| Offside 10:16 - Jun 7 with 2638 views | SouperJim |
I see there are a couple of VAR threads, but there is a wider problem with the rule for me. Can you be offside by an eyelash?
This needs fixing for me, but how? You've got three points to measure, attacker, defender and person playing the ball. None of them can be perfect, as men are not built in straight lines and everything is moving. VAR tries to apply a perfect system using imperfect measurements with far too many moving variables.
Maybe measure torsos rather than limbs? Level should be onside every time and benefit of the doubt should be given to the attacking team imo. Our goal being chalked off last night was a travesty. This is not football. Maybe it's *just* offside by the tiniest margin using the letter of the law as it stands, but in every practical emotive sense it's ridiculous to rule out good goals like that because one players kneecap was 2mm further forwards than another players fingers at the precise moment some else's boot stopped making contact with the ball. You will never get the level of precision needed to make that call in the tightest situations.
VAR should be used to overturn blatantly incorrect/contentious decisions. Other than that, leave it up to human beings to make the call. Have 4 linesmen if you need. But don't dump a nation out of a tournament based on a toenail. |  |
| |  |
| Offside on 10:24 - Jun 7 with 2606 views | itfcjoe |
I think the rule is any part of the body you can score with - i.e. not an arm.
But this point you've made sums it up:
"VAR tries to apply a perfect system using imperfect measurements"
Football rules/laws aren't written in black and white - it's not cricket where the ball has to hit the leg in line with the stumps or not pitch outside the leg stump, or rugby where a forward pass is literally a forward pass.
The rules are subjective in a lot of areas, even something as 'simple' as offisde. Was there really any advantage gained by being 2mm ahead? He had the run on him anyway |  |
| |
| Offside on 10:34 - Jun 7 with 2579 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
Agreed.
If VAR is to stay, then there needs to be some tolerance built in, and its something that needs to be able to be judged by the human eye. A player cant judge their movement to the mm.
The rule needs to be more generous. Maybe allowing a margin of error.
If last nights disallowed goal is the future, I cant see me watching much more football. |  |
| |
| Offside on 10:34 - Jun 7 with 2577 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Offside on 10:24 - Jun 7 by itfcjoe |
I think the rule is any part of the body you can score with - i.e. not an arm.
But this point you've made sums it up:
"VAR tries to apply a perfect system using imperfect measurements"
Football rules/laws aren't written in black and white - it's not cricket where the ball has to hit the leg in line with the stumps or not pitch outside the leg stump, or rugby where a forward pass is literally a forward pass.
The rules are subjective in a lot of areas, even something as 'simple' as offisde. Was there really any advantage gained by being 2mm ahead? He had the run on him anyway |
Agreed. | |
| |
| Offside on 10:39 - Jun 7 with 2571 views | SouperJim |
| Offside on 10:24 - Jun 7 by itfcjoe |
I think the rule is any part of the body you can score with - i.e. not an arm.
But this point you've made sums it up:
"VAR tries to apply a perfect system using imperfect measurements"
Football rules/laws aren't written in black and white - it's not cricket where the ball has to hit the leg in line with the stumps or not pitch outside the leg stump, or rugby where a forward pass is literally a forward pass.
The rules are subjective in a lot of areas, even something as 'simple' as offisde. Was there really any advantage gained by being 2mm ahead? He had the run on him anyway |
I think if there is any overlap, they should be considered level and level is onside. The offside rule is intended to stop teams leaving a player up that they can hoof the ball to. Not disallow perfectly good goals scored by a well crafted move.
Either way, benefit of the doubt should be given to the attacker, VAR or no. If it's tight, let play continue. How did the match last night benefit from that decision? It's a total nonsense. | |
| |
| Offside on 10:47 - Jun 7 with 2551 views | norfsufblue |
| Offside on 10:34 - Jun 7 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Agreed.
If VAR is to stay, then there needs to be some tolerance built in, and its something that needs to be able to be judged by the human eye. A player cant judge their movement to the mm.
The rule needs to be more generous. Maybe allowing a margin of error.
If last nights disallowed goal is the future, I cant see me watching much more football. |
Your last paragraph sums up my feelings... at least in the 3rd division we are not going to have to deal with this absurdity! |  | | |
| Offside on 10:54 - Jun 7 with 2536 views | BigManBlue |
Well put. Way I see it, if this were cricket it would’ve been Umpires call and it would’ve stood.
I see how much of a mess VAR is and wonder if we’ve even looked at how other sports use it. Both codes of rugby, which are probably the closest comparisons, use video refereeing much more efficiently, quickly, and with only a fraction of the controversy. |  |
| |
| Offside on 10:55 - Jun 7 with 2532 views | monty_radio |
| Offside on 10:39 - Jun 7 by SouperJim |
I think if there is any overlap, they should be considered level and level is onside. The offside rule is intended to stop teams leaving a player up that they can hoof the ball to. Not disallow perfectly good goals scored by a well crafted move.
Either way, benefit of the doubt should be given to the attacker, VAR or no. If it's tight, let play continue. How did the match last night benefit from that decision? It's a total nonsense. |
Well, it benefited in that the better team won.
But seriously, I think that asking for a judgement as between an arm and a torso is not useful. Given that the offside rule now takes into account the idea of contributing to the play, which is a definite value-judgement, then, in situations such as last night's the question might be extended to cover whether, in practice, any advantage was gained by those millimetres.
It's not so daft because already the last-man ruling allows for such considerations as whether a covering defender could reasonably be adjudged to have got across, or not. |  |
| |
| Offside on 11:01 - Jun 7 with 2518 views | Wickets |
Yes i agree add to that a few years ago the powers that be where saying clear daylight ! |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Offside on 11:03 - Jun 7 with 2508 views | brazil1982 |
It's one of the reasons I gave up refereeing (at a very low level). Without Assistants, all these new rules are quite impossible to judge on your own. | | | |
| Offside on 11:05 - Jun 7 with 2499 views | Cotty |
VAR has not been used as originally intended. Was that offside really "clear and obvious"? No, he'd have to be a foot offside for that. The VAR bods are just a bit overzealous in getting involved, that's all. |  | | |
| Offside on 11:15 - Jun 7 with 2466 views | SouperJim |
| Offside on 10:55 - Jun 7 by monty_radio |
Well, it benefited in that the better team won.
But seriously, I think that asking for a judgement as between an arm and a torso is not useful. Given that the offside rule now takes into account the idea of contributing to the play, which is a definite value-judgement, then, in situations such as last night's the question might be extended to cover whether, in practice, any advantage was gained by those millimetres.
It's not so daft because already the last-man ruling allows for such considerations as whether a covering defender could reasonably be adjudged to have got across, or not. |
Goals change games, better team is subjective. If we hadn't been chasing the game, there is a fair chance we wouldn't have made the same mistakes at the back which gave away the game.
4 goals last night, 3 as a result of avoidable defensive errors. I'd rather see goals scored through good attacking play, one of those was chalked off and the game was poorer for it, regardless of your allegiance.
I agree with the rest of your post though, spot on. | |
| |
| Offside on 11:19 - Jun 7 with 2461 views | ElephantintheRoom |
VAR is a Pandora's Box in that just about every law in football subjective and qualified by 'in the referee's opinion'. The only way to take back control is to restore the authority of the referee to allow him to overule an over-zealous VAR call (or better still remove it altogether). Football depends on luck and injustice for its appeal. The ulitmate VAR absurdity (for now) was in the Portugal v Switzerland game the previous night which is well worth a look. Portugal thought their correct penalty appeal was being VARRED, Ronaldo was ready to take the penalty - and VAR gave a penalty to Switzerland for an offence nobody noticed. | |
| |
| Offside on 11:42 - Jun 7 with 2408 views | Ftnfwest |
as you say in this instance its 2 moving objects that are not necessarily 100% proving that it's offside because the absolute instant the ball is played isn't 100% accurate. Goal line tech is different as one 'object', the goal line, is static |  | | |
| Offside on 11:59 - Jun 7 with 2377 views | Wickets |
Food for thought,as PL likes to play out from the back. 3 of the 4 goals conceded last night where a direct result of teams doing just that . What was the Shankley quote i often use , Its not about the long ball or the short ball but the correct ball ! | | | |
| Offside on 12:07 - Jun 7 with 2372 views | SouperJim |
| Offside on 11:59 - Jun 7 by Wickets |
Food for thought,as PL likes to play out from the back. 3 of the 4 goals conceded last night where a direct result of teams doing just that . What was the Shankley quote i often use , Its not about the long ball or the short ball but the correct ball ! |
Hopefully our midfield can be more dominant than England's was and allow us to play out from the back without so much risk. On paper we have a midfield embarrassment of riches for League One. | |
| |
| Offside on 15:48 - Jun 7 with 2292 views | Wickets |
| Offside on 12:07 - Jun 7 by SouperJim |
Hopefully our midfield can be more dominant than England's was and allow us to play out from the back without so much risk. On paper we have a midfield embarrassment of riches for League One. |
I'm not against it but if a team does it constantly it becomes easier to counter and be made to breakdown my message is mix it up . Much the same as playing passing football yes we all love to see pretty passing movements but the odd ball over the top that brings a goal or just keeps defenders quessing still of value . | | | |
| Offside on 16:21 - Jun 7 with 2269 views | rickw |
| Offside on 10:39 - Jun 7 by SouperJim |
I think if there is any overlap, they should be considered level and level is onside. The offside rule is intended to stop teams leaving a player up that they can hoof the ball to. Not disallow perfectly good goals scored by a well crafted move.
Either way, benefit of the doubt should be given to the attacker, VAR or no. If it's tight, let play continue. How did the match last night benefit from that decision? It's a total nonsense. |
If you apply any overlap rule then the opposite will be possible - just a toe overlapping therefore the player is onside.
I would keep the rules the same, but give the VAR officials 30 seconds max, if they can't confirm the player is offside after 30 seconds then it's called level and the game continues |  |
| |
| Offside on 16:27 - Jun 7 with 2256 views | captainfantastic |
'I see there are a couple of VAR threads, but there is a wider problem with the rule for me. Can you be offside by an eyelash? '
Yes - You've got to draw the line somewhere.
'Our goal being chalked off last night was a travesty.'
How was it a travesty? It was offside according to the offside rules. It probably would have been given offside without VAR.
I believe VAR is good for black and white decisions - which offside is |  |
| |
| Offside on 16:34 - Jun 7 with 2240 views | aeldun |
| Offside on 10:54 - Jun 7 by BigManBlue |
Well put. Way I see it, if this were cricket it would’ve been Umpires call and it would’ve stood.
I see how much of a mess VAR is and wonder if we’ve even looked at how other sports use it. Both codes of rugby, which are probably the closest comparisons, use video refereeing much more efficiently, quickly, and with only a fraction of the controversy. |
One crucial distinction between football and these other three sports which use VAR much more sensibly is that football is the only one shrouded in secrecy.
The microphones are open in rugby and cricket, and you not only know what issue an umpire is asking clarification on but the video ref is audible as well.
Last night's decision was farcical, which is why it would have been particularly proper to have heard the exchange between the ref and video ref. | | | |
| Offside on 16:50 - Jun 7 with 2219 views | Blue_Moses |
| Offside on 10:34 - Jun 7 by Marshalls_Mullet |
Agreed.
If VAR is to stay, then there needs to be some tolerance built in, and its something that needs to be able to be judged by the human eye. A player cant judge their movement to the mm.
The rule needs to be more generous. Maybe allowing a margin of error.
If last nights disallowed goal is the future, I cant see me watching much more football. |
I switched it off as soon as it was disallowed, doubt I will bother watching any Premiership games next season. | | | |
| Offside on 16:54 - Jun 7 with 2213 views | Darth_Koont |
| Offside on 10:24 - Jun 7 by itfcjoe |
I think the rule is any part of the body you can score with - i.e. not an arm.
But this point you've made sums it up:
"VAR tries to apply a perfect system using imperfect measurements"
Football rules/laws aren't written in black and white - it's not cricket where the ball has to hit the leg in line with the stumps or not pitch outside the leg stump, or rugby where a forward pass is literally a forward pass.
The rules are subjective in a lot of areas, even something as 'simple' as offisde. Was there really any advantage gained by being 2mm ahead? He had the run on him anyway |
Actually, you can legally pass the ball forward in rugby. It has to come out of your hand backwards or just behind flat but if you're running at full tilt then the ball might still be moving forward over the pitch.
But I can't see a machine being used to resolve that with all the variables involved. |  |
| |
| Offside on 17:01 - Jun 7 with 2206 views | strikalite |
| Offside on 16:50 - Jun 7 by Blue_Moses |
I switched it off as soon as it was disallowed, doubt I will bother watching any Premiership games next season. |
No point in celebrating a goal now knowing in the back of your mind that fecking VAR can reverse it... |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
