And how is he going to decide in a split second which decisions are tight and which are not? Where is the cut-off? The task is hard enough as it is without that extra layer.
VAR - Not the hero we want, the one we need
- Thread starter Pavl3n
- Start date
Players without pace and physical power were going to disapear for obvious reasons. And teams would defend inside the area all the time, they wouldn't risk high pressing the opponent's all over the pitch unless they were loosing, because that would be suicidal.
Teams would have to attack very fast and leave as many players behind as the other team leaves upfront, at least.
And I'm just mentioning the obvious.
To avoid the things above, you would have to introduce a lot of new rules.
I might be underestimating the technical difficulty of it but would it really be that hard to put some sort of sensor on each player to track their movements and pinpoint their exact position on the pitch?
We could argue the toss about the best way to play with no offsides all day. There would be as many different tactical approaches as there are in the game right now!
I can tell you for a fact that high pressing is very much a part of hockey. If anything, it's become more important as you don't want to give defenders too much time and space to ping a ball to an unmarked forward. And there's plenty of scope for creative, technical players who aren't physical beasts. You still need to be able to dribble past people, control the ball in tight areas and cut teams open with a penetrative pass. So a team full of Usain Bolts would be useless with or without an offside rule.
I dunno if you've ever played futsal but it has no offsides either and the best futsal players in the world couldn't be more different to the sort of one-dimensional sprinters you're describing.
EDIT: Just realised you're Portugese, so you'll probably be very familiar with the bloke in the video!
To start with, which part of their body would you put the sensor on?
It's actually not easy to get down to the milimetre precision you would want. The technology needed would be like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
By his eyes? But seriously, its obvious ones that are blatant? Basically if he thinks the player is offside, then flag and keep the flag up.
But flagging, then putting it down to continue the play is more confusing for all around.
I get your question but this wasnt an issue during the World Cup. All im saying is use the WC strategy rather than what we saw yesterday.
Exactly . Sometimes people want technology for the sake of it as us there not realising the impact on the sport itself.
It’s confusing, ruins the flow of a game, spoils the emotion & just isn’t worth it
If any one think VAR will give us 100% accurate decision then they are leaving in dreamland.
VAR can improve decision making but VAR will not 100% accurate.
Now as for Poch statement, Its very easy so say something in media after benefited by technology.
If he really think its unfair then how about giving 1 goal advantage to Chelsea in return leg?
VAR can improve decision making but VAR will not 100% accurate.
Now as for Poch statement, Its very easy so say something in media after benefited by technology.
If he really think its unfair then how about giving 1 goal advantage to Chelsea in return leg?
Well that's going to be a very individual opinion for each viewer. Personally i don't think it's radical at all it was what 90 seconds approximately. If people become bored or detached in that time frame then that's worrying.
I've not watched a game from the stands with it yet so maybe that's why but then Rugby League had it over a decade ago and it never bothered me watching it then.
I have to admit to being a bit of luddite when it's come to VAR, however the world cup and a couple of decisions at the weekend have changed my mind somewhat.
I thought it worked really well in the world cup with few major delays to the flow of game (which was always my argument against) and with the officials gaining more experiance i can only see any such delays becoming shorter. There's so much at stake these days that to not use the technology available to get the correct decision seems a bit daft to me now.
It's pointless arguing against it anyway, it's coming and that's that.
I thought it worked really well in the world cup with few major delays to the flow of game (which was always my argument against) and with the officials gaining more experiance i can only see any such delays becoming shorter. There's so much at stake these days that to not use the technology available to get the correct decision seems a bit daft to me now.
It's pointless arguing against it anyway, it's coming and that's that.
It's actually quite simple to implemente nowadays, and you don't need to overcomplicate things with every player using chips. You just need aerial cameras and a Machine Learning implementation to make things going smoother as the machine will keep learning through time.
I'd imagined a lattice of overhead, calibrated and synced ultra high speed cameras would be the only way to make it work. Say one per 5m squared. Ball tracking is pretty well developed, I'm sure such a system could track everything, including player positions. Make the whole thing automated. Spend the money.
Or don't. The mistakes are a wonderful part of the game. Everything evens out in the end. I love how this multi billion pound business is ultimately decided by 3 officials on the night. It keeps it rooted in reality - the refereeing at your Sunday league games can be just as effective as a Champions League final..
But whatever happens, I'm totally against it in this half-arsed form. Slow, pointless and tedious.
Thinking about how the game would go, im not sure it would be possible to achieve the fitness levels you would require.
Either the players spread out on the pitch more, in which the games become more open and a bit of a free for fall, or they stay as they are but players have to cover even more ground to get back when they lose the ball. They're already as fit as they can be, i don't see how they could do 90 minutes of that without a significant drop in intensity.
Can anyone give a gist of it?
Football is about emotion thought, that's what makes it so attractive, beautiful and unpredictable but VAR is killing that emotion from the game. If it brings not more in the game but takes out one of the most important thing that made football so passionate, then I think questions should be asked on whether it's beneficial or not.
I played futsal and I watch the games regularly of spanish and portuguese league, but the distance to cover is significantly smaller. You can't really make a comparison to a football field. And remember that the 10 meter line is the deadly line (from there on, any shot has potential to be a goal), so you really need to press them so they can't get easier to the 10 meters imaginary line.
The high pressing would still exist, but it would be very disjointed press, since there is a lot of distance to cover.
But (this is where I agree with you)... if there was no subs limit, I do think teams could risk the high pressing without the offside rule, because players could cover a lot of distances and keep rotating to rest. Still, the midfield would basically become obselete, you would had attackers or defenders.
What about the players on a pitch though, they react to the linesman's decision in real time. So Oliver just listens to his headset, turns around and says :"Sorry guys, I've just got word from my VAR man, my linesman was wrong, so now it's a penalty instead of an offside." They've just opened a Pandora's box that will lead to more problems than solutions. How many situations like last night's are about to take place? It's been hours and people are still debating whether Kane was onside or off. Technology is a great help when it comes to checking whether the ball crossed the goal line but perhaps some things should be left well alone, even if it means referees/linesmen will keep making mistakes on occasion in real time.
This is not to bitch about last night's result, what's done is done. I'm just saying technology isn't always the answer.
Last edited:
All sport are about emotion. Football is happen to be you likable sport.
erm... I thought offside was supposed to give some benefit of doubt to the attacker (didn't they talk about 'daylight' at some stage) or changing 'level' to being 'on' rather than 'off'
That's just too close to call with or without VAR - you just need to make your mind up isn't it?
That's just too close to call with or without VAR - you just need to make your mind up isn't it?
Actually, you and @André Dominguez both identified the key issue here. The fitness needed to play in a game with no offsides. They have unlimited subs in hockey (and the game doesn't have to stop for substitutions) which makes it workable. It also makes the game incredibly fast-paced and (IMHO) great to watch. Personally, I'd have no problem with soccer going the same way but accept that this might be too radical a change, just to get rid of offside controversies.
I think there's a good possibility that linesmen will become useless in the near future. Their work can be done, and be done better and more correctly, by technology.
This is where i think they need to be clearer on the dealings. for offsides, I think if its not obvious, then striker should always be given advantage. Or like NFL if there isnt enough evidence to overturn it, then go with what was called on the field.
So if linesman gives offside yesterday, and from views on VAR, they go with linesman.
however if linesman doesnt flag, then from VAR, its not a clear offside, so go with linesman.
For when its actually happening live, linesman shouldnt put it up if theres doubt like last night. (and he defo shouldnt put it up and then down)
Yes mate, all sports are about emotion, but in football it's something else. I grew up playing basketball and watching NBA, but I can tell you the emotion in football is something else and what makes it apart. VAR will kill that slolwy and football will lost a factor that makes it more attractive.
VAR has already been tested all over the world and the net effects have been generally perceived as postive. VAR was already tested at the biggest possible stage in Russia. Most people were happy enough to decide to implement VAR in the knock-out stages of the CL this season and in the PL next season.
It is easy to see why. VAR didn't show any major downsides during the World Cup in Russia. It didn't kill emotion nor did it harm any team - not according to the vast majority of people anyway. This is why it is going to be used in the CL and the EPL. The experiment is worth it even if people decide to ditch VAR eventually.
There always will be some negatives from implementing new technologies. The big picture is more important though and it says that VAR is likely to reduce mistakes no matter whether they are due to human fallibility or corruption.
It is easy to see why. VAR didn't show any major downsides during the World Cup in Russia. It didn't kill emotion nor did it harm any team - not according to the vast majority of people anyway. This is why it is going to be used in the CL and the EPL. The experiment is worth it even if people decide to ditch VAR eventually.
There always will be some negatives from implementing new technologies. The big picture is more important though and it says that VAR is likely to reduce mistakes no matter whether they are due to human fallibility or corruption.
It really has nothing to do with VAR. They wanted to see what a game would look like without offside, so they asked two teams from Berlin (which probably were like 4th to 6th division) to play against each other. The most surprising thing was that it only ended 1-0.
And were they generally positive about the experience?
The relevance to VAR is that offside controversies seem to be a big driver for this supposed need for video officiating in football. Get rid of offsides and VAR seems a lot less necessary.
aahhhh.. I don't know about that. Brazil's not given penalty against Belgium would have probably have made them continue in the tournament. Also very different uses of handball-incidents where Denmark got one against in the group stages with an arm clearly in a natural position, and then in other games there was not given a penalty.
Also an incident with danish striker Cornelius, who was fouled in the penalty area but didn't go dramatically down, where VAR didn't intervene, but did in other situations. Even also a situation where Neymar's shirt was pulled very slightly (Costa Rica?) but enough to bring him out of balance and he had a great chance which was taken away because of it. It wasn't all smooth sailing as some make it out to be.
Also very different implementation of VAR cin the group stages compared to the 1/8-finals and on. It was used all the time in the group-stages and in the 1/8-finals and on it was used way less (worked best in the 1/8 finals and on I thought - so many penalties given in the group stages)
For me VAR doesn't make watching football any less enjoyable. Quite the opposite in fact, I feel somewhat "cheated" out of the viewing experience when a game is turned on its head by a shit decision, which happens way too frequently without VAR.
They mainly said that things were different and that they were still caught up in their usual automatisms and that the game wasn't focused on a (offside line determined) action zone, but more chaotic. Having two lower level teams play each other in a one-off game doesn't really tell you much about how the game would develop without offside though
And I strongly disagree with your second post. VAR wasn't allowed to touch offside calls last season, yet there still were plenty of interventions during games. With how quick the game has become and how clever players have become at cheating the referee is bound to either outright miss important incidents or not get a good enough angle for proper judgement on them.
On the other hand with calibrated lines offside calls are already by far the least disruptive category of intervention.
Well so much about "with VAR we won't have anything to argue anymore!!!"
Inclined to agree and I quite enjoy the 'will they, won't they?' of the VAR
This is what it is, it's not really VAR, but VR - a video referee who can influence the game as much as the on pitch referee by subjective decisions he has to make. I'm not completely decided about whether or not I think it's good or bad for the game, as there are definite upsides and downsides, but we have to be clear about what we are talking about.
You are attacking a straw man mate. Most people who support VAR recognise some downsides regarding its implementation. VAR can't eradicate biases, incompetence and corruption. But might reduce them to an extent that is likely to make it useful. It's not guaranteed that it is here to stay. But the net effects so far are more positive than negative.
Imagine that we play a title decider with Liverpool towards the end of next season and Salah scores a winner from a slight offside position. I don't want to go through that. If they win the title, let it be in the right way and not through referee mistakes.
Well it’s the source of a big controversy last night.
Wait till they bring ads into the sauce.
Ahh, I would definitely love to see them lose the title in the worst referee-scenario ever
Personally I'm hoping VAR will finally give us a definitive answer to Messi vs Ronaldo
Personally I would much rather tolerate a 10% error rate in a fast paced game where things tend to even out over time than a 1% error rate by slowing the game down and deliberating every decision. The argument that VAR would lower the total errors isn’t enough. It needs to eliminate them completely or else the slowing of the game isn’t worth it IMO.
Also, one referee’s bad decision on the spot is much more acceptable to me than a tv ref making a mistake.
Also, one referee’s bad decision on the spot is much more acceptable to me than a tv ref making a mistake.