VGM
Well-Known Member
that’s why it’s good to debate incidents that don’t involve us, so you can get a more balanced argument than “corrupt bead rattler with whistle destroyed our euro hopes on orders from Lawell”.
When you put it like that….
that’s why it’s good to debate incidents that don’t involve us, so you can get a more balanced argument than “corrupt bead rattler with whistle destroyed our euro hopes on orders from Lawell”.
Not really. I celebrated Dessers 'goal' against the Dhims like a daftie. Why wouldn't I?We are at a point where you really can't celebrate a goal until 5 minutes later.
in the "old days" the attacker was given the benefit of the doubt when it was close.Clear and obvious means no intervention where it’s down to interpretation. Like the forcefulness of a tackle, or whether something is a foul or not.
Offside is offside. It’s a clear and obvious error if you draw a line and someone is a mm over the line.
Indeed.If we lost a European final in the 94th minute to a goal identical to the one Coventry thought they’d scored, the reaction would be very different I suspect
The rule is the rule though.Is it the correct decision? If we're defending offside being given for less than the length of a human toe then we've absolutely fucked the game of football beyond something that's still worth caring about.
No, VAR was brought in to make sure correct decisions are made, rightly or wrongly.in the "old days" the attacker was given the benefit of the doubt when it was close.
prior to that the defender was given the benefit of doubt, they changed it to the attacker so there would be more goals
VAR was supposed to stop goals being incorrectly disallowed
What has happened is they now look for more reasons, including tight offside, to disallow goals
Benefit was given in the old days because you couldn’t with any certainty enforce the rule in tight circumstances. We can now with VAR.in the "old days" the attacker was given the benefit of the doubt when it was close.
prior to that the defender was given the benefit of doubt, they changed it to the attacker so there would be more goals
VAR was supposed to stop goals being incorrectly disallowed
What has happened is they now look for more reasons, including tight offside, to disallow goals
But they need four players to be offside in a final for that to happen, do they not?Indeed.
And if the beggars score one in the final that’s chalked off, we will all be singing VARs praises……….nothing quite as blinkered as football fans!
VAR the ruination of the once beautiful game.He was offside.
the NFL have used 'VAR' for decades and they still get it wrong however we see in Scotland its more right than wrong, trouble is we have officials cheating to favour celtic.I don't think using VAR has ever achieved 100% accuracy. Nor do I think it was ever expected to achieve that. I'm sure I remember from the first World Cup it was used in - Russia 2018 - that they determined it had increased the number of correct decisions from around 95% to something like 99%. You'd expect that to be even higher now, but only marginally.
Whether the reported numbers are true is up for debate, but here's one of the reports, including Collina's take on it:
Russia 2018: the World Cup where VAR made the difference | Africanews
The use of the VAR system was approved in March by the rule-making body IFAB, despite controversy in some of the competitions in which it has been trialled over the time taken to make decisions and lawww.africanews.com
If it was me I would use technology to determine if the ball has crossed the line for a goal, throw-in, and corner/goal kick. VAR itself I would only use to look for things the ref could miss like spitting or throwing a punch, or anything along those lines.VAR has totally ruined football
If he was onside by 10mm and it was called offside, everybody would be ragingBasically punished for having bigger feet than the defender.
Offside calls don’t come under ’clear and obvious’. They’re binary. You’re either offside or not.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
Then you still have the ‘millimetres’ argument.I like Arsene Wengers idea of offside. Only offside if your whole body is offside.
So did i but i didnt with Matondos screamer for fear of it being chalked off. VAR has ruined footballNot really. I celebrated Dessers 'goal' against the Dhims like a daftie. Why wouldn't I?
Can I ask why you didn't celebrate Matondo's? No reason not to.So did i but i didnt with Matondos screamer for fear of it being chalked off. VAR has ruined football
Because i felt like an idiot after celebrating Dessers goal only for it to be chalked off. Feels like every oldfirm game we get a goal taken off & as i said, for me VAR has totally ruined the game in that respect.Can I ask why you didn't celebrate Matondo's? No reason not to.
In fact, no reason not to celebrate any goal, VAR or not. If the frustration of having it chopped off comes later then so be it. No different to celebrating a goal pre-VAR only to have it disallowed (rightly or wrongly) for offside, for example.
I prefer to live the moment and then feel like an idiot at the come down, if necessary, rather than 'forcing' myself to not celebrate. That's just not normal.Because i felt like an idiot after celebrating Dessers goal only for it to be chalked off. Feels like every oldfirm game we get a goal taken off & as i said, for me VAR has totally ruined the game in that respect.
As i said thats for me, you go ahead and look like an idiot its up to youI prefer to live the moment and then feel like an idiot at the come down, if necessary, rather than 'forcing' myself to not celebrate. That's just not normal.
Ha ha, I've done plenty more regrettable things to look like an idiot than celebrate a Rangers goal mate, I can assure you.As i said thats for me, you go ahead and look like an idiot its up to you
Wow, this is disgraceful. He's clearly WELL onside in this video where you can't see the attacker or defender at the moment the ball is played. Makes you wonder why they bother with calibrated cameras and lines.Looks onside in this video. Did Var pick the frame that gave them the result they wanted?
In that video you have no idea where he is in relation to the defender when the ball is playedWow, this is disgraceful. He's clearly WELL onside in this video where you can't see the attacker or defender at the moment the ball is played. Makes you wonder why they bother with calibrated cameras and lines.
Sorry mate, I thought it was obvious I was taking the piss.In that video you have no idea where he is in relation to the defender when the ball is played
you see where h is when he receives the ball, not when it was played
the pictures on the TV at the time, when the ball is played you could see right across the pitch and he did look in line. marginally off, by the cut of the grass
They have ruined football! When the offside roule was first used it was to stop players standing near enough next to the keeper and still score a legitimate goal ' now its the length off someone's toe
And what happened to giving the scorer the benefit of doubt?
Basically punished for having bigger feet than the defender.
It was never over the line!!
Basically punished for having bigger feet than the defender.
Same here. They seem to have just decided to use it to decide on ridiculously marginal offside decisions whatever the infield decision was.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.
Same here. They seem to have just decided to use it to decide on ridiculously marginal offside decisions whatever the infield decision was.
It’s obvious that it depends on which fema they air and how they draw the lines sometimes. That one yesterday could easy have been drawn up in coventrys favour .
How offsides are determined by VAR
See how the Video Assistant Referee uses Hawk-Eye to make offside decisionswww.premierleague.com
VAR has always been used for offsides. It doesn't fall under the category of 'clear and obvious error' though as its a factual decision rather than a subjective one like 'was that a foul' or 'was his hand in an unnatural position' etc. It was never a part of that 'clear and obvious' element.
VAR would have intervened had it been a goal. Given that it wasn't it was down to the Linesman and Referee to make the call. They only use VAR to review offsides when they lead to a match-changing incident, otherwise it would be a permanent series of reviews throughout the match. Could say the same had it been cleared for a throw-in rather than a corner.So how wasn't it used yesterday with Shankland's cross in, which resulted in Butland's save in the first half?
VAR would have intervened had it been a goal. Given that it wasn't it was down to the Linesman and Referee to make the call. They only use VAR to review offsides when they lead to a match-changing incident, otherwise it would be a permanent series of reviews throughout the match. Could say the same had it been cleared for a throw-in rather than a corner.
And yes, you are correct. had Hearts scored from the resulting corner we would have been well and truly shafted - because they wouldn't have taken it back to the offside.
I'm not disputing that. As I said in another thread, perhaps it's time to revisit what constitutes offside. We've seen 'errors' in the lines before, so for me pretending they're accurate to the millimetre is a nonsense, regardless of whether it's a Sunday league game or the World Cup final.Had Coventry been 3-0 ahead and Man Utd clawed it back to 'win' it with that offside goal would that still apply? Romantic nonsense I fancy.
Had Rangers scored that 'goal' to win something we'd have been enraged that it was disallowed. Had we conceded that 'goal' to lose a match we'd have been delighted to see it chalked off. He's either offside or not, all the rest is just window dressing around the particular circumstances of the match.
Same here. They seem to have just decided to use it to decide on ridiculously marginal offside decisions whatever the infield decision was.
It’s obvious that it depends on which fema they air and how they draw the lines sometimes. That one yesterday could easy have been drawn up in coventrys favour .
Thing is, regardless of where you deem the line to be, there will always be that 1mm over the line or 1mm the other side of the line. There has to be a line if you’re going to have offside. You might say there has to be daylight between the attacker and the defender (or any other alternative you can think of) but folk will still argue down to that last 1mm. Using technology is a far better way to do it than relying on the eyes of the Linesman as I grew up with.I'm not disputing that. As I said in another thread, perhaps it's time to revisit what constitutes offside. We've seen 'errors' in the lines before, so for me pretending they're accurate to the millimetre is a nonsense, regardless of whether it's a Sunday league game or the World Cup final.
In terms of the spectacle, spontaneity, enjoyment and euphoria of the game, I'd say the latter. But that's just my personal preference. Goals come from wrongly awarded free kicks, corner kicks, even throw ins etc and there's no VAR intervention, so it's not like VAR is a cure for all ills. There are still goals scored that shouldn't be. Perhaps the need for a clear gap between the VAR lines would make it less controversial. I really don't know. But I think I heard yesterday there's 25 frames per second in the film VAR looks at. If they looked at 100 'goals' as tight as Coventry's yesterday and they've got to match both players boots to the nano second of when the ball was played, do we really think they'd get it right 99 times out of 100? I have my doubts.Thing is, regardless of where you deem the line to be, there will always be that 1mm over the line or 1mm the other side of the line. There has to be a line if you’re going to have offside. You might say there has to be daylight between the attacker and the defender (or any other alternative you can think of) but folk will still argue down to that last 1mm. Using technology is a far better way to do it than relying on the eyes of the Linesman as I grew up with.
I guess it’s what is preferable - technology getting it right 99% of the time or eyeballs getting it right 95% of the time?
Just seen Leeds go 3-2 up against Middlesbrough with a goal that’s clearly offside. No VAR in the Championship. A goal that, potentially at least, could see Leeds pocket £100m and one of their rivals miss out on the same amount. The higher the chance of getting the decision right the better IMHO.In terms of the spectacle, spontaneity, enjoyment and euphoria of the game, I'd say the latter. But that's just my personal preference. Goals come from wrongly awarded free kicks, corner kicks, even throw ins etc and there's no VAR intervention, so it's not like VAR is a cure for all ills. There are still goals scored that shouldn't be. Perhaps the need for a clear gap between the VAR lines would make it less controversial. I really don't know. But I think I heard yesterday there's 25 frames per second in the film VAR looks at. If they looked at 100 'goals' as tight as Coventry's yesterday and they've got to match both players boots to the nano second of when the ball was played, do we really think they'd get it right 99 times out of 100? I have my doubts.
I'm absolutely not suggesting we get rid of VAR and if it's clearly offside, then 100% use it. I'm just suggesting a margin of error be built in for extremely tight decisions like yesterday and one way might be a requirement for there to be a gap in the lines. Pre-VAR, the attacker was supposed to get the benefit of any doubt. I suppose I'm just suggesting a return to that.Just seen Leeds go 3-2 up against Middlesbrough with a goal that’s clearly offside. No VAR in the Championship. A goal that, potentially at least, could see Leeds pocket £100m and one of their rivals miss out on the same amount. The higher the chance of getting the decision right the better IMHO.
Thing is, if you say a ‘clear gap in the lines’ we have folk arguing whether there IS a clear gap in the lines or whether there is actually a 1mm overlap. Any line, any where, will be subject to the same scrutiny.I'm absolutely not suggesting we get rid of VAR and if it's clearly offside, then 100% use it. I'm just suggesting a margin of error be built in for extremely tight decisions like yesterday and one way might be a requirement for there to be a gap in the lines. Pre-VAR, the attacker was supposed to get the benefit of any doubt. I suppose I'm just suggesting a return to that.
It would still be the operator's judgement Johnny but I don't know as I never saw it that is why I asked you!Was it the correct decision though? Can they say with 100% certainty that they reached the right outcome?
I'm absolutely not suggesting we get rid of VAR and if it's clearly offside, then 100% use it. I'm just suggesting a margin of error be built in for extremely tight decisions like yesterday and one way might be a requirement for there to be a gap in the lines. Pre-VAR, the attacker was supposed to get the benefit of any doubt. I suppose I'm just suggesting a return to that.
People seem confused between actual justice by the laws of the game, and what they personally wanted to happen.
He may have been offside, but he was only a wee bit offside, and it's Man United so f.uck 'em.
This is why we have VAR.
I was about to post the same. Clear and obvious errors don’t require five minutes of forensic examinationWhen VAR was first mooted, the impression was given it was only intended to stop clear and obvious errors. Instead goals are being disallowed for players being one millimetre offside. It's turning football into some dour science.