Daisy Christodoulou on VAR
- Thread starter mdingwall
- Start date
westenclosurebear
Well-Known Member
Maybe time to change the rule to say if any part of the attackers body is in line with the defender he is onside.
Clear and obvious errors don't apply to offside. It's black and white. Yesterday was poor on Coventry.
Clear and obvious errors don't apply to offside. It's black and white. Yesterday was poor on Coventry.
Funkhouser
Well-Known Member
With your suggestion you'll still have to rely on lines being drawn. It'll just be the heel of the attacker rather than the furthest forward point.
Have been saying this for ages myself with regards knowing exactly when the ball is kicked.
Imo, if they draw the lines and they touch, we should be sticking with the onfield decision as it's not clear and obvious.
Until we get the technology used in the CL which is much more accurate.
Imo, if they draw the lines and they touch, we should be sticking with the onfield decision as it's not clear and obvious.
Until we get the technology used in the CL which is much more accurate.
paphosranger
Well-Known Member
var shouldn't be involved in subjective offsides. Linos decision is final. Problem being the linos are now all shitebags when there's a fallback with var.
BertyYarder
Well-Known Member
All they need to do is create a tolerance (say 6 inches). If the gap between the lines is within this tolerance you say its onside. Offside wasn't invented to catch someone 1 inch in front of the defense.
Rt. Hon. Bearman
Well-Known Member
He was offside.
People are letting their heart rule their head on this one. Because it was plucky Coventry who were on the wrong end of the decision, and because lots of people hate Man United, people are outraged about it.
Nevertheless, he was offside. VAR did its job.
If that's a Celtic goal in an Old Firm match which is correctly ruled out using VAR, I doubt anyone on here would be complaining that VAR is ruining the game.
People are letting their heart rule their head on this one. Because it was plucky Coventry who were on the wrong end of the decision, and because lots of people hate Man United, people are outraged about it.
Nevertheless, he was offside. VAR did its job.
If that's a Celtic goal in an Old Firm match which is correctly ruled out using VAR, I doubt anyone on here would be complaining that VAR is ruining the game.
BlancaBear
Well-Known Member
Big Joke New
Well-Known Member
I was as disappointed as anyone that the goal didn't stand but he looked clearly offside to me on the first replay. I didn't even think it looked that close. I was surprised when I saw the lines were that close.
The only change I would make is that I would make the measuring point where the players' feet are rather than any part of their body. Why someone leaning towards the goal should be penalised for that I have no idea. It doesn't match with the encroachment rule we saw recently where leaning in doesn't matter so long as your feet are behind the line. Similarly a keeper can lean as much as he likes at a penalty so long as his foot is on the line. So why do we treat offside differently?
The only change I would make is that I would make the measuring point where the players' feet are rather than any part of their body. Why someone leaning towards the goal should be penalised for that I have no idea. It doesn't match with the encroachment rule we saw recently where leaning in doesn't matter so long as your feet are behind the line. Similarly a keeper can lean as much as he likes at a penalty so long as his foot is on the line. So why do we treat offside differently?
Cooper's left peg
Well-Known Member
This needs reviewed. Fans and audiences are being cheated out of goals because of ridiculous rulings.
Off side originated to stop the attacker poaching or gaining an advantage etc.
In the case like the Coventry one it is actually scandalous that players and fans are denied a goal in these circumstances.
Off side originated to stop the attacker poaching or gaining an advantage etc.
In the case like the Coventry one it is actually scandalous that players and fans are denied a goal in these circumstances.
Rt. Hon. Bearman
Well-Known Member
It wasn't a goal. It was offside.
Why should the other team (in this case Man United) be punished?
It was up to the Coventry player to time his run correctly and remain onside. He failed to do that.
Cooper's left peg
Well-Known Member
As the "rules" stand, yes.
What I am saying is that the rules need to be revised.
Thommo2006
Well-Known Member
Honestly even with the lines I still can't tell if the Coventry player is off or not.
I do like wengers idea that if any part of you is level you're onside
I do like wengers idea that if any part of you is level you're onside
Rt. Hon. Bearman
Well-Known Member
You'd still have controversy over whether the back of the striker's heel was level, as opposed to whether his toenail was offside currently.
Those demanding goals would say "his heel was almost level, there must have only been half an inch in it".
Doesn't matter. Offside is offside.
Thommo2006
Well-Known Member
Suppose I just don't see how the Coventry player being a mm offside gains him any advantage. We want to see exciting goal filled games but the authorities seem to be doing their best to find ways to chop them off
Rt. Hon. Bearman
Well-Known Member
If we want goals, then it's up to the players involved to score goals within the laws of the game.
Offside is offside regardless of the margin by which you are offside.
If we say you can be up to a foot offside, then that doesn't make a difference because a player might then be 13 inches offside - only one inch beyond what is legal. This is a call as marginal and frustrating for the attacking team as the decision we saw in the Coventry v Man United match. So the problem still exists.
The only way around it is to abolish the offside rule altogether, which in my opinion would devalue the game.
Thommo2006
Well-Known Member
Under the rules its correct so no issues with it being disallowed my point is has the Coventry player really gained any advantage? Even if he was onside the passage of play ends the same way.
Rt. Hon. Bearman
Well-Known Member
It might be worth bringing in a challenge system like they have in tennis.
Each manager could be given three challenges per match. Wrongly contest a referee's decision and you lose one challenge. So, if you do that three times you can no longer make any challenges in that match.
If however VAR indicates that the referee got it wrong and the challenging manager was correct, then that manager does not lose a challenge. For example, if that was his first challenge and he is correct, he still has three challenges remaining.
With this system the game is only paused for a VAR review at the request of a manager. If they take the piss and challenge everything, no matter how spurious, then they'll end up with no challenges left.
Clements11
Well-Known Member
What if we remove VAR and the lino flags it?
Better with than without.
Better with than without.
scottishcampbell
Well-Known Member
The Wenger offside law being introduced in 2024-25 is a possibility.IF the attacker’s entire body completely overtakes the last defender; it’s offside.But, if a small part of the attacker’s body is ‘offside’, it WON’T be considered offside anymore
Rt. Hon. Bearman
Well-Known Member
You could argue that, if a player is only an inch offside, he hasn't gained an advantage.
But this misses the point. If we accept that offside should remain part of the game - as I imagine most supporters do - then there is always going to be a threshold prior to which the player is onside, and beyond which he becomes offside.
A player can be up to a foot (12 inches) offside. Fine. But what happens if it looks like he might've actually been 13 inches offside? The game has to be paused, and the lines have to be drawn. Same as what we have now. The same controversy and the same frustration for the side who have the decision made against them.
If we retain the offside rule, then it doesn't really matter how we tinker it. There are always going to be ultra-marginal calls required and VAR is the best way of settling it.
Big decisions are always going to be controversial, but it is surely better to be controversial and correct (as in the Coventry incident) than controversial and wrong - Lampard versus Germany, for instance.
muttley
Well-Known Member
No system is infallible, not even VAR, which was spoken about almost as a panacea for all disputed decisions. I genuinely don't know what is, tbh.
Rt. Hon. Bearman
Well-Known Member
If it isn't obvious in real time that the player was definitely onside, then the game will still have to be paused.
VAR will zoom in, and zoom in some more. Then lo and behold it turns out there was a gap of half of one centimetre between the goalscorer and the last defender. Goal chalked off. Cue indignant fans.
stefanovitch
Well-Known Member
If an attacker is running toward goal and a defender is facing the other way then I think there has to be some margin where the attacker is given some advantage. The game is about goals and when they are drawing lines and there is a toe or an elbow and your offside it’s neither clear nor obvious.
Bristol_bnose3
Well-Known Member
It just isnt better than the old system. There are as many debates about big calls with VAR as there was before it was implemented. All with the additional penaltly of massive delays, confusion for fans in the ground and the death of spontaneous joy and celebration.
No one will convince me this has been an improvement or worth it. And i'm not interested in arguing the toss about specific incidents involving us. I'm talking about the game in general and its future.
No one will convince me this has been an improvement or worth it. And i'm not interested in arguing the toss about specific incidents involving us. I'm talking about the game in general and its future.
Rt. Hon. Bearman
Well-Known Member
Depends on whether you prioritise fairness or entertainment.
A goal is only a goal if it was onside. If you cannot keep all your players onside then you don't deserve to be awarded a goal.
People forget that whilst scoring is the aim of the game, there is an art to defending as well as attacking.
Why should a well-drilled defence who expertly employ the offside trap be punished by VAR awarding a goal, simply because the attacker was 'only' a wee bit offside?
Offside is offside. If he was offside - even by the proverbial bawhair - then the defence has done its job and no goal should be given.
You could argue that the advent of VAR has forced sides to work harder and become more creative to beat the defence, knowing that if they stray offside and the ref misses it, VAR will rule it out instead.
weebudsbud
Well-Known Member
No-one is disputing that.
But VAR was set up to pick up 'clear and obvious errors'. Not to re-referee a game. Which is what most of us are unhappy about. That incident wasn`t a clear error.
SDF91
Well-Known Member
VAR itself isn’t the issue, it’s the way it’s used.
Other sports that use some form of VAR rely on their refs to make the decision and then it’s only overturned if they’ve made a clear and obvious error.
Refs shouldn’t officiate a game relying on VAR to get a better look at the big incidents, they should ref it as if VAR doesn’t exist and only have it intervene for clear and obvious errors.
The Coventry one yesterday was a difficult one. If there’s no VAR, does the linesman flag straight away? Did he let it go knowing that VAR was there to bail him out if he was wrong?
Maybe the NFL approach of giving each manager a certain number of VAR reviews, otherwise you rely on the ref’s decision, would work.
Other sports that use some form of VAR rely on their refs to make the decision and then it’s only overturned if they’ve made a clear and obvious error.
Refs shouldn’t officiate a game relying on VAR to get a better look at the big incidents, they should ref it as if VAR doesn’t exist and only have it intervene for clear and obvious errors.
The Coventry one yesterday was a difficult one. If there’s no VAR, does the linesman flag straight away? Did he let it go knowing that VAR was there to bail him out if he was wrong?
Maybe the NFL approach of giving each manager a certain number of VAR reviews, otherwise you rely on the ref’s decision, would work.
Bristol_bnose3
Well-Known Member
Depending on the frame rate of the equipment.
It might be more accurate than the human eye but the fact is it’s still fallible, so despite all the upheaval, offside is not always offside. It’s still a best guess when extremely close.
Mendes Loyal
Active Member
The clear and obvious part of VAR is only meant to apply to subjective decisions - not objective decisions like offside
With VAR - I don't think anyone has been "level".
wee bud's pit boots
Well-Known Member
If that's a Celtic goal in an Old Firm match which is correctly ruled out using VAR, I doubt anyone on here would be complaining that VAR is ruining the game.
And after the evidence from last April in OF games, you think that's happening?
Jeezy fucking peeps.
Blue_Streak
Well-Known Member
Is it “clear and obvious” for everything but offsides?
Coventry or not that’s onside to me. Thicker lines and that’s on. Bollocks deciding things to that level.
Coventry or not that’s onside to me. Thicker lines and that’s on. Bollocks deciding things to that level.
Rt. Hon. Bearman
Well-Known Member
Quite a leap you've made there. Did I say I think that's happening? No. It was a hypothetical situation to point out people's hypocrisy around their attitudes to VAR.
By the way, cheating officials is not an argument against VAR. It's an argument in favour of it.
Keep VAR and made it more transparent by letting us hear the conversations between the referee and the VAR officials, similar to what they do in the Six Nations rugby. If everything is out in the open, it makes it harder for them to cheat.
Stepping out is a fundamental part of defending.
I have doubts that the 50Hz video frame rate (20ms between samples) that is used for VAR cameras is adequate to accurately determine offside decisions. Typically the picture of one frame is going to show the boot of a player just before it hits the ball and the next frame is going to show the boot of a player just after it has hit the ball. So to what accuracy is it known when was the ball actually kicked?
Further factors influencing this is the video camera's shutter speed (needs to be high to avoid blur) and the resolution the camera.
Searching for research on this topic I found the following https://www.bath.ac.uk/announcement...in-football-struggles-with-offside-decisions/
Further factors influencing this is the video camera's shutter speed (needs to be high to avoid blur) and the resolution the camera.
Searching for research on this topic I found the following https://www.bath.ac.uk/announcement...in-football-struggles-with-offside-decisions/
Last edited:
wee bud's pit boots
Well-Known Member
No leap at all, but I'll state quite emphatically. As long as the filth run Scottish football and they do, there will be no Six Nations type transparency. You can take that one to the bank.
Rt. Hon. Bearman
Well-Known Member
And yet their supporters are often the ones saying that referees are biased against them. Weird.
All you are doing is moving the fault line. It doesn’t matter. What you need to accept is var proves right from wrong, regardless off what rules are implemented or by what margin
wee bud's pit boots
Well-Known Member
Nothing weird about it.
They are wired to the moon and mentally unhinged. We usually accept, as much as it might grate, the ref's decisions overall.
Don't dare try and put us as somehow on a mental level with that lot.
wee bud's pit boots
Well-Known Member
Four games against the filth out of the last five suggests otherwise.
I agree regarding the effect on spontaneous celebration, I know myself I now almost subconsciously hold back a bit with celebrating when we score unless it's an obvious certainty. First thing I do is look for the ref putting his hand to his ear. However, the circumstances of Coventry's 'goal' maybe exaggerate the VAR issue. Underdogs, Cup semi, ridiculous comeback from the dead and score a last minute winner are causing folk to lose sight of the fact that a massive proportion of VAR interventions have been correct and will hopefully continue to improve and iron out any grey areas. I am in favour of VAR but as I said above unfortunately a consequence of this is the impact on spontaneous joy. It's a tough call.
Fergie90
Well-Known Member
The problem with offside using VAR is there is still human error involved.
There have been quite a few offsides that have looked dodgy in SPFL and the lines have been visibly squint or the ball hasn't been played yet on the freeze frame.
At the very least we need to get more camera's and better software up here and the big league need automatic offside that UCL use.
There have been quite a few offsides that have looked dodgy in SPFL and the lines have been visibly squint or the ball hasn't been played yet on the freeze frame.
At the very least we need to get more camera's and better software up here and the big league need automatic offside that UCL use.
wee bud's pit boots
Well-Known Member
There should be no human error involved with VAR. Only cheating and corruption.
