VAR should have been switched at Coventry's "fourth" goal

Southside_shug said:
If there is any justice in the world the VAR box should have been shut at that time

From ecstasy to misery in 2 minutes

What a sensational end to a game of football
Click to expand...
And, had it been a similar 'goal' against us, we'd all have been lauding the VAR for coming to the rescue.

It was offside. Simple as that. Unfortunate, of course, but the correct decision.
 
scottishpoet said:
the VAR protocol used in England does not allow for any tolerance for an offside

my view is it should be the linesman who decides and VAR intervenes if it is a clear an obvious error

lines with 1 pixel difference is not a clear and obvious error
Click to expand...
Correct.

If it’s that close you need to draw lines it’s not offside imo

The law needs to change for these instances

As an attacker you look across the line to try and stay inside if your big toes offside then ffs how can you compensate for that

I think they should the offside law to be if any part of your body is in line with the last defender then it’s onside this toenail nonsense has to stop
 
scottishpoet said:
the VAR protocol used in England does not allow for any tolerance for an offside

my view is it should be the linesman who decides and VAR intervenes if it is a clear an obvious error

lines with 1 pixel difference is not a clear and obvious error
Click to expand...
Do you agree about if a ball crosses the line?

I know it's not VAR

But if the ball crosses the line by 'a pixel' and the ref / linesman don't give it then are you cool with that?
 
two2tango said:
Correct.

If it’s that close you need to draw lines it’s not offside imo

The law needs to change for these instances

As an attacker you look across the line to try and stay inside if your big toes offside then ffs how can you compensate for that

I think they should the offside law to be if any part of your body is in line with the last defender then it’s onside this toenail nonsense has to stop
Click to expand...

All that happens is the controversy moves as people will say his big toes only a mm in front of the last defender. Doesn’t solve the issue.
 
two2tango said:
Correct.

If it’s that close you need to draw lines it’s not offside imo

The law needs to change for these instances

As an attacker you look across the line to try and stay inside if your big toes offside then ffs how can you compensate for that

I think they should the offside law to be if any part of your body is in line with the last defender then it’s onside this toenail nonsense has to stop
Click to expand...
Of course it is. And on your last point - what if you're body is ahead of the defender by a toenail? Regardless of the rule, you will still have these close decisions.
 
two2tango said:
Correct.

If it’s that close you need to draw lines it’s not offside imo

The law needs to change for these instances

As an attacker you look across the line to try and stay inside if your big toes offside then ffs how can you compensate for that

I think they should the offside law to be if any part of your body is in line with the last defender then it’s onside this toenail nonsense has to stop
Click to expand...


Hasn't Wenger suggested this as a measure going forward?
 
wee bud's pit boots said:
I thought VAR was brought in to rule over clear and obvious errors? That was never a clear and obvious error and without VAR, that goal would have stood.
Click to expand...
As the attack played out I thought he was offside and that the linesman was going to flag

Turns out he wasn't as much offside as I thought

But during the phase of play I thought the linesman had made a clear and obvious mistake

As did many


You seen the man utd fan who does the live stream? During the attack he says "now Coventry are breaking, that's offside surely? He's still got the ball. But that was offside. The linesman has made a mistake there. They are in the box, and they have scored! That was offside"

So many people saw a clear and obvious mistake, that's why it (along with all goals) was checked. Turns out it was far closer than we all thought, but loads of people saw it as offside and a clear and obvious mistake.
 
wee bud's pit boots said:
I thought VAR was brought in to rule over clear and obvious errors? That was never a clear and obvious error and without VAR, that goal would have stood.
Click to expand...
Not in terms of offside. Offside is a factual decision, hence no requirement for the Referee to go to the monitor for a review. The player is either offside or he isn't. Linesman will keep his flag down if its close and let the VAR decide. The fact that they don't raise their flag immediately when its a clear - by miles - offside is more of an issue for me. Someone will get injured eventually due to them not raising their flag for an obvious offside.
 
two2tango said:
I think they should the offside law to be if any part of your body is in line with the last defender then it’s onside this toenail nonsense has to stop
Click to expand...
Same problem though, can be onside by a toenail from the defender. Just means there will be more goals given instead of goals getting chopped off.
 
Chocolateleftfoot said:
Can't believe people are using a correct decision to have a go at VAR and campaign for it's removal because it ruined a nice story. Bizarre.

One of the best things about VAR is not losing games to offside goals. There's only onside or offside, it's not subjective.
Click to expand...
It's all over twitter too. People are losing their minds over it. He was offside. He should have timed his run better.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
Not in terms of offside. Offside is a factual decision, hence no requirement for the Referee to go to the monitor for a review. The player is either offside or he isn't. Linesman will keep his flag down if its close and let the VAR decide. The fact that they don't raise their flag immediately when its a clear - by miles - offside is more of an issue for me. Someone will get injured eventually due to them not raising their flag for an obvious offside.
Click to expand...


I get that - although factual, is it when the attacker touches the ball or when it leaves his foot to the "offside" team mate? As in the Benfica winner against us- that was absolutely on the line of being offside depending on that interpretation

And I'm talking out of sheer joy of watching football (and my hatred of Manure)- that has gone from the sport never to be allowed ever again!!!!
 
VAR has done it job ...but the the big question is , and has been for a long time ...The offside rule was introduced originally to stop one side/ player gaining an unfair advantage on another... We all get that , .but where is the advantage in being 2 inches nearer the ball than your opponent , because of your footing ? It's not VAR spoiling the game , it's the daft current offside ruling.
 
Southside_shug said:
I get that - although factual, is it when the attacker touches the ball or when it leaves his foot to the "offside" team mate? As in the Benfica winner against us- that was absolutely on the line of being offside depending on that interpretation

And I'm talking out of sheer joy of watching football (and my hatred of Manure)- that has gone from the sport never to be allowed ever again!!!!
Click to expand...
I'm sure 90% of the country, probably more, who were watching the game rejoiced when the Coventry 'goal' went in. Equally, I'm sure most of us who watch football regularly had an instinctive idea that it was going to be called back. At the very least it was going to be reviewed as we could all see it was really close.

Plenty to debate about whether the offside law, as it currently stands, is right - but the VAR, in this instance, got it right as per current rules.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
And, had it been a similar 'goal' against us, we'd all have been lauding the VAR for coming to the rescue.

It was offside. Simple as that. Unfortunate, of course, but the correct decision.
Click to expand...
meanwhile, had it been a goal for us that had been disallowed in similar circumstances....
 
Valley Bluenose said:
I'm sure 90% of the country, probably more, who were watching the game rejoiced when the Coventry 'goal' went in. Equally, I'm sure most of us who watch football regularly had an instinctive idea that it was going to be called back. At the very least it was going to be reviewed as we could all see it was really close.

Plenty to debate about whether the offside law, as it currently stands, is right - but the VAR, in this instance, got it right as per current rules.
Click to expand...


And I'm not debating mate , it is just a tongue in cheek swipe at the system

Some are taking it too literally

;) ;)

PS City were robbed :D :D
 
Valley Bluenose said:
I'm sure 90% of the country, probably more, who were watching the game rejoiced when the Coventry 'goal' went in. Equally, I'm sure most of us who watch football regularly had an instinctive idea that it was going to be called back. At the very least it was going to be reviewed as we could all see it was really close.

Plenty to debate about whether the offside law, as it currently stands, is right - but the VAR, in this instance, got it right as per current rules.
Click to expand...

Was gutted for Coventry and their fans. Would have been an amazing story. But yes it was the right decision.
 
scottishpoet said:
meanwhile, had it been a goal for us that had been disallowed in similar circumstances....
Click to expand...
Then it would have been offside. There's no grey area. You are either offside or not. No point blaming the VAR for getting it right with the use of technology when we had a century or more of Referees and Linesmen getting it wrong with the use of their eyeballs. You can't pick and choose depending on whether it benefits you or doesn't.

The VAR got it bang on here. Whether the offside law in its current format is fit for purpose is a better debate.
 
Had it been the other way around I don't think there would be so much said.

It ruined what should have been one of the greatest moments in English football and I hated that the goal was disallowed as much as anyone.

I didn't watch the penalties as it was obvious what was going to happen, sadly.
 
Unicorse said:
Do you agree about if a ball crosses the line?

I know it's not VAR

But if the ball crosses the line by 'a pixel' and the ref / linesman don't give it then are you cool with that?
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I was going to post. If the ball was 1mm away from fully crossing the goal line, would people be saying just ignore goal line technology and give them the goal? It's black and white in both cases, not subjective.
 
Unicorse said:
Do you agree about if a ball crosses the line?

I know it's not VAR

But if the ball crosses the line by 'a pixel' and the ref / linesman don't give it then are you cool with that?
Click to expand...
FredBiletnikoff said:
This is exactly what I was going to post. If the ball was 1mm away from fully crossing the goal line, would people be saying just ignore goal line technology and give them the goal? It's black and white in both cases, not subjective.
Click to expand...
Its wildly off topic but I found out, for the first time, that they don't use Hawkeye goal line technology in La Liga at the weekend. Barca had an attempt against Real Madrid that looked fully over the goal line. No Hawkeye and the VAR stuck with the Referee's call of no goal.

Seems La Liga don't want to pay the circa £2.6m setup costs. Only major League that doesn't have it I believe.
 
Valley Bluenose said:
Its wildly off topic but I found out, for the first time, that they don't use Hawkeye goal line technology in La Liga at the weekend. Barca had an attempt against Real Madrid that looked fully over the goal line. No Hawkeye and the VAR stuck with the Referee's call of no goal.

Seems La Liga don't want to pay the circa £2.6m setup costs. Only major League that doesn't have it I believe.
Click to expand...
That is really surprising for a league that can clearly afford that.
 
FredBiletnikoff said:
That is really surprising for a league that can clearly afford that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was very surprised. Watch the occasional La Liga game and hadn't clocked they didn't have it.

Barca lost 3-2 to a late Bellingham goal but, had the earlier goal been given, it would have put Barca 2-1 ahead early in the game.

Lamine Yamal thought he had restored Barcelona's lead when he flicked a corner towards goal and goalkeeper Andriy Lunin, who was behind the line, clawed it away.

Barcelona were adamant the ball had cross the line but, as La Liga does not have goalline technology, the video assistant referee decided that was not the case.


On a sidenote, Bellingham's goal made him the first Real Madrid player to score in his first two El Clasico's since Van Nistelrooy in 2007. The lad's quite a player!
 
The camera can lie.

The viewer interprets when O'hare plays the ball. A more definitive angle is required to establish when the ball actually travels forward from his foot.

Human error, or the potential for it, needs to be eradicated.

England has the money to maybe get close to that endpoint.
We'd be as well pissing in the wind in this crapbox.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top