VAR ruled this offside...

[Ricky]

We were due to be absolutely fucked.

Put a massive downer on an excellent game for us. McGoldrick couldn't have deserved that goal any more.

It's sickening.

Anybody willing to wipe out such a moment doesn't care about or understand football. On this occasion, they don't even know the fucking rules.

When it takes 4 minutes to decide, that should tell them all they need to know.....

IT'S NOT CLEAR AND OBVIOUS IS IT YOU FUCKING BRAINDEADS?

They can't even follow their own 'clear and obvious' directive. Nobody has a clue what's going on.

Is this what they wanted? Is this what they envisaged? Massive delays to scrutinise the milimetres and remove the passion from the game?

Having the technology doesn't matter if it's only used by incompetent anti football wankers.

 

[IOM Blade]

WTF??

Get this shit out of my game.

It's the colour of his boots that's done him. The camera can't handle it which make his boots a blur and they've put the line right at the end of the spludge. Just zoom in on Harry Winks. He hasn't got feet for fuck sake! How can they use such shitty imagery for such fine margins.

All our players should wear black boots from now on.

 

[Bladesman]

 

[metalblade]

Nearly FOUR minutes to make the decision If used right I could live with VAR but it is not. Why does some bloke miles away look at it when we have a pitchside monitor???? We have a Referee and two linesemen and another Referee on the touchline the linesman and Referee saw nothing wrong with our goal a quick look by the fourth official at the touchline monitor should be enough to say yes or no well inside 30secs.
Taking nearly 4 mins to decide tells me there was a lot of doubt in which case the benefit should go to the attacker as being leel did last season, VAR is bollocks.

 

[Bladesman]

 

[Bladesman]

 

[spikeachu]

I think the decision to rule out the goal was taken instantly. It just took 3 minutes to find somewhere in the build up they thought they could get away with ruling it out. Has anyone checked whether the VAR ref had a bet on Spurs?

 

[Harrisblade]

Premier League have made up their own version of when to use VAR - and it's wrong!

VAR should only intervene on 'clear' offsides according to UEFA's referees chief as concerns over the accuracy of the technology continue to surround football's controversial innovation.
Roberto Rosetti wants his video officials to refrain from overturning on-field decisions if it is too difficult to tell for certain whether a player was in an offside position when the ball was played.

This appears in stark contrast to the Premier League's uncompromising use of VAR, where officials have overturned goals after poring over footage to judge players offside by less than 2cm.

VAR should only intervene on CLEAR offside decisions

EXCLUSIVE BY JAMES SHARPE: Roberto Rosetti wants video officials to refrain from overturning decisions if it is too difficult to tell whether a player was in an offside position when the ball is played.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Cunts!

 

[Greenwich Blade]

This was posted on Twitter by a chap who really knows his stuff!View attachment 64212

Riley have the worst refereeing display I've ever seen, West Ham away 2006. Also, 3min 45 seconds - you could have played the whole of Wonderous Stories in the time it took to make that decision.

 

[Pierre's PC]

I wonder what the uncertainty budget on the VAR process is, especially with so many variables.

 

[blade.i.am]

Riley have the worst refereeing display I've ever seen, West Ham away 2006. Also, 3min 45 seconds - you could have played the whole of Wonderous Stories in the time it took to make that decision.

View attachment 64230

Now that really puts it in context

 

[pommpey]

Davalon pommpey Niceguyeddie
Offside is measured relative to the objective standard of the pitch. This is done by drawing a straight vertical line from the body down to the ground. If you do that with Diers head or shoulder (you can try it by placing a ruler over your screen), the point at which it meets the ground falls behind Lunnys foot, therefore not playing him onside. It's as simple as that.

At what angle? The camera isn't perpendicular in the vertical or horizontal plane with reference to the touchline and either Lundstram nor Dier. It's therefor a 'best guess' as to whether Dier was in front or behind Lundstram. With that in mind, with the hundreds of millions of pounds, people's livelihoods, jobs and reputations at stake, is it therefore best practice to 'best guess' using flakey technological 'advances'? It's not an advance at all if you are simply not sure and not so if half the country is up in arms about it. Look at handball. Pretty much definitive if you either have intent or you are in some way making your bodyshape bigger to play of intercept the ball to your advantage.

I'm not saying he is definitely offside. I think it's too close to tell, and a 4 minute delay to have no conclusive answer is absurd. But everyone making the head and shoulder argument is misunderstanding the way offside is judged.

You've just disqualified your original argument and requalified it.

Our disallowed goal at West Ham in 2006 would have saved us from relegation. It's THAT important.

pommpey

 

[Greenwich Blade]

They are using it consistently, so I don’t have a problem with it.

It’s wank when it goes against you, but great when it goes for you. If it was the other way round we’d all be saying “an offside toe is still offside”.

I wouldn't.

 

[Ainsley Harriott]

Without going through the thread, has it been mentioned that when his toe was adjudged to have been offside (it wasn't), Spurs actually cleared the ball? This makes that offside irrelevant as a new phase of play has started. The decision becomes even more bollocks when you bring that in.

 

[penthouseblade]

I think up until perhaps the Arsenal game, we’ve played a little within ourselves. But we’re getting back to the levels of the last three seasons.

amazing times

We were talking about this during the match. At the beginning of the season, United were much more defensive, understandably so, we are in the Premiere League after all. As the games have passed however, Sheffield United have grown, Sheffield United have asserted their authority, Sheffield United have become.....we have simply done what we've done for the last three seasons, it's not simply promotion momentum......THIS is Sheffield fucking United!

 

[tomtheblade]

At what angle? The camera isn't perpendicular in the vertical or horizontal plane with reference to the touchline and either Lundstram nor Dier. It's therefor a 'best guess' as to whether Dier was in front or behind Lundstram. With that in mind, with the hundreds of millions of pounds, people's livelihoods, jobs and reputations at stake, is it therefore best practice to 'best guess' using flakey technological 'advances'? It's not an advance at all if you are simply not sure and not so if half the country is up in arms about it. Look at handball. Pretty much definitive if you either have intent or you are in some way making your bodyshape bigger to play of intercept the ball to your advantage.



You've just disqualified your original argument and requalified it.

Our disallowed goal at West Ham in 2006 would have saved us from relegation. It's THAT important.

pommpey

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, i'm simply explaining how they came to their decision.
Maybe you're right, maybe the camera wasn't aligned properly. There's actually an easy way to check if it's aligned in the horizontal, simply by seeing whether the touchline is parallel to the edge of the frame in the image.

My point was only that Dier's head/shoulder are not playing Lunny onside. He may well be onside, but if he is then it's for other reasons, but not this one.

You can question this by questioning the validity of the image itself, as it seems you're doing (and you may be correct).
But once you question the validity of the image itself, you can't then turn around and use it as evidence for your point.
It's either reliable or not, you can either use it to show something or you can't.

I don't have 'an argument'. My point was that we don't know.. it's ambiguous. I think i'm making the same point as you, that it's a grey area, that once you're within a certain margin of error, ie millimeters, then it's no longer safe to say it's one way or the other, so you have to make a subjective call, as the referee has always done.

 

[Ricky]

When even Lineker's throwing the WTFs about you know it's a bad one.

 

[YES Blade]

VAR check took almost 4 minutes. There were 6 minutes added time. Which means the referee only added 2 minutes on for subs, goals, injuries etc. So no, it isn’t added on.

I don’t remember a single injury stoppage in the 2nd half and there were 4 subs, so I’d say 6 minutes was about right.

 

[YES Blade]

I wouldn't.

I guarantee if the opposition have close VAR offside which is millimetres offside our fans won’t be saying anything about benefits of doubt etc. It’ll be we had that offside at Spurs so it’s offside.

 

[Kryten]

Regardless, lads were magnificent today and I am very proud of my team!

 

[Greenwich Blade]

I guarantee if the opposition have close VAR offside which is millimetres offside our fans won’t be saying anything about benefits of doubt etc. It’ll be we had that offside at Spurs so it’s offside.

I won't be one of them.

 

[SwissBlade]

We were talking about this during the match. At the beginning of the season, United were much more defensive, understandably so, we are in the Premiere League after all. As the games have passed however, Sheffield United have grown, Sheffield United have asserted their authority, Sheffield United have become.....we have simply done what we've done for the last three seasons, it's not simply promotion momentum......THIS is Sheffield fucking United!

Yeah as Wilder said after the game, we have our identity. Perhaps he also felt that we weren't playing our way at times in those earlier games.

We won't be able to play the way we did against Spurs every game, but we are certainly not sitting back away from home.

 

[Tynemouth Blade]

Sign the Petition

Premier League please scrap VAR immediately

www.change.org

 

[moDtheGod]

but just to remind everyone, we were told VAR would onlly be used where a referee had missed “an obvious error” leading to a match changing situation. If it takes 4 minutes for several referees to review it, looking at every possible angle on video, then it isn’t an “obvious” error.

This isn't correct though. Just because everyone keeps repeating it, doesn't make it true.

Factual decisions like "did the ball cross the line, yes or no" and "is he offside, yes or no" have never been subject to the "clear and obvious" criteria.

 

[Bobby b]

As Andy gray said the term video assistant referee VAR should be changed to VR video referee, as the game referee is no longer in charge, I don't know whether the match officials like VAR because in years gone by, on programmes like motd or praise or grumble refs used to get slated for the decisions they made now they don't, some faceless drone from sector 13 does.
VAR CUTTING OUT THE MIDDLE MAN SINCE 2019
It's the fans whether at the game or watching on tv who are suffering because feeling the euphoria of seeing your team scoring a goal is a thing of the past.
RIP EUPHORIA

 

[Bookers Mullet]

Don't think he needs to be blindfolded. He clearly has trouble with his eyesight as it is.

People from around the world are tweeting about how well VAR is working in their leagues and can't get their heads round why we are making such a balls up of it. It's the richest league in the world but the officiating is a disgrace.

I'm biased, but I'll say this for years the official IMHO have favoured the big teams, now they have a tool that is supposed to change that, but the officiating crew still cannot shift the mindset to favour the so called bigger teams, its creating decision paralysis, its a joke of a system that doesn't work, for so many reasons, both in the spirit of the game and of the technology used

 

[Cerberus Blade]

This isn't correct though. Just because everyone keeps repeating it, doesn't make it true.

Factual decisions like "did the ball cross the line, yes or no" and "is he offside, yes or no" have never been subject to the "clear and obvious" criteria.

I'm quoting what was stated in the press this week as being something that was mentioned at the Premier League manager's meeting. Apparently, (and I think it was in the interview with Frank Lampard last weekend), the manager's were reassured that VAR would only be used to investigate "clear and obvious" errors by the referee.

This is not how it is being used.

To your points above though, and here's why I don't like VAR...

This is not applying technology with accuracy. For example, in tennis the technology can tell us 100% if a ball is in or out. But in football it isn't doing that. It's not monitored by sensors on the line or in the ball. It's monitored by some old fart in a studio, magnifying the picture and drawing random lines on it. So, it's not accurate, I'm sorry, it's just not. And similarly with the "is he offside or not", that's interesting that you've put it that way. Because, and I'm assuming a smart chap like you knows this, being "offiside" is not an offence, or a reason to stop the game. And it's not a reason to disallow a goal either, unless the player, or his team, gained some sort of advantage from being "offiside".

My ultimate gripe with VAR though is this...

if you are going to hand the final decision to someone other than the 4 officials who are there seeing it with their own eyes, then it needs to be 100% right and not only that, but you need to demonstrate to those 60,000 fans (and the worldwide millions who are watching) WHY you made that decision. If we don't do that then we undermine everyone's confidence in fair play and sportsmanship in the game.

It doesn't get any clearer or more obvious to me than that!

 

[HillmortonBlade]

Claiming that football is behind the times because we don’t have the technology of tennis, rugby, cricket, NFL... those are standing-about games, do we really want a football match to end up going on for a hours?

 

[BettingBlade]

I don’t remember a single injury stoppage in the 2nd half and there were 4 subs, so I’d say 6 minutes was about right.

If VAR hadn’t have been involved at there would have been 4 minutes injury time and you know it. You’re basically saying that there was only 2 minutes of non VAR stoppages in that second half which quite frankly is complete bollocks.

 

[Niceguyeddie]

I guarantee if the opposition have close VAR offside which is millimetres offside our fans won’t be saying anything about benefits of doubt etc. It’ll be we had that offside at Spurs so it’s offside.

Well the Spurs fans were as outraged as us so you're point looks a bit silly now