VAR Forensic

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?


blade too long said:
simple thing is to make it the same as goal line technology
all of the ball has to be over the goal line
so all of an attacker has to be in front of the defenders line

simples
Click to expand...
But then the problem would just get moved along a bit ............................... all of the attacker was in front.... oh hang on a bit, look at his big toe! Thant wasn't.

I think the only options are:

1. Get rid of VAR for offsides.

or

2. Use the subjective but pragmatic 'clear and obvious' rule. ie, a arm pit or big toes is not clear and obvioius. A player standing a yard offside and the linesman having a brain fart moment and missing it, is clear and obvious and VAR should call it. Then kick the linesman's arse for being incompetent.

Bring back raw emotion on scoring a goal!!
 
Snake said:
But then the problem would just get moved along a bit ............................... all of the attacker was in front.... oh hang on a bit, look at his big toe! Thant wasn't.

I think the only options are:

1. Get rid of VAR for offsides.

or

2. Use the subjective but pragmatic 'clear and obvious' rule. ie, a arm pit or big toes is not clear and obvioius. A player standing a yard offside and the linesman having a brain fart moment and missing it, is offside and VAR should call it. Then kick the linesman's arse for being incompetent.

Bring back raw emotion on scoring a goal!!
Click to expand...
Its 2 for me.

One look, 20 seconds, if you can't tell if the player is offside or onside, stick with the on field decision.
 
Snake said:
But then the problem would just get moved along a bit ............................... all of the attacker was in front.... oh hang on a bit, look at his big toe! That wasn't.

I think the only options are:

1. Get rid of VAR for offsides.

or

2. Use the subjective but pragmatic 'clear and obvious' rule. ie, a arm pit or big toes is not clear and obvioius. A player standing a yard offside and the linesman having a brain fart moment and missing it, is clear and obvious and VAR should call it. Then kick the linesman's arse for being incompetent.

Bring back raw emotion on scoring a goal!!
Click to expand...
but it gives the advantage back to the attacker and its the goals we miss,
be a lot harder to give a goal for a trailing heel after its been given offside
 
It's crazy, how could Mousset tell he was offside at Man City, he doesn't have a computer and 20 camera angles.

I'd love the VAR people to explain what advantage Mousset gained at Man City by part of his body being a millimetre ahead of the defender.
 
One replay for the VAR team to review. If you can tell from that it is offside - E.G Jack's goal against Brighton then over rule it. If you can't then you stick with the on-field decision.

If you can't tell from one replay, then its not clear and obvious. No lines being drawn, no 4 minute reviews.

This should also apply to handballs in the box (both attacking and defense) as well as silly things like retaking a penalty.

The only 2 areas I would suggest there should be more detailed analysis would be off the ball violent conduct and CLEAR diving for a penalty.
 
Snake said:
But then the problem would just get moved along a bit ............................... all of the attacker was in front.... oh hang on a bit, look at his big toe! Thant wasn't.

I think the only options are:

1. Get rid of VAR for offsides.

or

2. Use the subjective but pragmatic 'clear and obvious' rule. ie, a arm pit or big toes is not clear and obvioius. A player standing a yard offside and the linesman having a brain fart moment and missing it, is clear and obvious and VAR should call it. Then kick the linesman's arse for being incompetent.

Bring back raw emotion on scoring a goal!!
Click to expand...

Solution 2 also just moves the problem along a bit. If we agree that an armpit is not clear and obvious, then what about an armpit and a nipple? A big toe and 38% of a metatarsal? 39%? etc.
 
Just get rid of the lines and everyone will seemingly be happy, just look at the replays in the same way the Sky commentators used to do when Gary Neville would say he looks on or off.
 
mattbianco1 said:
"Clear Daylight"
Click to expand...

It’s been announced on the radio that FIFA are thinking of changing the offside rule for next season.

The new rule they are considering is that there must be clear day light between the attacker and defender for it to be offside.
So if any part of the body is on side.....then its a goal.

That would mean all 5 offside goals from recent PL matches would all have counted.....the Mouset goal would have counted using VAR.

They’ll still be some controversy regards offsides but at least if a player is level or close to level....then the goal will count.
Sounds better to me.....and there will be more goals scored.
 
I don’t watch Rugby so maybe someone else can help me out but surely they don’t look into this much detail if they are looking at something like a forward pass do they?
 

Snake said:
But then the problem would just get moved along a bit ............................... all of the attacker was in front.... oh hang on a bit, look at his big toe! Thant wasn't.

I think the only options are:

1. Get rid of VAR for offsides.

or

2. Use the subjective but pragmatic 'clear and obvious' rule. ie, a arm pit or big toes is not clear and obvioius. A player standing a yard offside and the linesman having a brain fart moment and missing it, is clear and obvious and VAR should call it. Then kick the linesman's arse for being incompetent.

Bring back raw emotion on scoring a goal!!
Click to expand...

Please
 
McGrath said:
It's crazy, how could Mousset tell he was offside at Man City, he doesn't have a computer and 20 camera angles.

I'd love the VAR people to explain what advantage Mousset gained at Man City by part of his body being a millimetre ahead of the defender.
Click to expand...

VAR are not there to explain the rules......they are there just to enforce the laws of the game....all the VAR decisions are technically correct.
Its like asking a policeman to explain why the speedlimit is 70mph on a motorway.

The ref obstruction on Fleck seemed unfair and common sense suggests that the ref should have blown his whistle.
However blowing the whistle in those situations is currently against the rules....if he has blown he would have been marked down as being a bad ref.
So it’s not the refs fault......think the ref would agree that the rule needs changing when the ref accidently affects the game leading to a goal.
 
Sheffsteel said:
VAR are not there to explain the rules......they are there just to enforce the laws of the game....all the VAR decisions are technically correct.
Its like asking a policeman to explain why the speedlimit is 70mph on a motorway.

The ref obstruction on Fleck seemed unfair and common sense suggests that the ref should have blown his whistle.
However blowing the whistle in those situations is currently against the rules....if he has blown he would have been marked down as being a bad ref.
So it’s not the refs fault......think the ref would agree that the rule needs changing when the ref accidently affects the game leading to a goal.
Click to expand...

No, the onfield referee is there to enforce the laws of the game. VAR is there to assist the referee hence video ASSISTANT referee.

If VAR cannot provide a comprehensive reason to overturn something then it shouldn’t be getting involved.
 
'Souness Law'.
If any part of the body is onside then the player is onside and goal should count. (His suggestion).

We have to encourage goals in a game where scoring goals is the primary aim. Not disallowing them for the tiniest of margins. It's pathetic. It's as though they're trying to wave their cocks and show off how smart and cool and accurate their system is. When actually their 'cock' is riddled.

My theory was always that they have shares in the VAR 'brand'. And the more controversy it causes the more they earn (somehow). But that's me.
 
Furthermore, with the offsides this weekend, who checked for offside? The lino didn't flag. Referee allowed the goals. Do VAR just check absolutely everything without any input from the on field referee?
 
Ainsley Harriott said:
Furthermore, with the offsides this weekend, who checked for offside? The lino didn't flag. Referee allowed the goals. Do VAR just check absolutely everything without any input from the on field referee?
Click to expand...

They check all goals. Which is absolutely stupid. Which other sport in the world does an ASSISTANT take precedent over the onfield referee?
 
Seems ludicrous the current interpretation.

99% of your body can be in an onside position yet you can be ruled offside.

This can be fixed relatively easily:

1. It's called football. So you only measure the position of the feet. You then remove the 3d element associated with height of torsos, armpits etc.

2. A. You use the silly lines, but you acknowledge the inaccuracy of around 12cm and have a zone of tolerance. Provided the attacker doesn't have a foot fully beyond this zone, then he is onside.

2. B. Alternatively, you reverse the current logic and have offside only when there are no body feet behind the line.

3. C. Alternatively still, you just have the ref review the incident at pitchside once called to his attention and he makes a judgement by virtue of seeing the replay. Max 60 seconds to overturn.

I'd say all these are more palatable then the current fiasco.

In A, teams would accept if you have a buffer zone and you are beyond that you've had more than enough benefit.

In B, you're allowing any body part being inside accounting for being inside so think this positive slant would be more accepted.

In C, much more akin to clear and obvious with the same ref checking he hasn't made a howler.

For the ref getting in the way, the hitting the ball hitting the ref or obstructing a player / interfering with play are treated the same, as they can clearly leave the same outcome.
 
Sheffsteel said:
It’s been announced on the radio that FIFA are thinking of changing the offside rule for next season.

The new rule they are considering is that there must be clear day light between the attacker and defender for it to be offside.
So if any part of the body is on side.....then its a goal.

That would mean all 5 offside goals from recent PL matches would all have counted.....the Mouset goal would have counted using VAR.

They’ll still be some controversy regards offsides but at least if a player is level or close to level....then the goal will count.
Sounds better to me.....and there will be more goals scored.
Click to expand...

Can't believe nobody has spotted the obvious flaw to this suggestion.............. what about night matches? No day light there.
🤔
 
SellyOakBlade said:
Its 2 for me.

One look, 20 seconds, if you can't tell if the player is offside or onside, stick with the on field decision.
Click to expand...
IF they have to stick with VAR for offsides, then abandon the lines and blurred pixels of Lundstrams big toe and as you say, 20 seconds (i'd actually say 10) and if its not "fucking obvious" then its level and onside

Personally, i'd say bin it completely
 
Sheffsteel said:
VAR are not there to explain the rules......they are there just to enforce the laws of the game....all the VAR decisions are technically correct.
Its like asking a policeman to explain why the speedlimit is 70mph on a motorway.

The ref obstruction on Fleck seemed unfair and common sense suggests that the ref should have blown his whistle.
However blowing the whistle in those situations is currently against the rules....if he has blown he would have been marked down as being a bad ref.
So it’s not the refs fault......think the ref would agree that the rule needs changing when the ref accidently affects the game leading to a goal.
Click to expand...

If it's there to enforce rules, then surely it should pull back a referee every time he waves play on and says there's no advantage from a foul. By the letter of the law they were fouls.

Rules in football are at the referees descretion. Clearly Mousset or Pukki or Lundstram at Spurs, gained no advantage from being offside and weren't intentionally being offside, so why split hairs for 3 minutes over it.

It should be the refs call, where benefit of doubt goes with the attacker if its fine margins.
 
We can't simply do away with the current nightmare, accept that some decisions are really hard for referees, lay off them a bit, and go back to the football we all love while considering future technology as it develops. We must tinker with the rules even more to accommodate VAR. We need to change more laws and hope for the best.

It's the only sensible way.
 

They never going to scrap it as it’s admitting the whole concept is wrong and they are wrong.
Like to see it scrapped myself, and the end of this season is the only chance it could be for me.
It’s will just be altered minimally but what a farce typically introduced on our return to the top flight.
UTB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Greasy Chap Butty
New regulator
3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
4K
CornwallBlade
CornwallBlade
Bladesman
Blades v Gillingham - Match Highlights
Replies
11
Views
2K
Berkshire Blade
B
blade too long
var UPDATE includes easter for and against totals
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Brian Blessed
Brian Blessed
originaltrueblade
Unbelievable VAR For Corners and Free kicks
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
HeCanDoMagic
HeCanDoMagic
FMBlade1
Will Newcastle's result tonight make us feel a bit better?
Replies
29
Views
2K
georgebernardshaw
georgebernardshaw

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom