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

[VGM]

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….

 

[Valley Bluenose]

We are at a point where you really can't celebrate a goal until 5 minutes later.

Not really. I celebrated Dessers 'goal' against the Dhims like a daftie. Why wouldn't I?

 

[scottishpoet]

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.

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

 

[Barrymoped]

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

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!

 

[Blaew]

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.

The rule is the rule though.

Your issue is that offside is a black and white rule ( I accept there is some debate on interfering with play in certain circumstances) and now we have the means of enforcing it properly, whereas before VAR we didn’t.

 

[Barrymoped]

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

No, VAR was brought in to make sure correct decisions are made, rightly or wrongly.

It got it absolutely spot on here.

 

[Blaew]

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.

 

[The Ghost of Love]

I thought it was offside when it was played so didn’t laugh as hard as I normally would have.

 

[Blue As]

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!

But they need four players to be offside in a final for that to happen, do they not?

 

[Polar bear]

He was offside.

VAR the ruination of the once beautiful game.

 

[Ubik]

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 la

www.africanews.com

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.

 

[Wilso54]

VAR has totally ruined football

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.

 

[RH_2020]

Basically punished for having bigger feet than the defender.

If he was onside by 10mm and it was called offside, everybody would be raging

 

[McCoist’sTinHat]

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

Offside calls don’t come under ’clear and obvious’. They’re binary. You’re either offside or not.

It wasn’t called back for offside, it was checked for offside like all goals are.

 

[McCoist’sTinHat]

I like Arsene Wengers idea of offside. Only offside if your whole body is offside.

Then you still have the ‘millimetres’ argument.

It doesn’t matter where you draw the line. It could be whole body, a tolerance of 2cm or there needs to be daylight. Wherever the line is drawn, you’ll always have the VAR naysayers pushing the boundary that little bit to say we should let the wee team win, or the away side, or the side with the lesser budget or the underdog because it’s good for the romance of the game.

The guy was offside - under the laws of the game.

 

[Union Jack Pillow]

Not really. I celebrated Dessers 'goal' against the Dhims like a daftie. Why wouldn't I?

So did i but i didnt with Matondos screamer for fear of it being chalked off. VAR has ruined football

 

[Valley Bluenose]

So did i but i didnt with Matondos screamer for fear of it being chalked off. VAR has ruined football

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.

 

[Union Jack Pillow]

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.

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.

 

[Blu_ultra]

Football fans eh? Can you imagine Wimbledon fortnight and folk arguing that Andy Murray should have won a point as his ball was only mm out? Come on, we have tech that gives us the right decision. The refs have let plenty go and we see loads of goals they may have blown for in the past. One of The biggest ones I can remember involved us - Roofe in the Europa League. He looked about 3 yards off for a tap in. I never really celebrated but he was actually a good bit on side.

 

[Valley Bluenose]

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.

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.

 

[Union Jack Pillow]

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.

As i said thats for me, you go ahead and look like an idiot its up to you

 

[Valley Bluenose]

As i said thats for me, you go ahead and look like an idiot its up to you

Ha ha, I've done plenty more regrettable things to look like an idiot than celebrate a Rangers goal mate, I can assure you.

All part of life's rich tapestry.

 

[Chocolateleftfoot]

Looks onside in this video. Did Var pick the frame that gave them the result they wanted?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1782311679864246348

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.

 

[scottishpoet]

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.

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

 

[Chocolateleftfoot]

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

Sorry mate, I thought it was obvious I was taking the piss.

Imagine trying to use a video like that filmed on a smartphone from about the 10th row as "evidence."

 

[barrheadbear]

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?

With VAR technology there is no need to give any benefit of doubt to an attacker. If VAR is foolproof, and we are told it is, then we get a definitive answer, even when the margins are small.

 

[Albertz30]

Basically punished for having bigger feet than the defender.

It was never over the line!!

Basically punished for having bigger feet than the defender.

So what you are saying is that Sasquatch wouldn't have made it as a player ?

 

[uml]

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 .

 

[Valley Bluenose]

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 decisions

www.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.

 

[wee bud's pit boots]

How offsides are determined by VAR

See how the Video Assistant Referee uses Hawk-Eye to make offside decisions

www.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.

So how wasn't it used yesterday with Shankland's cross in, which resulted in Butland's save in the first half?

 

[Valley Bluenose]

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.

 

[wee bud's pit boots]

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.

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.

It just proves how flawed the system is as it stands.

Add in yahoo officials on the park and behind the cameras and you have the perfect storm for the filth.

Yet VAR has awarded us penalties that refereees refuse to award?

 

[ferguson]

You've got to laugh at Lee Dixon saying just give Coventry the benefit of the doubt i.e. give them an offside goal. I suspect he may have had a different opinion had it been Arsenal he was commentating on.

 

[Coisty09]

For me, there is a simple solution.
Scrap the offside rule.

Many more goals scored, takes cheating officials out of decision-making and reduces the amount of controversy massively.

 

[Big D]

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.

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.

 

[Roadrunner]

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 .

That's the thing though. You could freeze that frame at different points. There must be close to a full second from when the passer's foot touches the ball to when it leaves his foot. You could easily show that picture with different outcomes.

 

[Valley Bluenose]

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.

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?

 

[Big D]

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?

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.

 

[Valley Bluenose]

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.

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.

 

[Big D]

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.

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.

 

[Valley Bluenose]

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.

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.

The semi-automated Champions League stuff due in the EPL next season should certainly improve the speed of the decision - but it will still come down to fine measures.

 

[Rt. Hon. Bearman]

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.

 

[douzpwa]

Was it the correct decision though? Can they say with 100% certainty that they reached the right outcome?

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!

 

[Japandroid]

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.

My suggestion would be to do away with the drawing of lines for offside calls.

To use the Coventry example, the attacker is clearly in line with the last defender. Leave it at that and don't go trying to prove one has a body part a couple of mm in front of or behind the other. Look at the image and if their bodies are in line, it's onside.

 

[Southside_shug]

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.

My OP was tongue in cheek RHB

Surely people don't take me seriously???

 

[Blutoe]

When 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.

I was about to post the same. Clear and obvious errors don’t require five minutes of forensic examination