VAR VAR ♥️

[Wapping Blade]

I’m confused by this, when is Jota offside?

1. The corner is played short to Jota.

2. Jota passes it backwards to the corner taker.

3. The corner taker crosses it for the “goal”.

The VAR replay with the lines is as Jota is passing the ball in 2. above so how can he be offside?

 

[ucandomagic]

I’m confused by this, when is Jota offside?

1. The corner is played short to Jota.

2. Jota passes it backwards to the corner taker.

3. The corner taker crosses it for the “goal”.

The VAR replay with the lines is as Jota is passing the ball in 2. above so how can he be offside?

The corner taker is in front of the ball at the moment that the ball is played back by Jota. He continues back to receive the ball but he has moved to the ball from an offside position. It is where he is when the pass is made that matters not where he is when he gets to the ball. It is the corner taker given offside - not Jota.

 

[Yewsman]

I’ve said this before but in my view VAR actually works for everything apart from off sides. The problem with VAR and off sides is that it is being used to rule players off side by matters of centimetres which is way outside the accuracy and margin of error of the technology. I therefore do not accept (as the pundits seem to ) that it does show that the Wolves player or Lunny at Spurs for example were offside. They need to build in a margin for error. Klopp I believe has suggested that the line drawn across the pitch should be widened. This would build in a margin for error and would get rid of these ridiculous offside by 10 cms or thereabouts decisions.

 

[Wapping Blade]

The corner taker is in front of the ball at the moment that the ball is played back by Jota. He continues back to receive the ball but he has moved to the ball from an offside position. It is where he is when the pass is made that matters not where he is when he gets to the ball. It is the corner taker given offside - not Jota.

Cheers fella, I can now see that, mebbes the ale yesterday was fogging my senses!

 

[Hamburg Blade]

I’ve said this before but in my view VAR actually works for everything apart from off sides. The problem with VAR and off sides is that it is being used to rule players off side by matters of centimetres which is way outside the accuracy and margin of error of the technology. I therefore do not accept (as the pundits seem to ) that it does show that the Wolves player or Lunny at Spurs for example were offside. They need to build in a margin for error. Klopp I believe has suggested that the line drawn across the pitch should be widened. This would build in a margin for error and would get rid of these ridiculous offside by 10 cms or thereabouts decisions.

I'm afraid none of these suggestions about wider lines or "daylight" etc etc will achieve anything. Wherever and however the line is drawn it has to have a precise edge, so it just moves the point of error further along. i.e. an offside that is currently judged offside but wouldn't if a 10cm tolerance would become "onside" with a higher tolerence, making the offside rule (VAR version) being within 10cm forward of a defender, thus an attacker 11cm forward of a defender would become only 1cm offside and people would still be complaining at the ridiculously fine margins, inability of the technology to distinguish and time taken to judge it.

 

[Yewsman]

I'm afraid none of these suggestions about wider lines or "daylight" etc etc will achieve anything. Wherever and however the line is drawn it has to have a precise edge, so it just moves the point of error further along. i.e. an offside that is currently judged offside but wouldn't if a 10cm tolerance would become "onside" with a higher tolerence, making the offside rule (VAR version) being within 10cm forward of a defender, thus an attacker 11cm forward of a defender would become only 1cm offside and people would still be complaining at the ridiculously fine margins, inability of the technology to distinguish and time taken to judge it.

Yes but my point is that VAR is giving decisions that it is not accurate enough to give. Given the fact that there is potential error in deciding a) when the ball is played through, b) where the attacker is at that moment bearing in mind he may be sprinting and the player may be "onside" in one frame but "offside" in the next, c) where the line is drawn across the pitch also taking account of paralax and d) the present width of the notional line drawn across the pitch, means any VAR decision has a margin for error. This is not currently allowed for as everyone says it either shows exactly that a player is offside or onside with no allowance for the margin for error. Just about any scientific measurement is only accurate to a certain point e.g. if your are timing a sprinter crossing the finish line or measuring a long jump. I do not know what the margin should be for VAR although I have seen others address it scientifically and it is perfectly possible to work out what that margin should be and allow it. If a margin has been allowed and built in and a player is 1 cm off side then I can accept it because I know that an allowance has been built in.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Yes but my point is that VAR is giving decisions that it is not accurate enough to give. Given the fact that there is potential error in deciding a) when the ball is played through, b) where the attacker is at that moment bearing in mind he may be sprinting and the player may be "onside" in one frame but "offside" in the next, c) where the line is drawn across the pitch also taking account of paralax and d) the present width of the notional line drawn across the pitch, means any VAR decision has a margin for error. This is not currently allowed for as everyone says it either shows exactly that a player is offside or onside with no allowance for the margin for error. Just about any scientific measurement is only accurate to a certain point e.g. if your are timing a sprinter crossing the finish line or measuring a long jump. I do not know what the margin should be for VAR although I have seen others address it scientifically and it is perfectly possible to work out what that margin should be and allow it. If a margin has been allowed and built in and a player is 1 cm off side then I can accept it because I know that an allowance has been built in.

I don't disagree with your points, only that shifting the point of offside through wider lines etc won't actually achieve anything. My personal solution (which would never be accepted) is not to have lines at all. Let a VAR official review it, in slo-mo if necessary but with a time limit of a minute or so, and if he can't see an obvious error with the naked eye then the on-field decision stands.

 

[Bladesman]

Offside and handball laws under Ifab review along with concussion substitutions

The Ifab - football's rule-makers - are to review the offside law, clarify the handball law and trial concussion substitutes.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Punk Blade]

I don't disagree with your points, only that shifting the point of offside through wider lines etc won't actually achieve anything. My personal solution (which would never be accepted) is not to have lines at all. Let a VAR official review it, in slo-mo if necessary but with a time limit of a minute or so, and if he can't see an obvious error with the naked eye then the on-field decision stands.

My understanding of wider lines was that ‘maybe offside’ and ‘probably offside’ become ‘definitely offside’. Right now we’re giving offside when it might not be, widening the lines would mean we’d be giving onside when it might not be, and offside only when it definitely is without doubt offside.

 

[Headshrinker]

Right now we’re giving offside when it might not be, widening the lines would mean we’d be giving onside when it might not be, and offside only when it definitely is without doubt offside.

The latter is how it should be. Ruling out a goal/giving offside should only be when it is definite. Not when it is "maybe" offside.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

My understanding of wider lines was that ‘maybe offside’ and ‘probably offside’ become ‘definitely offside’. Right now we’re giving offside when it might not be, widening the lines would mean we’d be giving onside when it might not be, and offside only when it definitely is without doubt offside.

That won't work. However wide you make the line, the edge of the line is precise. i.e. if you make the line wider so that it gives a tolerance of 5cm so that even if someone is strictly speaking 1cm offside it won't be given as offside, which sounds good, what you are actually doing is making the offside rule "within 5cm forward of the defender". Anyone 5.1cm forward of a defender becomes offside, anyone 4.9cm forward of a defender won't be. It will simply shift the controversy 5cm further on.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

That won't work. However wide you make the line, the edge of the line is precise. i.e. if you make the line wider so that it gives a tolerance of 5cm so that even if someone is strictly speaking 1cm offside it won't be given as offside, which sounds good, what you are actually doing is making the offside rule "within 5cm forward of the defender". Anyone 5.1cm forward of a defender becomes offside, anyone 4.9cm forward of a defender won't be. It will simply shift the controversy 5cm further on.

No matter what direction you look at it from it's horseshit.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

No matter what direction you look at it from it's horseshit.

I know, I would rather not have it. I have argued against the introduction of some form of video review for years and years, but I have to say most fans I spoke with argued for it. I think people imagined something that would work seamlessly and cut out all the controversy, Cricket and Rugby were often quoted. I could never see how it would work.
But we know how the football authorities think (or don't think) and we know that now they've introduced it they will never scrap it.
My solution is to do away with the "lines" completely, so you've just got an extra assistant referee looking over the ref's shoulder, making sure no
thing outrageous happens. That will also never be accepted, they're likely to go the other way, making it more and more precise.

 

[gordoncharles]

In a TV discussion today one of the main talking points was on the use by the ref of pitchside monitors which the PL doesn't really do but it's supposed to be a "good thing". This - like re-drawing offside lines at a different position - is another red herring.

Worse, when discussing VAR in general the assorted hacks bemoaned delays caused by VAR and the proposed concussion subs.

Sending the ref to the monitors is an exercise in futility. I can't remember one time I've ever seen that happen (I've posted about this before) where the ref hasn't reversed his decision. Not to do so would effectively put him in conflict with whoever's running VAR.

All it does is delay proceedings by another minute while the ref faffs about with the pictures the TV audience have already seen and the crowd get annoyed waiting for the inevitable.

To give an example, my own Spanish team were playing away and one of ours narrowly missed connecting with a cross right in front of goal. A defender had also gone for the same ball and to my surprise there was a VAR penalty review. Despite my obvious bias it didn't look anything like a penalty to me, so I was shocked when the ref went over to the monitor. I knew immediately that we'd get the pen, and sure enough we did.

In an act of highly frustrating justice we missed the penalty we should never have been awarded. So, in conclusion, it's all bollocks.

 

[Punk Blade]

That won't work. However wide you make the line, the edge of the line is precise. i.e. if you make the line wider so that it gives a tolerance of 5cm so that even if someone is strictly speaking 1cm offside it won't be given as offside, which sounds good, what you are actually doing is making the offside rule "within 5cm forward of the defender". Anyone 5.1cm forward of a defender becomes offside, anyone 4.9cm forward of a defender won't be. It will simply shift the controversy 5cm further on.

I disagree. The issue is that the technology is not up to the job of proving offside to the millimetre with footballers running at full speed. Widening the lines to build in a tolerance of however many centimetres is saying “these instances there is uncertainty, so benefit of the doubt goes to the attacker; these instances we have calculated that it is without any doubt offside so we can give offside knowing it is the correct decision”. That’s an improvement on “these instances there is uncertainty, but based on the blurry image and lines we’ve drawn we’re having a guess at it being offside”.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

I disagree. The issue is that the technology is not up to the job of proving offside to the millimetre with footballers running at full speed. Widening the lines to build in a tolerance of however many centimetres is saying “these instances there is uncertainty, so benefit of the doubt goes to the attacker; these instances we have calculated that it is without any doubt offside so we can give offside knowing it is the correct decision”. That’s an improvement on “these instances there is uncertainty, but based on the blurry image and lines we’ve drawn we’re having a guess at it being offside”.

Except they're not guessing, they are using the lines precisely. The fact that the frame speed doesn't support that doesn't change it. They are working to the edge of a line, if you widen the line, they will work to the edge of the wider line. The grey area you are defining as "instances of uncertainty" will be precisely defined. You are simply moving the offside rule a few centimetres up the pitch.

 

[diode_blade]

Are corners now redundant then, scenario: your team is defending and the opposition get a corner, all you as a defending team have to do is all go and stand halfway in your own half, leaving all the attackers in your pen box, the corner gets taken, any attacking player that now touches it it towards your goal with players in front (inc corner taker)of him it will be deemed offside, so the only way you could score a goal is direct from the corner kick...
If I have understood all this correctly...

 

[SherburnBlade]

Surely the idea of 'widening the lines' is that in a case of possible offside you are creating a tolerance of benefit of doubt towards the attacking team and that if the new 'wider lines' overlap in any way then it will not be given as offside by VAR thus creating the 5/10 cm tolerance people are suggesting /asking for?

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Surely the idea of 'widening the lines' is that in a case of possible offside you are creating a tolerance of benefit of doubt towards the attacking team and that if the new 'wider lines' overlap in any way then it will not be given as offside by VAR thus creating the 5/10 cm tolerance people are suggesting /asking for?

Yes, that's the idea, but as I keep trying to explain, badly I expect, any line has a precise edge. You may give an attacker a 10cm tolerance, but that just means that one goal will be allowed because the attacker is 9.9cm offside (which, since every goal is checked to the tolerance, will be the new de Facto offside line) and the next goal will be disallowed for being 10.1cm offside. How are fans going to suddenly be happy with that margin of judgement when they aren't with the current margin (-0.1 or +0.1)?

 

[gordoncharles]

Yes, that's the idea, but as I keep trying to explain, badly I expect, any line has a precise edge. You may give an attacker a 10cm tolerance, but that just means that one goal will be allowed because the attacker is 9.9cm offside (which, since every goal is checked to the tolerance, will be the new de Facto offside line) and the next goal will be disallowed for being 10.1cm offside. How are fans going to suddenly be happy with that margin of judgement when they aren't with the current margin (-0.1 or +0.1)?

If it's any help.... I understood you perfectly well the first time.

 

[SherburnBlade]

Yes, that's the idea, but as I keep trying to explain, badly I expect, any line has a precise edge. You may give an attacker a 10cm tolerance, but that just means that one goal will be allowed because the attacker is 9.9cm offside (which, since every goal is checked to the tolerance, will be the new de Facto offside line) and the next goal will be disallowed for being 10.1cm offside. How are fans going to suddenly be happy with that margin of judgement when they aren't with the current margin (-0.1 or +0.1)?

I think after this season's decisions of big toes /shoulder blades offside. The idea of a 10cm tolerance being added, fans will be likely more acceptable of someone being given offside by 10.1 cm rather than this season's 0.1cm.
10 centimetres more tolerant in fact!

 

[Hamburg Blade]

I think after this season's decisions of big toes /shoulder blades offside. The idea of a 10cm tolerance being added, fans will be likely more acceptable of someone being given offside by 10.1 cm rather than this season's 0.1cm.
10 centimetres more tolerant in fact!

We'll see. I doubt it!

 

[Hamburg Blade]

..... by the way, has it occurred to anyone that if refs have to consult the monitor during the match, some of them will have to carry their reading glasses around during the game?

 

[Punk Blade]

Yes, that's the idea, but as I keep trying to explain, badly I expect, any line has a precise edge. You may give an attacker a 10cm tolerance, but that just means that one goal will be allowed because the attacker is 9.9cm offside (which, since every goal is checked to the tolerance, will be the new de Facto offside line) and the next goal will be disallowed for being 10.1cm offside. How are fans going to suddenly be happy with that margin of judgement when they aren't with the current margin (-0.1 or +0.1)?

But they won’t be 10.1cm offside. We won’t know how far offside they are, only that they are definitely offside. If the measurement is 9.9cm then they could be offside by up to 9.9cm, or they could be onside, and not being sure we give them the benefit of the doubt. That’s the point of drawing wider lines. The current system is offering 0.1cm based on a still frame that we can’t be certain is accurate to 0.1cm, but we’re giving them all offside anyway even though we have no idea how many are actually offside or onside.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

But they won’t be 10.1cm offside. We won’t know how far offside they are, only that they are definitely offside. If the measurement is 9.9cm then they could be offside by up to 9.9cm, or they could be onside, and not being sure we give them the benefit of the doubt. That’s the point of drawing wider lines. The current system is offering 0.1cm based on a still frame that we can’t be certain is accurate to 0.1cm, but we’re giving them all offside anyway even though we have no idea how many are actually offside or onside.

By giving everyone 10cm in every attacking situation, you are increasing the offside rule by de Facto 10cm, if not de Jure. You can't say "we don't know if it's offside or not, so we'll say it isn't" if in every instance it isn't. It will always be checked and therefore always be onside. It would work if offside was only checked on certain occasions where the referee was in doubt, but not for every occasion. You are then still asking for a judgement to differentiate a mm or two using the current technology, based on the edge of a line on a screen, same as now. Which would also work if you improved the technology considerably, but then, if you increased the technology to the point where it can be accurate, why give a tolerance at all?

 

[Punk Blade]

By giving everyone 10cm in every attacking situation, you are increasing the offside rule by de Facto 10cm, if not de Jure. You can't say "we don't know if it's offside or not, so we'll say it isn't" if in every instance it isn't. It will always be checked and therefore always be onside. It would work if offside was only checked on certain occasions where the referee was in doubt, but not for every occasion. You are then still asking for a judgement to differentiate a mm or two using the current technology, based on the edge of a line on a screen, same as now. Which would also work if you improved the technology considerably, but then, if you increased the technology to the point where it can be accurate, why give a tolerance at all?

Check all of them.

If lines don’t overlap (attacker ahead of defender), then there is no doubt it is offside and offside is given.

If lines don’t overlap (attacker behind defender), then there is no doubt it is onside and goal is given.

If the lines overlap, there is doubt which is due to frame rates / sharpness of image / speed of players. In this instance give the benefit of that doubt to the attacker.

Moving the line 10cm or whatever up the pitch (the point where the two wider lines touch) isn’t moving the same issue to a different place, it’s creating a line of complete certainty. As the technology improves that line moves further back and the reviews get more accurate. In the interim let’s have goals where the technology can’t be sure, rather than “we’re guessing offside by a big toe but we don’t really know”.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Check all of them.

If lines don’t overlap (attacker ahead of defender), then there is no doubt it is offside and offside is given.

If lines don’t overlap (attacker behind defender), then there is no doubt it is onside and goal is given.

If the lines overlap, there is doubt which is due to frame rates / sharpness of image / speed of players. In this instance give the benefit of that doubt to the attacker.

Moving the line 10cm or whatever up the pitch (the point where the two wider lines touch) isn’t moving the same issue to a different place, it’s creating a line of complete certainty. As the technology improves that line moves further back and the reviews get more accurate. In the interim let’s have goals where the technology can’t be sure, rather than “we’re guessing offside by a big toe but we don’t really know”.

As a stop-gap solution it's worth a try (anything is better than what we have at the moment), but I think you may be underestimating the cumulative effect of the issues that would create a point of "complete certainty", i.e. the frame rate, the moment the ball is kicked (first touch/depression of ball/ball leaves foot), the speed of the players and the point where the line is placed against the attacker and defender if it isn't the foot (the perpendicular line). Some of which require the VAR official to place his line on the screen which requires his judgement. A thicker line still has a precise edge which has to be lined up with the defender (armpit, etc), or in the case of the ball being kicked a moment in time rather than a line, but still needs a "tolerance" if this is how we are going to try and solve it.
How thick is this line going to end up in order to create a point of "complete certainty", because if it's too far behind the defender and it is always counted as onside, as I say, a new de Facto offside point, what is the point? It could be worse than judging with the naked eye.
And I still think you are going to have fans say "he should have placed it a bit further back" or "he should have taken the next frame" or "he's ahead of the defender so it should be offside", even with a thicker line, because even then, he has to choose a frame to freeze play and then place his line, pick his point to put the line edge against the players, etc.
I simply don't see it solving the problem, though it could possibly eliminate some of the really stupid decisions that have been made and would at least appear to be giving the attacker the benefit of the doubt.