I'd say it's more that people are arguing that the rule could do with being less exact due to the technology not being exact enough to carry it through.
VAR - Not the hero we want, the one we need
- Thread starter Pavl3n
- Start date
I'd say it's more that people are arguing that the rule could do with being less exact due to the technology not being exact enough to carry it through.
What are you basing that on @RedSky? The angle you have been shown? Or the frame you have been shown? As the poster above has mentioned, how certain are you of the frame rate?
Is so close it's ridiculous, which is my entire point, people like you are lead to believe that this system is something it absolutely is not.
For it to be perfect they would need to install extremely high frame rate cameras all along the side of the pitch, and even then the moment of contact with the ball needs to be 100% accurate, then we can call it acceptable. Right now, I've no idea if last night was correct or not, nor does the system, you, or the referee.
Exactly, which is why we should scrap the offside rule altogether. As someone has said earlier, it was brought in to stop people goal hanging not to penalise someone who’s toenail is offside. It’s ridiculous really. But rules are rules no matter how stupid they are.
He's clearly offisde. Just only by very small amount.
Don't get what the issue is.
If there is a margin introduced then the same controversy would happen around whatever amount it was.
We don't. Its more a change to the offside rule than VAR.
It doesn't have to be 10cm. I said any number which can be considered an obvious variation. What's the current margin of error?
I'll ask you the same question I asked above:
What are you basing that on ? The angle you have been shown? Or the frame you have been shown? As the poster above has mentioned, how certain are you of the frame rate?
Is so close it's ridiculous, which is my entire point, people like you are lead to believe that this system is something it absolutely is not. It's a long long way from being 100% accurate and is far from scientific.
For it to be perfect they would need to install extremely high frame rate cameras all the way along the side of the pitch, and even then the moment of contact with the ball needs to be 100% accurate, only then we can call it acceptable and say things like "he's clearly offside".
Right now, I've no idea if last night was correct or not, nor does the system, you, or the referee.
Exactly. There should be a tolerance of about half a foot, about 15cm. So if the defenders and the attackers line falls within the tolerance they are given on side. Pretending that the tech is able to give an accurate reading to millimetres is just ridicules.
It's really annoying me because a huge pet hate of mine is junk science, and that's exactly what this is. Sadly though, just as Jury's in America are constantly convinced by junk science to give guilty verdicts, the same is quite clearly obvious here. A majority of football fans think that camera angle, the lines and the decision last night was backed up by sound science.
I agree with that 100% but even if it's not. If VAR is going to rule out goals like that one last night I don't want it. The offside rule is supposed to be there to stop someone try to get a clear advantage against the opposition. Last nights goal was a brilliantly worked goal that was at most millimetres offside. That is not the type of goal we should be trying to stop with the offside rule.
I don't know the specifics but I would say its got some massive decisions right including last nights, the Aguero vs Spurs (and I'm a City fan) and stuff like the Kimpembe peno vs United. For me VAR has been great if somewhat flawed.
If they intended for offside only to apply when there's a clear advantage then they made quite a mistake when they wrote the rules, because according to those rules offside is offside whether it's marginal or not. "Clear advantage" doesn't come into it.
If you want different offside rules that fit into your notion of what offside should be then that's fine but VAR ain't the problem in that case.
When they wrote that law did they expect that players would be given offside by 2mm though? It was always give the advantage to the attacker.
If we want to destroy the game by taking countless goals out of it carry on but I want those goals to stand.
Its advantage to the attacker when. Theyre not sure though. Now they can be 100 percent of the time.
You don't give the advantage to the attacker by ignoring an offside call.
Expect? No. Wanted? Yes. That was how they thought offside should work. That offside was a black and white call, end of. That's why they wrote the rule as such.
"Benefit of the doubt to the attacker" was just a way of bridging the gap between what they wanted and what they could actually apply. A gap that is greatly reduced thanks to VAR.
The idea of giving the advantage to the attacker on a close call was only a by-product of human limititations stopping offside being enforced as it was ideally intended to be, as a straightforward yes or no call.
You make it sound like "advantage to the attacker" was what they actually wanted rather than a neccesary evil. Ideally (from their point of view) they would have just made entirely accurate offside calls all the time with zero benefit of the doubt required and no advatage to anyone beyond what actually happened.
Last edited:
I don't understand how frame rate has any relevance here? These are modern cameras and, as I understand it, no player will be able to move quickly enough to render a modern camera obsolete from a frame rate perspective. Think how fast the ball travels and that always stays in perfect focus.
If you read on how VAR calculates offsides - they've got an army of cameras, software that maps the pitch (creates the virtual offside line) and two fixed cameras which are completely dedicated to offsides so the angle is always exactly the same. I can't really think how it could be any more accurate. if you added the cameras all the way along the side, I think you'd get the exact same result but (and I suspect this is where the question marks are) maybe a nicer angle for tv viewers to make their own opinions.
So in your view the ideal of the game is to stop teams scoring goals. Okay but that's was never the ideal of the game I grew up loving.
If we start ruling out goals like the one last night and have most of the goals being from slight touches in the box that ends up a penalty like the night before we destroy the game. Congratulations you have your perfect game but there will only be you and a few others watching it.
Except that (the offside rule being a black/white decision) was always the ideal, or at least the indended ideal. You just didn't realise it because they couldn't enforce it properly. That's my point. If VAR is enforcing a rule you don't like then blaming VAR rather than the rule itself seems weird. You just straight up don't like the offside rule.
Plus I think you'll find that the people who will take issue with it enough to stop watching will be in the tiny minority, not the other way around. The large majority of football fans are actively in favour of VAR, let alone willing to tolerate it. And of all the problems that those who are against VAR might have, stopping offside goals as per the offside rules is likely to be a ways down the list.
Last edited:
It's FIFA's, UEFA's and the FA's fault. VAR is only a tool. It's how the tool was used that I have a problem with. Last night and to some extent the night before that was wrong in my opinion. It will always be the organisations setting the way the tools are used not the tool it self.
If we want to disallow great goals for pedantic reasons we are going to destroy the sport in my opinion.
Benefit of the doubt exists only when there is doubt, that's literally the only reason for it, not because we really wanted to allow people to be slightly offside in football. Now there is no doubt and therefore no reason for there to be a benefit of the doubt.
You believe in the infallibility of tech more than I do and I work with it on a daily basis.
Is that right though? How about matchgoing fans? I can only imagine VAR making the matchday experience worse, not better. I’d be surprised if the majority of people who’ve already sat through assorted VAR delays in stadiums feel any different.
The players must really love it though, they get a nice rest waiting to find out whether they've scored or been sent off and stuff.
Until the mussels go cold and then they are expected to run again.
I've read up on it and yes, it sounds very much like junk science. (see below)
I'd like to see the test data on this one for the company providing the tracking data and the lines, it's not always the same provider apparently so it's something I'd very much like to take a closer look at.
I'd also like to know how they pinpoint the exact moment of contact of the pass.
Last edited:
Pretty much everybody works with it on a daily basis.
Cold mussels do taste gross tbf.
I know they are rank. The joys of auto correct.
In terms of fans generally any opinion polls I've seen on it have a strong majority in favour. I'd would be pretty certain you'd see similar in a caf poll, maybe 65-70% in favour? Though I'm far to lazy to actually check if there has been a caf poll.
In terms of matchday fans you may well be right.
On a really basic level though, a change this this big would never have been introduced if there was any real threat of a huge number of fans being turned off. Only a tiny, tiny minority of those who dislike VAR will do anything other than complain a bit as they keep watching, whether that's from the stands or at home.
On the manual side, that's surely the best option though no? The software gets the line as close as possible and then a human will zoom in and adjust the line the extra few cms, or mms.
I didn't know they use different providers, that brings up questions although I assume that's because it's a new technology and there must be so many companies looking to cash in on becoming the supplier.
I imagine (although i don't know) that contact of the pass will be done the same way as the last part of the offside decision, the software will identify and a human will approve after examination.
I just don't see how it's junk science, it's lightyears beyond what we've seen previously and, within the realms of reality, I don't think there's much that can be done to improve it. every now and then there will be very tight calls and probability dictates that eventually you will get an offside situation which is 1mm on/off and might be too much for the software to identify but if that's the only flaw I'm all for it. There were so many mistakes previously, it was becoming a bit of a joke (Charlie Austin's quote re best league in the world but the worst decisions, or something like that) whereas now it seems like VAR is pretty much always bang on
I think the software on determining the line of the attacker/last defender is imprecise but probably won't be too far out once they've refined the software and added camera angles etc. For me the biggest issue is the determination on the use of frame for when the ball is released towards the attacker. I think the margin for error is much bigger (as in there will be several feet difference) on that issue than it is on when to draw the line once you've decided on a moment in time on which to draw the line.
I don't think it should be scrapped, but I think it should be revised to favour the offense. So in my view it should be changed to the player is onside unless there is clear daylight between him and the defender. None of this "his toe was offside" crap...
I paused it during the game with the angle they gave us and it looked onside to me. I have since seen the picture with the yellow line showing him offside, but now we need to assume that the line is drawn straight to make show that he was really offside and not put like that to make the refs seem like they made the right decision...
And it’s happened again in the first game of the women’s World Cup.
It’s getting ridiculous now.
It’s getting ridiculous now.
If you’re not going to change the offside rule and you’re still going to use VAR for it then at least simplify the system.
If it’s inperceptible to the human eye on a slow motion replay then the referee’s decision should stand. As soon as you’re getting into drawing lines on the screen that aren’t even 100% accurate you’re over analysing it and wasting time. It was over three minutes between France “scoring” their second goal and it being disallowed last night which was clearly nonsensical.
Even in cricket, missed LBWs are only overturned if more than 50% of the ball is hitting the stumps. Anything less and the umpire’s original decision stands. If cricket, which has had DRS for a lot longer than football and has more “black and white” rules in comparison can account for their technology not being 100% accurate, why can’t football?
There is doubt unless you can prove that the line drawn on the screen is correctly in line to exact degree and the frame is stopped at the precise moment the ball is released from the player’s foot (which is ambiguous in itself; do we need to pinpoint the exact milisecond when the ball is 0.0001mm removed from the passing player’s foot?)
I’m in favour of common sense VAR, not “was this guy’s pube offside” or “did the ball brush a tiny bit of bicep after being blocked by the defender’s chest”.
We need to go back to basics. The VAR checks when something appears to be contentious. If no concrete decision can be made within 30 seconds the onfield decision stands.
Check after every goal is stupid as it purely exists scrutinize goals so they can be ruled out for the pettiest reasons. How can that possibly be an improvement to the game?
And yes, I’ve definitely got a lot of issues with the offside rule but VAR has clearly magnified those issues and shown that if they’re going to stick with it, the rule will need to become much more liberal for the sake of the game. Offsides only counting in the final thirds of the pitch in line with the penalty area would be my preference. (I.e. the penalty boxes and boxes 4,5,6 and 13, 14, 15 being the “offside zones”.)
Last edited:
To bad this shit didnt happen to Russians so i wouldnt read this amount of nonsense in last few pages.
That’s a clear offside, there is daylight in between so no qualms about that one. I think the bigger issue is when it’s virtually level and it’s going to go down to a dangling shoelace or something equally daft. Perhaps there needs to be enough of a margin introduced to remove the ridiculousness from the decision and slightly favour the attacking side in these situations when it’s little more than a hairs breadth.
Can't wait for VAR next season, totally stoked. Gonna be like a new signing.
Either you accept the system in use or you decide that it is unreliable or you build some tolerance in - favouring attackers presumably, from the flavour of these critical comments.
You would think VAR would be better on offside than the bloke with a flag who did that West Ham v Liverpool game, for example.
This concept of 'a clear & obvious error' is getting to be more & more of a red herring isn't it?
You would think VAR would be better on offside than the bloke with a flag who did that West Ham v Liverpool game, for example.
This concept of 'a clear & obvious error' is getting to be more & more of a red herring isn't it?