Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
VAR - are you a fan?
Comments
-
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.Jints said:
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.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 AttackerYou'll still be left with awkwardly tight calls for the officials to make.
You’re just taking the marginal decisions and putting them somewhere else. It doesn’t solve any problems with the current system.0 -
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.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 it0 -
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.SporadicAddick said:
If we want to do everything by the letter of the law:-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.
- 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’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.
2 -
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!3
-
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.Callumcafc said:
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.Jints said:
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.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 AttackerYou'll still be left with awkwardly tight calls for the officials to make.
You’re just taking the marginal decisions and putting them somewhere else. It doesn’t solve any problems with the current system.
VAR might still be necessary but would be quick0 -
You’re still dealing with an imaginary line though, just in a different place?Jints said:
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.Callumcafc said:
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.Jints said:
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.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 AttackerYou'll still be left with awkwardly tight calls for the officials to make.
You’re just taking the marginal decisions and putting them somewhere else. It doesn’t solve any problems with the current system.
VAR might still be necessary but would be quick
1 -
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!!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.
0 -
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.SporadicAddick said:
If we want to do everything by the letter of the law:-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.
- 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.0 -
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.Chippycafc said:
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.SporadicAddick said:
If we want to do everything by the letter of the law:-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.
- 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.0 -
It was a nonsense decision - "subjective", and therefore the antithesis of "clear and obvious"?Callumcafc said:
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.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 it0 -
Sponsored links:
-
That'll be Bob Wilson then.Oakster2 said:
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.Chippycafc said:
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.SporadicAddick said:
If we want to do everything by the letter of the law:-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.
- 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.2 -
Hating it now.Referee’s decision is final although I could live with a Captains Challenge - one per half - as happens in rugby1
-
I'd say if a decision cannot be made in 10 seconds, it's neither clear or obvious.
The more camera angles and slow mo required may make the incident then look obvious, but there must be a real world consideration. I also believe the VAR challenge should be shown on the big screen with referee Comms like in Rugby.3 -
It was clear that Haaland was standing in an offside position. It was clear that Haaland impeded the defender’s ability to attempt to play the ball. It should’ve been wrapped up in 30 seconds.SporadicAddick said:
It was a nonsense decision - "subjective", and therefore the antithesis of "clear and obvious"?Callumcafc said:
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.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 it1 -
All players seem wear gps trackers for stats, use theses along with the chip in the ball for goal line technology to determine offside.
1 -
I have no problem with VAR, my problem is with the people interpreting the facts it provides. VAR did not decide if the Newcastle goal should stand or not, it gave the facts and the referee made the decision.
With the original proposal "cleared and obvious mistakes" the control room should have a maximum of 60 seconds to interpret the situation. As with Cricket and Tennis that's where the decision should be made and ended. The guys in the control box are all qualified referees and 90% of the time the referee on the pitch follows their lead, so at this point cut him out and get on with the game.1 -
I reckon we’d barely see any offsides at all if that were the rule - defenders would be so waryForeverAddickted 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 AttackerYou'll still be left with awkwardly tight calls for the officials to make.0
