V.A.R. - Good for Purpose??

[Rui_CostCo]

“When VAR goes wrong” coming soon to Channel 5.

That literally made me laugh out loud.

 

[Rui_CostCo]

Celebrity VAR. This week Vanessa Feltz and Anton Du Beck are in the hotseat. Can they avoid the same controversy as The cast of TOWIE last week!

 

[Deleted Cyber]

Channel five is the only channel whose ad breaks are longer than the VAR decision time

 

[t3ch]

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...ear-and-obvious-offside-errors-say-law-makers

VAR technology should only be called on to reverse “clear and obvious” mistakes regarding offside, according to the general secretary of the law-making International Football Association Board.

Lukas Brud said the Ifab will reissue guidance on best practice regarding VAR to competitions which use it, probably after its annual general meeting at the end of February next year, which will include information on offsides.

“Clear and obvious still remains - it’s an important principle. There should not be a lot of time spent to find something marginal,” Brud told PA Sport.

“If something is not clear on the first sight, then it’s not obvious and it shouldn’t be considered. Looking at one camera angle is one thing but looking at 15, trying to find something that was potentially not even there, this was not the idea of the VAR principle. It should be clear and obvious.”

 

[sycophantia]

No, it's when it first contacts the foot to initiate the pass.

Well thats just plain daft imo, doesn't make any sense

 

[The Bear]

Well thats just plain daft imo, doesn't make any sense

It actually gives a slightly extra amount of time in the attacker's advantage. Purely because it'd take another frame to see the ball leave the foot.

 

[sycophantia]

It actually gives a slightly extra amount of time in the attacker's advantage. Purely because it'd take another frame to see the ball leave the foot.

Good point, I've had a mare with that one tbh

 

[east-coast-wolves]

Use it how IFAB want it to be. Clear and obvious. Was Dan burn clearly offside - no. Goal given. Was Dele Alli clearly offside - yes goal ruled out. Was Jonny clearly offside - no, goal given.

Draw a line behind the last defender like sky have done for years. Is he clearly over it - no, carry on.
Pukki goal would stand too.

People weren’t moaning about goals like Jonny and Pukki going in against them. People were moaning about easy decisions like Alli going against them. Fix the howler not ruling out good goals by looking for a problem.

IFAB have said how it should be used. Use it that way.

Like this below. As simple as this. Draw a line, is he obviously over it - no. Goal stands. Another one I think the linesman got right but under your stats would be in the 30% they got wrong.

This. Obviously this.

If you do what Souness wants then you have exactly the same situation with lines being drawn and searching for mms to see if they are level. It doesn't solve the issue on any level.

 

[Papper]

Watch this. The guy was a visionary, a footballing GENIUS and a fine Socialist. We don't have fine socialists any more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd8wKQo2M6U

 

[WolfmanOz]

Watch this. The guy was a visionary, a footballing GENIUS and a fine Socialist. We don't have fine socialists any more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kd8wKQo2M6U

Couldn't agree more (except for his politics) my all-time favourite manager along with Bill Shankly.

 

[Papper]

Couldn't agree more (except for his politics) my all-time favourite manager along with Bill Shankly.

Interesting thoughts about the ref situation though. A degree of trust I lost with Mike Jones.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

It actually gives a slightly extra amount of time in the attacker's advantage. Purely because it'd take another frame to see the ball leave the foot.

Could lead to a problem in some situations though.

Say a fullback carries the ball forwards and his winger comes short for a pass in to feet. Ball played into him and he traps it as the full back makes an overlapping run beyond him. Winger then rolls the ball out behind him into the path of the overlapping fullback without ever taking his foot off the ball.

By the current ruling would you still have to judge whether or not the full back was offside at the first contact? He'd presumably still be deeper than the ball at this point but it could be a few seconds before that touch turns into a pass and he could be clearly in an offside position by then.

Would be interesting to see as he'd look blatantly offside at first view but that interpretation of when the pass commences would muddy the waters.

 

[Johnny75]

This. Obviously this.

If you do what Souness wants then you have exactly the same situation with lines being drawn and searching for mms to see if they are level. It doesn't solve the issue on any level.

So what's your answer?

Just go back to opinions?

 

[Johnny75]

Don’t use it for offside at all except the howler then. Job done.

The aubameyang one earlier in the season against Utd for example. Minimal interference, maximum benefit.

I agree with you for not using it for offside, if it's tight you could go with the on field call (70% chance of being right) or give the advantage to the attacking team.

It's hard to know what a howler is if you don't define the rule though. I'd still like to know what your version of the offside rule would be.

 

[slink]

So what's your answer?

Just go back to opinions?

Set it at a limit. Apparently the technology can be somewhere between 20 and 30 centimetres out so if a player is 30cm offside then give it, if not then they’re not offside.

 

[Johnny75]

Set it at a limit. Apparently the technology can be somewhere between 20 and 30 centimetres out so if a player is 30cm offside then give it, if not then they’re not offside.

I think the thicker lines solution covers that well and I would think easily workable.

 

[Tony Towner]

For me there's two issues with the offside element of VAR, the armpit/toenail interpretations which can't be substantiated due to the margin of error of the machinery and the time taken due to the lines and geometry. Limits or the Souness plan will fix the first, but not the second. In both of these you are going to either spend time measuring how far he could have been offside or whether the back of his body is off, still taking 2-3 minutes. The answer for me is still a freeze frame, if he's obviously off on that he's off, if you need to look a number of times, blow it up, get the lines out the the goal stands

 

[MARKakaJIM]

For me there's two issues with the offside element of VAR, the armpit/toenail interpretations which can't be substantiated due to the margin of error of the machinery and the time taken due to the lines and geometry. Limits or the Souness plan will fix the first, but not the second. In both of these you are going to either spend time measuring how far he could have been offside or whether the back of his body is off, still taking 2-3 minutes. The answer for me is still a freeze frame, if he's obviously off on that he's off, if you need to look a number of times, blow it up, get the lines out the the goal stands

The Souness plan just shifts the problem, instead of measuring the furthest forward part of an attacker you'd have exactly the same arguments as now around the deepest part of the attacker instead.

The problem isn't the rule it's the accuracy with which they're trying to enforce it that's creating all the problems. It doesn't matter which body parts you define as the critical ones you'll always have these slow checks as long as they try to be mm accurate in enforcing it.

The rule as it's currently worded is as fair as it's ever been in regards to the balance between attackers and defenders.

 

[Kenny]

The answer for me is still a freeze frame, if he's obviously off on that he's off, if you need to look a number of times, blow it up, get the lines out the the goal stands

Which is the guidelines they are meant to be using, instead our refs have gone down the route of searching for and finding 0.1mm of a player offside. The worst thing for me is they appear to delighted with themselves for doing this and despite nearly every fan and pundit shouting at them they think they are in the right.

 

[Johnny75]

For me there's two issues with the offside element of VAR, the armpit/toenail interpretations which can't be substantiated due to the margin of error of the machinery and the time taken due to the lines and geometry. Limits or the Souness plan will fix the first, but not the second. In both of these you are going to either spend time measuring how far he could have been offside or whether the back of his body is off, still taking 2-3 minutes. The answer for me is still a freeze frame, if he's obviously off on that he's off, if you need to look a number of times, blow it up, get the lines out the the goal stands

The time element could well be mitigated in the stadium if the referee played it on a big screen (make Utd and Liverpool put screens up) and the mic to the bellends in Stokley Park were then made audible to the crowd.

Everybody could then see including the AR's and ref and come to a decision. At least the crowd will be involved then.