|
Post by o on Dec 28, 2019 23:43:54 GMT 1
So what do people on here make of VAR, and are they for it, or against it?
|
|
|
Post by smokeyb on Dec 29, 2019 0:42:41 GMT 1
I can't decide, can I take it to VAR?
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Dec 29, 2019 1:36:54 GMT 1
So what do people on here make of VAR, and are they for it, or against it? It's something that should make the game better but ultimately doesn't. It's amazing how many sports have managed to use it effectively (even stuffy old cricket) yet football hasn't found a way to make it work.
|
|
Tom
Member
*Of Royal Blood*
Posts: 15,419
|
Post by Tom on Dec 29, 2019 19:23:17 GMT 1
So what do people on here make of VAR, and are they for it, or against it? I was against it before it came in, and whilst I thought its use in the World Cup was ok, this season has showed that my initial gut feeling was correct (apart from goal line technology which I was happy to see brought in). Always thought video technology would slow the game down too much and an issue over decisions being subjective. Probably shows how bad its been that its been even worse than I imagined. The handball decisions are a matter of a change in the rules fair enough, but they've changed the rules about offside (linesmen can't tell if a player is a millimetre offside and previously if it was close you would give the advantage to the attacker - that isn't the case now), and they now seem to be re-refereeing the game, penalties (hasn't been consistency), overturning bookings (Son's challenge on the Everton player Gomes which actually wasn't the reason the injury happened which was changed from a yellow to a red, been at least one red card changed to a yellow too).
Not allowing the refs to look at the pitchside monitors like in the World Cup definitely doesn't help, but that isn't going to change this season. Goodness knows what i'd think if I was at a game which was influenced by VAR!
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on Dec 29, 2019 22:38:58 GMT 1
I'm very much for VAR but yesterday 3 goals were disallowed for offside where the player appeared to be level.
I think with the Norwich player his head was further forward and because you can play the ball with the head it counts and made him offside.
It has worked in overruling clearly incorrect decisions and that is what we wanted it for. It should be revised as to how it is used for marginal offside and how long they should take over such a decision.
Of course it never helps with the way players dive to gain penalties, and also deliberately put their bodies in front of players or run into trailing legs to throw themselves over not in the natural play of the ball.
|
|
frag
Member
*Paranoid Android*
I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's a bunny with a pancake on its head.
Posts: 25,082
|
Post by frag on Dec 31, 2019 11:12:35 GMT 1
The marginal offsides are really daft, and I think a large part of why people are getting sick of VAR.
It's also failed to get some key decisions right - for example, Jorginho should have been sent off before his equaliser last weekend, and Arsenal should have had at least three penalties early on against Brighton.
The lack of transparency is annoying - in rugby and cricket, it works great because there's a soft signal, and you can hear what the referees are talking about.
|
|
|
Post by o on Dec 31, 2019 11:39:42 GMT 1
I can't decide, can I take it to VAR? I expect that would go against you, but only after a 5 minute delay...
|
|
|
Post by o on Dec 31, 2019 11:43:53 GMT 1
So what do people on here make of VAR, and are they for it, or against it? It's something that should make the game better but ultimately doesn't. It's amazing how many sports have managed to use it effectively (even stuffy old cricket) yet football hasn't found a way to make it work. You know how cricket has the umpire's call, maybe that should be used in the offsides, ie a certain % to be offside, at the moment it's coming down to 0.3cm which is daft, the computer may be right, but the majority of fans dont want that! So you make it 5cms or 10cms, something that actually shows up. Souness suggested that only part of the attacker has to be onside, rather than offside, and that might get rid of these decisions, and lead to more goals? I've always thought that the attacking team should be given the benefit of the doubt? And I guess football with offside is more complicated than rugby and cricket. Saying that there have been some caught decisions in cricket that fans and players are not happy with, but it doesn't seem to be analysed quite so much as football is?
|
|
|
Post by o on Dec 31, 2019 11:46:09 GMT 1
It all sounded great in principle that offside goals that win games would no longer happen, but sadly when it comes down to millimetres, it all gets too technical? I'm glad my league doesn't have it, although if it could magic up a few goals I'd take it, and the 2nd penalty yesterday wasn't imo, but we were losing 1-0 and are so sh*te, it doesn't make any difference
|
|
|
Post by Robin on Jan 2, 2020 12:40:43 GMT 1
It just seems that all other sports, especially cricket, have introduced it in a way that hasn't detracted from the game and in some ways enhanced it, but football has failed to accommodate VAR successfully. Villa fans were reluctant to celebrate their goals after the first one had been ridiculously scrubbed out and that is taking away from all the excitement of the game. As said, it should be down to referees call if it's close and if it can't be determined within less than 1 minute then the original decision should stand.
|
|
|
Post by Razzle Dazzle on Jan 2, 2020 13:53:14 GMT 1
Offside as a rule was brought in stop the attacker from scoring due to having an unfair advantage
Is there an advantage to being 0.3cm offside because you have size 13 boots instead of size 9? or your armpit is offside when your 40 yards from goal! No
Technically they get the calls right but its so clinical and cold, they are so focussed on getting the call technically right to the exact mm nobody has thought is it really offside?
The offside rule changes all the time, from giving the striker the advantage if its a close call to needing clear daylight between the defender and attacker to be called offside, for me there needs to be a change in the offside rules or VAR will never work, something like if any part of the attackers body is level with the defender he is onside, if there is 1mm daylight between them they are offside.
I can see what they are trying to do by trying to get offsides 100% right but when the officials are ignoring offside calls that happened the phase before a goal because that happened too long ago but still lead to a goal or not using the pitch side screens and not getting penalty calls, red cards or any other area of the game right, I don't see the point
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on Jan 2, 2020 17:44:13 GMT 1
Charlton Athletic takeover has finally happened.
Let's hope for a decent budget in the transfer window and increase the size of the squad. That will also mean that when players do return from injury they don't have to be thrown straight back in.
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on Jan 2, 2020 17:47:25 GMT 1
Offside as a rule was brought in stop the attacker from scoring due to having an unfair advantage Is there an advantage to being 0.3cm offside because you have size 13 boots instead of size 9? or your armpit is offside when your 40 yards from goal! No Technically they get the calls right but its so clinical and cold, they are so focussed on getting the call technically right to the exact mm nobody has thought is it really offside? The offside rule changes all the time, from giving the striker the advantage if its a close call to needing clear daylight between the defender and attacker to be called offside, for me there needs to be a change in the offside rules or VAR will never work, something like if any part of the attackers body is level with the defender he is onside, if there is 1mm daylight between them they are offside. I can see what they are trying to do by trying to get offsides 100% right but when the officials are ignoring offside calls that happened the phase before a goal because that happened too long ago but still lead to a goal or not using the pitch side screens and not getting penalty calls, red cards or any other area of the game right, I don't see the point Incorrect corners or free kicks can lead to goals, but as VAR only deals with the goal incident itself and not something that led to the team scoring it gaining possession, there will always be some bad decisions like that, however I think it's better than what we had before, if they can just change the offside rule which they could do. I previously suggested that if the forward has any part of his body onside then he should be onside, and now given Graeme Souness came up wtih that suggestion too, maybe others in football will want it and it will come in. Attackers as it is judge where to stand to be onside and defenders similar where to be to make the opponent offside. So presently attackers try to be level but will soon adjust to be slightly behind the defenders, but then will have less chance of out-running them to the ball. Still we will see how it goes.
|
|
|
Post by o on Jan 2, 2020 20:57:26 GMT 1
My suggestion for the offside thing that I came up with last night, was that you're only offside if that part of the body which is offside touched the ball for the assist or goal. ie you score with your head, but your foot is offside, goal stands, armpit offside but you assist with your foot, goal stands, etc. etc. you get the gist.
|
|
|
Post by Razzle Dazzle on Jan 2, 2020 21:17:45 GMT 1
What if your big toe is offside but your score with your little toe
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Jan 2, 2020 21:38:28 GMT 1
I don't see how the idea of saying that the whole of the body must be offside for it to count would help. There will still be marginal decisions. Besides, just think how far ahead of the last defender Peter Crouch's front foot could be with him still being onside.
Yes, I know he's retired but he's still the obvious example of a very tall player.
|
|
|
Post by smokeyb on Jan 2, 2020 22:07:40 GMT 1
I don't see how the idea of saying that the whole of the body must be offside for it to count would help. There will still be marginal decisions. Besides, just think how far ahead of the last defender Peter Crouch's front foot could be with him still being onside. Yes, I know he's retired but he's still the obvious example of a very tall player. Crouch would probably miss anyway, so we wouldn't need VAR
|
|
|
Post by Earl Purple on Jan 3, 2020 9:46:47 GMT 1
So the most sensible option really to judge by the position of the player's foot that is nearest to the goal-line.
And if part of that foot is onside he is onside.
The foot, not the knee. Not the head, arm or shoulder. It's called "foot" ball.
|
|
|
Post by suedehead on Jan 3, 2020 12:20:18 GMT 1
So the most sensible option really to judge by the position of the player's foot that is nearest to the goal-line. And if part of that foot is onside he is onside. The foot, not the knee. Not the head, arm or shoulder. It's called "foot" ball. If we’re going to allow the officials to make the decision (which is the case in almost every match played anyway), I’d want to know whether it would be more difficult to judge offside with that change. A number of the suggestions seem to be ignoring the fact that VAR isn’t an option at most levels.
|
|
|
Post by Razzle Dazzle on Jan 3, 2020 12:36:13 GMT 1
The clear daylight offside rule operated all throughout the football league for over a decade because it's easy to judge if a blue shirt is ahead of a red shirt for example.
If you go down the leagues they dont use the same offside rules as VAR are using, they cant measure to the exact mm and check 100 replays so just use the old rule of if the player is clearly off they flag, if he looks on the flag stays down, level it's a judgement call
|
|