PWR - I'd happily scrap VAR entirely and go back to refs and linesmen making honest mistakes rather than a guy in a box having to watch numerous replays and still making the wrong decision.
Or if you keep VAR, the person making the review get one look at each camera angle and if it’s not clear and obvious the assistant referee’s decision or referee’s decision was wrong, the decision stands.
I thought the ball only went forward from the defenders touch, so therefore not offside (or is there now a stupid rule where the defenders touch has to be deliberate?). I have only seen the replay once tho so maybe need to watch again.
Yes, the defender has to deliberately touch the ball to play the opposing player onside. In this particular case, the only other considerations were (a) was Harry Kane offside by being ahead of the ball when his team mate last played the ball and (b) was the ball played forward in this case. I state "in this case" because offsides can be awarded in other cases where the ball has been played backwards.
Hope that is clear!
Hmmm not sure I like that rule. If the attacking team are intending to play the ball backwards, but the defending team through lack of awareness/poor defending/simply back luck end up forcing it forward then that shouldn’t be punished in the defending teams favour.
I assume,Gary, that your last remark refers to my statement that offside can be awarded under certain circumstances when the ball has been played backwards. Off the top of my head, I can think of two situations when that would arise:
1. An attacking player, seeing his colleague ahead of him and in an offside position, plays the ball backwards. From the backwards play, the ball strikes a defender, who has not attempted to play the ball and the ball rebounds to the most forward player who was in an offside position when his colleague first played it. That is offside.
2. An attacking player, seeing his colleague ahead of him and in an offside position, plays the ball backwards. The offside colleague runs back from his offside position and is the player who collects the ball. That is offside.
Never knew them two and I’m sure 95% of football fans wouldn’t either
Now that you have been enlightened, you will never criticise a referee again 😛😛
ps: the weight of a ball must be between 14-16 ounces at the start of play. The "start of play" remark refers to olden days when the leather casing would soak up rain and hugely increase the weight as the game went on!
@PeterGage Always good to get comments from people who actually know the laws of the game. Most commentators and pundits certainly don't let alone people on here. I think I used to but they have changed so many "interpretations" that I don't know.
Can I ask one question on this. The whole focus has been the header back across goal. However it looked to me as though Kane was offside when the initial cross came in. If that was the case (and I'm not sure) is he offside under current interpretations. Certainly would have been in old days or is he now not deemed active until it is headed back across.
Under the current interpretations, Kane was not deemed as actively involved when the ball was crossed initially to the far post.
We’ve been through this in all the major US sports. They all start as “clear and obvious” but end up looking for perfection. That results in some painfully long reviews. I’d go with a change to get it closer to the original intent. Add a time limit. If it can’t be resolved in that time, it wasn’t clear or obvious.
Just watched the clip having not seen it previously.
It’s one of the strangest offsides I’ve seen - purely because the Spurs player heading the ball back across is leaning backwards to make contact with the ball. Kane is behind the player but ahead of the ball.
But by the letter of the law, it is offside and the decision is correct from that perspective. I imagine it only took so long to give the decision not because it was close (it was actually pretty clear cut once the lines are drawn), but because the humans in the VAR room almost couldn’t believe it themselves.
To me, it’s not clear what the solution is when fans are wanting elite level sport refereed based on gut instinct.
I don’t know how you change the law by building a ‘tolerance’ level that is acceptable because ultimately the line has to be drawn somewhere, whether it’s an inch or five inches.
What if someone is 5.1 inches offside next season, does that get let go too because it was close to the tolerance level?
Umpires call and players challenge works in cricket and tennis because it’s based on a decision review system in sports that has a stop-start flow between deliveries and points, not mention clearly defined physical stumps to hit or court lines to stay within that don’t move. Offsides in football are based on abstract lines of defence that are constantly in motion, with less obvious breaks in play where reviews to the VAR could be requested.
I find it interesting that many of those who know the laws inside out are unwilling to debate the merits or weaknesses of them. I started this thread, not by asking whether the decision was right technically, but whether offside should be that close and whether the law should be revised. It might help for instance if more refs feedback how the laws could be improved.
Ok, let me make a point or two. When I lined on the National League (many, many years ago), that league was the place where a number of proposed changes were trialled.
1. I personally would like to see a trial whereby offside was totally scrapped. I am led to believe it was first introduced to deter "goalhanging" by centre forwards. I dont know what the impact of such a move would have on the game from a spectating point of view, but it would certainly stretch the game.
2. Even with all the controversy over the current offside interpretation I certainly wouldn't want to go back to the interpretation of the past whereby anybody in an offside position is automatically penalised. I am old enough to remember the negative impact of the constant stopping of the game.
3. Whatever one's views on VAR re offside, it has certainly highlighted the huge degree of difficulty facing assistant referees in really tight offside situations.
I remember QPR coming to the Valley in the 80s and they played an offside trap where they sprinted forwards as a unit catching teams out. It was awful to watch and completely spoiled the game as a spectacle and my thoughts were then, we have lost sight of what the law is there for. I always thought it was to deter goal hanging too, but even if not as ridiculous as QPR's tactics, a defender trying to play a player offside goes against that surely as the player seeking to gain the advantage is the defender rather than the attacker.
As for having a figure like say 5.1 inches, yes it is still a computer determined fraction but I think that is acceptable. The important part is that there would be leeway and then the computer element would be less clinical or at least seem that way to fans. That would be true whether it is 3.1, 4.1 or 5.1. Fans are after all why the game is there.
I thought the ball only went forward from the defenders touch, so therefore not offside (or is there now a stupid rule where the defenders touch has to be deliberate?). I have only seen the replay once tho so maybe need to watch again.
Yes, the defender has to deliberately touch the ball to play the opposing player onside. In this particular case, the only other considerations were (a) was Harry Kane offside by being ahead of the ball when his team mate last played the ball and (b) was the ball played forward in this case. I state "in this case" because offsides can be awarded in other cases where the ball has been played backwards.
Hope that is clear!
Hmmm not sure I like that rule. If the attacking team are intending to play the ball backwards, but the defending team through lack of awareness/poor defending/simply back luck end up forcing it forward then that shouldn’t be punished in the defending teams favour.
I assume,Gary, that your last remark refers to my statement that offside can be awarded under certain circumstances when the ball has been played backwards. Off the top of my head, I can think of two situations when that would arise:
1. An attacking player, seeing his colleague ahead of him and in an offside position, plays the ball backwards. From the backwards play, the ball strikes a defender, who has not attempted to play the ball and the ball rebounds to the most forward player who was in an offside position when his colleague first played it. That is offside.
2. An attacking player, seeing his colleague ahead of him and in an offside position, plays the ball backwards. The offside colleague runs back from his offside position and is the player who collects the ball. That is offside.
Never knew them two and I’m sure 95% of football fans wouldn’t either
Now that you have been enlightened, you will never criticise a referee again 😛😛
ps: the weight of a ball must be between 14-16 ounces at the start of play. The "start of play" remark refers to olden days when the leather casing would soak up rain and hugely increase the weight as the game went on!
@PeterGage Always good to get comments from people who actually know the laws of the game. Most commentators and pundits certainly don't let alone people on here. I think I used to but they have changed so many "interpretations" that I don't know.
Can I ask one question on this. The whole focus has been the header back across goal. However it looked to me as though Kane was offside when the initial cross came in. If that was the case (and I'm not sure) is he offside under current interpretations. Certainly would have been in old days or is he now not deemed active until it is headed back across.
Under the current interpretations, Kane was not deemed as actively involved when the ball was crossed initially to the far post.
Thanks, although I find that ridiculously unfair to defenders
I think I’d like to see a couple of things tried. 1. Scrap offside completely 2. Go old school - flag up as soon as ball kicked for any player; none of this faffing around with phases and interfering, BUT… only applies in 18yd area. Obviously tricky for the lino to see the far line, however what about: add two more assistants each running half a touchline with var only involved if the two linos disagree on an offside?
- add a new line across the pitch, say, 30 yards from the goal; - the ball must precede an attacking player into the area between the offside line and the goal line; - if the defence clear the ball out of this area then all attacking players have to retreat behind the line before the ball can be played forward of the line (like in ice hockey).
Advantages:
- sit an official pitchside, along the line, to adjudicate on the offsides leaving the regular lino to trundle up and down to concentrate on fouls, throw-ins etc without having to worry whether they're in the perfect position to judge tight offsides; - a fixed camera position, looking along this line, should make VAR easier as there's no angle to worry about; - it'll mean that defences can't play a high line to catch players offside as their position will have no impact on the decision; - once the ball is in the attacking third defenders willl have to concentrate on defending players or space, not trying to force an offside; - it could open up a bit more space as attackers would have a bit more freedom with their positioning e.g. overlapping runs, without having to check their runs to avoid straying offside.
I agree that to be ruled offside literally by a hair's breadth is extremely annoying (to put it mildly) for the penalised team, their management and fans However, to play devil's advocate, it matters not if the player is offside by a yard or a micron, technology and science have been brought in to be the final arbitrator of the rule, therefore offside by a whisker is offside however seemingly ridiculous the outcome. All the time that VAR is accepted as the final referee these incidents will happen over and over again
No sympathy whatsoever. The hierarchy wanted this. The likes of Liverpool,City and United wanted everything scrutinised to the nth degree because small bad decisions by referees were costing them big.. Lord giveth..and then he take it away. .hahahaha
It seems perfectly clear to me that the VAR referees should be given 15 seconds to review the incident, and if they haven't made a firm conclusion by that point, it can't be a clear and obvious error - thus the on-field decision stands.
It seems perfectly clear to me that the VAR referees should be given 15 seconds to review the incident, and if they haven't made a firm conclusion by that point, it can't be a clear and obvious error - thus the on-field decision stands.
I recall when the National League (or whatever it was called then) trialled no offside from free kicks. It resulted in most of the attacking team and all of the defending team jostling for a position on the goalline. Unsurprisingly it was scrapped.
I have stopped watching any game involving VAR - just can’t be bothered with it. Will stick to watching lower league football - which works out well as a CAFC fan.
It seems perfectly clear to me that the VAR referees should be given 15 seconds to review the incident, and if they haven't made a firm conclusion by that point, it can't be a clear and obvious error - thus the on-field decision stands.
Just make the VAR people extra "linesmen" - advising the ref if they see something he's missed.
I recall when the National League (or whatever it was called then) trialled no offside from free kicks. It resulted in most of the attacking team and all of the defending team jostling for a position on the goalline. Unsurprisingly it was scrapped.
The league was call the Conference League. The trial (one season, very late 80s or early 90s) trialled a system whereby a line was drawn across the width of the pitch on the 18 yard line; offside only applied in the goalside of the 18 yard box. I took part in this scheme, in my role as linesman in that league at that time.
I recall when the National League (or whatever it was called then) trialled no offside from free kicks. It resulted in most of the attacking team and all of the defending team jostling for a position on the goalline. Unsurprisingly it was scrapped.
The league was call the Conference League. The trial (one season, very late 80s or early 90s) trialled a system whereby a line was drawn across the width of the pitch on the 18 yard line; offside only applied in the goalside of the 18 yard box. I took part in this scheme, in my role as linesman in that league at that time.
I recall when the National League (or whatever it was called then) trialled no offside from free kicks. It resulted in most of the attacking team and all of the defending team jostling for a position on the goalline. Unsurprisingly it was scrapped.
The league was call the Conference League. The trial (one season, very late 80s or early 90s) trialled a system whereby a line was drawn across the width of the pitch on the 18 yard line; offside only applied in the goalside of the 18 yard box. I took part in this scheme, in my role as linesman in that league at that time.
How did you think it worked?
I genuinely dont recall. I do know that it was disappointing at the time that we received no feedback at the end of the trial; nor did the experiment continue beyond that one year period.
I agree that to be ruled offside literally by a hair's breadth is extremely annoying (to put it mildly) for the penalised team, their management and fans However, to play devil's advocate, it matters not if the player is offside by a yard or a micron, technology and science have been brought in to be the final arbitrator of the rule, therefore offside by a whisker is offside however seemingly ridiculous the outcome. All the time that VAR is accepted as the final referee these incidents will happen over and over again
No-one has ever been ruled offside by 'literally a hair's breadth'.
Comments
But by the letter of the law, it is offside and the decision is correct from that perspective. I imagine it only took so long to give the decision not because it was close (it was actually pretty clear cut once the lines are drawn), but because the humans in the VAR room almost couldn’t believe it themselves.
Umpires call and players challenge works in cricket and tennis because it’s based on a decision review system in sports that has a stop-start flow between deliveries and points, not mention clearly defined physical stumps to hit or court lines to stay within that don’t move. Offsides in football are based on abstract lines of defence that are constantly in motion, with less obvious breaks in play where reviews to the VAR could be requested.
1. I personally would like to see a trial whereby offside was totally scrapped. I am led to believe it was first introduced to deter "goalhanging" by centre forwards. I dont know what the impact of such a move would have on the game from a spectating point of view, but it would certainly stretch the game.
2. Even with all the controversy over the current offside interpretation I certainly wouldn't want to go back to the interpretation of the past whereby anybody in an offside position is automatically penalised. I am old enough to remember the negative impact of the constant stopping of the game.
3. Whatever one's views on VAR re offside, it has certainly highlighted the huge degree of difficulty facing assistant referees in really tight offside situations.
As for having a figure like say 5.1 inches, yes it is still a computer determined fraction but I think that is acceptable. The important part is that there would be leeway and then the computer element would be less clinical or at least seem that way to fans. That would be true whether it is 3.1, 4.1 or 5.1. Fans are after all why the game is there.
1. Scrap offside completely
2. Go old school - flag up as soon as ball kicked for any player; none of this faffing around with phases and interfering, BUT… only applies in 18yd area. Obviously tricky for the lino to see the far line, however what about: add two more assistants each running half a touchline with var only involved if the two linos disagree on an offside?
- add a new line across the pitch, say, 30 yards from the goal;
- the ball must precede an attacking player into the area between the offside line and the goal line;
- if the defence clear the ball out of this area then all attacking players have to retreat behind the line before the ball can be played forward of the line (like in ice hockey).
Advantages:
- sit an official pitchside, along the line, to adjudicate on the offsides leaving the regular lino to trundle up and down to concentrate on fouls, throw-ins etc without having to worry whether they're in the perfect position to judge tight offsides;
- a fixed camera position, looking along this line, should make VAR easier as there's no angle to worry about;
- it'll mean that defences can't play a high line to catch players offside as their position will have no impact on the decision;
- once the ball is in the attacking third defenders willl have to concentrate on defending players or space, not trying to force an offside;
- it could open up a bit more space as attackers would have a bit more freedom with their positioning e.g. overlapping runs, without having to check their runs to avoid straying offside.
Discuss ...
😉
However, to play devil's advocate, it matters not if the player is offside by a yard or a micron, technology and science have been brought in to be the final arbitrator of the rule, therefore offside by a whisker is offside however seemingly ridiculous the outcome. All the time that VAR is accepted as the final referee these incidents will happen over and over again
Lord giveth..and then he take it away.
.hahahaha