stupid - as most other stuff with VAR.

Couldn't disagree more. Half the complaints last season were the ref letting others make the decision for him, much prefer him going to the screen and making the choice himself, even if it takes longer.

 

[arnie_ni]

I have a much bigger issue with handball decisions like that rather than offsides

Any vids? @GifLord

 

[LordNinio]

Couldn't disagree more. Half the complaints last season were the ref letting others make the decision for him, much prefer him going to the screen and making the choice himself, even if it takes longer.

I honestly don't see the point. If they're all trained refs, there should be no need at all for the onfield ref to have any input.

Obviously, VAR has to operate properly and the rules have to be clear (which they're generally not at the minute), but the VAR ref should come to the same conclusion as the onfield ref, but without the messing about.

 

[UncleBob]

I honestly don't see the point. If they're all trained refs, there should be no need at all for the onfield ref to have any input.

Obviously, VAR has to operate properly and the rules have to be clear (which they're generally not at the minute), but the VAR ref should come to the same conclusion as the onfield ref, but without the messing about.

The rules are clear, but shit.

 

[LordNinio]

The rules are clear, but shit.

Ha, yes, true.

My point still remains, the VAR ref should come to the same conclusion as the on field ref, when both given the video footage. So the onfield ref should have no need to go and view the footage.

 

[arnie_ni]

The rules are clear, but shit.

We finally agree

 

[Anustart89]

The main thing that shows people’s inability to grasp the rules that they’re complaining about is the fact that they’re complaining about shirt sleeves being offside and then claiming that the offside rule should change.

If you think that it’s bollocks that a shirt sleeve can be offside, complain about the handball rule, because that’s what’s caused this. Unless you want the offside rule to be that you can be offside by any goal-scoring part of the body apart from the shirt sleeve, the cock, the arse and the left ear, which would make it even more of a clusterfeck, then the new handball law is the one you should have an issue with. But then again, everyone was complaining about goals being disallowed for hitting shoulders, Bailly conceding a penalty off his shoulder etc, so then we’re back to square one.