VAR - are you a fan?

Callumcafc · 1:26PM

Jints said:

ForeverAddickted said:

Jints said:

I like Wenger's idea of changing the offside rule so there has to be daylight between attacker and defender for it to be offside.

The only thing its going to change is there will be more advantage to the Attacker
You'll still be left with awkwardly tight calls for the officials to make.

I think tight calls would be far fewer. It's much easier to ascertain if there is a clear gap between defender and attacker than whether a shoulder is half an inch in front of a knee or precisely level with it.

The line for offside has to be somewhere. You think it would be fewer but there’d still be ones that are millimetres between the back of someone’s ankle and the defender’s toes.

You’re just taking the marginal decisions and putting them somewhere else. It doesn’t solve any problems with the current system.

Callumcafc · 1:28PM

Gravesend_Addick said:

On balance it was probably the right decision on this occasion BUT.....

I hate the way VAR is used in this country. VAR was brought in to eliminate clear & obvious errors. If it takes more than 5 minutes & various camera angles to make a decision then it's not a clear & obvious error.

Scrap it

But in hindsight, it was clearly and obviously the right result. Just because, in this instance the technology was used incompetently, isn’t a reason to scrap the entire system itself.

Callumcafc · 1:32PM

SporadicAddick said:

Callumcafc said:

He was standing in an offside position and deemed to be interfering with the defender who is unable to make an attempt to block the shot due to the attacker’s presence.

I said in the other thread that I probably wouldn’t have given it but upon further reflection, it’s pretty objectively offside by the letter of the law…

I don’t think it was a referee error to not have given it in real time - it was a very complex and unusual situation. But by the letter of the laws as they are written, it was offside.

If we want to do everything by the letter of the law:-

- 50% of throw ins would be awarded to the opposition as a result of a foul throw.
- 100% of corners would lead to either a penalty or a free kick.
- There would need to be a digital 8 second countdown for when the goalkeeper has control of the ball (at the moment refs aren't counting from the exact moment of control, and we can't guarantee that they are counting exact seconds).
- We will need a tape measure at every free kick to ensure full and accurate 10 yard distance at the point the free kick is taken. We will also need the ref to confirm that the kick is being taken from the correct spot, possibly using satellite technology.

If we are using the exact letter of the law, let's at least do it properly.

I do like a good slippery slope argument. At the moment the governing bodies have a pretty black and white definition for what is and isn’t within VAR’s scope.

I’m stunned people are saying the weekend of FA Cup action went off without a problem when Chelsea clearly got a penalty against us they shouldn’t have.

Half of me wishes that penalty had actually meant something in the context of the tie because it’s absence probably would’ve changed a few minds.

I’m looking forward to the day it’s scrapped in the Premier League and then brought back within two months because people remember what it was like before.

cafcsinger · 2:19PM

How nice was it to have the FA Cup 3rd round weekend with no VAR? Football is not a perfect science, its ok to get the odd decision wrong - it usually evens itself out over the season anyway. Not to mention VAR still gets decisions wrong, and more importantly can take 5 minutes or longer to reach one!

Jints · 2:54PM

Callumcafc said:

Jints said:

ForeverAddickted said:

Jints said:

I like Wenger's idea of changing the offside rule so there has to be daylight between attacker and defender for it to be offside.

The only thing its going to change is there will be more advantage to the Attacker
You'll still be left with awkwardly tight calls for the officials to make.

I think tight calls would be far fewer. It's much easier to ascertain if there is a clear gap between defender and attacker than whether a shoulder is half an inch in front of a knee or precisely level with it.

The line for offside has to be somewhere. You think it would be fewer but there’d still be ones that are millimetres between the back of someone’s ankle and the defender’s toes.

You’re just taking the marginal decisions and putting them somewhere else. It doesn’t solve any problems with the current system.

I missed "clear" part of "clear daylight" in Wenger's proposal. It means offside could only be called if it was obviously offside. In legal terms, instead of offside being determined on the balance of probabilities there would have to be no reasonable doubt that there was offside.

VAR might still be necessary but would be quick

Callumcafc · 3:00PM

Jints said:

Callumcafc said:

Jints said:

ForeverAddickted said:

Jints said:

I like Wenger's idea of changing the offside rule so there has to be daylight between attacker and defender for it to be offside.

The only thing its going to change is there will be more advantage to the Attacker
You'll still be left with awkwardly tight calls for the officials to make.

I think tight calls would be far fewer. It's much easier to ascertain if there is a clear gap between defender and attacker than whether a shoulder is half an inch in front of a knee or precisely level with it.

The line for offside has to be somewhere. You think it would be fewer but there’d still be ones that are millimetres between the back of someone’s ankle and the defender’s toes.

You’re just taking the marginal decisions and putting them somewhere else. It doesn’t solve any problems with the current system.

I missed "clear" part of "clear daylight" in Wenger's proposal. It means offside could only be called if it was obviously offside. In legal terms, instead of offside being determined on the balance of probabilities there would have to be no reasonable doubt that there was offside.

VAR might still be necessary but would be quick

You’re still dealing with an imaginary line though, just in a different place?

Oakster2 · 3:05PM

mayoboy said:

Try not to watch PL teams but after the VAR decision (Newcastle v Man city) last night I immediately switched over.

It cannot take 10 minutes to make that decision...it's killing the game.

I haven’t watched a Premier League game - or any game with VAR since it was introduced. Not interested - it’s different sport. I had no idea who any of the Chelsea players were!!

Chippycafc · 3:06PM

SporadicAddick said:

Callumcafc said:

He was standing in an offside position and deemed to be interfering with the defender who is unable to make an attempt to block the shot due to the attacker’s presence.

I said in the other thread that I probably wouldn’t have given it but upon further reflection, it’s pretty objectively offside by the letter of the law…

I don’t think it was a referee error to not have given it in real time - it was a very complex and unusual situation. But by the letter of the laws as they are written, it was offside.

If we want to do everything by the letter of the law:-

- 50% of throw ins would be awarded to the opposition as a result of a foul throw.
- 100% of corners would lead to either a penalty or a free kick.
- There would need to be a digital 8 second countdown for when the goalkeeper has control of the ball (at the moment refs aren't counting from the exact moment of control, and we can't guarantee that they are counting exact seconds).
- We will need a tape measure at every free kick to ensure full and accurate 10 yard distance at the point the free kick is taken. We will also need the ref to confirm that the kick is being taken from the correct spot, possibly using satellite technology.

If we are using the exact letter of the law, let's at least do it properly.

Add another... The amount of times the keeper steps out of his box to punt the ball up field whilst still having the ball in his hands. Yet the lino watches this.. Nothing ever given.

Oakster2 · 3:09PM

Chippycafc said:

SporadicAddick said:

Callumcafc said:

He was standing in an offside position and deemed to be interfering with the defender who is unable to make an attempt to block the shot due to the attacker’s presence.

I said in the other thread that I probably wouldn’t have given it but upon further reflection, it’s pretty objectively offside by the letter of the law…

I don’t think it was a referee error to not have given it in real time - it was a very complex and unusual situation. But by the letter of the laws as they are written, it was offside.

If we want to do everything by the letter of the law:-

- 50% of throw ins would be awarded to the opposition as a result of a foul throw.
- 100% of corners would lead to either a penalty or a free kick.
- There would need to be a digital 8 second countdown for when the goalkeeper has control of the ball (at the moment refs aren't counting from the exact moment of control, and we can't guarantee that they are counting exact seconds).
- We will need a tape measure at every free kick to ensure full and accurate 10 yard distance at the point the free kick is taken. We will also need the ref to confirm that the kick is being taken from the correct spot, possibly using satellite technology.

If we are using the exact letter of the law, let's at least do it properly.

Add another... The amount of times the keeper steps out of his box to punt the ball up field whilst still having the ball in his hands. Yet the lino watches this.. Nothing ever given.

I think the solution to VAR could be to have a team of lawyers on the bench who could be brought on to litigate the VAR Official’s decision - obviously their arguments could be broadcast to the crowd. The final decision could be put to a jury made up of Jimmy Hill, Bob Wilson, Brian Clough, Saint & Greavsie and other prominent experts.

SporadicAddick · 3:17PM

Callumcafc said:

Gravesend_Addick said:

On balance it was probably the right decision on this occasion BUT.....

I hate the way VAR is used in this country. VAR was brought in to eliminate clear & obvious errors. If it takes more than 5 minutes & various camera angles to make a decision then it's not a clear & obvious error.

Scrap it

But in hindsight, it was clearly and obviously the right result. Just because, in this instance the technology was used incompetently, isn’t a reason to scrap the entire system itself.

It was a nonsense decision - "subjective", and therefore the antithesis of "clear and obvious"?

SporadicAddick · 3:18PM

Oakster2 said:

Chippycafc said:

SporadicAddick said:

Callumcafc said:

He was standing in an offside position and deemed to be interfering with the defender who is unable to make an attempt to block the shot due to the attacker’s presence.

I said in the other thread that I probably wouldn’t have given it but upon further reflection, it’s pretty objectively offside by the letter of the law…

I don’t think it was a referee error to not have given it in real time - it was a very complex and unusual situation. But by the letter of the laws as they are written, it was offside.

If we want to do everything by the letter of the law:-

- 50% of throw ins would be awarded to the opposition as a result of a foul throw.
- 100% of corners would lead to either a penalty or a free kick.
- There would need to be a digital 8 second countdown for when the goalkeeper has control of the ball (at the moment refs aren't counting from the exact moment of control, and we can't guarantee that they are counting exact seconds).
- We will need a tape measure at every free kick to ensure full and accurate 10 yard distance at the point the free kick is taken. We will also need the ref to confirm that the kick is being taken from the correct spot, possibly using satellite technology.

If we are using the exact letter of the law, let's at least do it properly.

Add another... The amount of times the keeper steps out of his box to punt the ball up field whilst still having the ball in his hands. Yet the lino watches this.. Nothing ever given.

I think the solution to VAR could be to have a team of lawyers on the bench who could be brought on to litigate the VAR Official’s decision - obviously their arguments could be broadcast to the crowd. The final decision could be put to a jury made up of Jimmy Hill, Bob Wilson, Brian Clough, Saint & Greavsie and other prominent experts.

That'll be Bob Wilson then.

VAR - are you a fan?

Comments

Categories