VAR (PL introduction 2019)

stonerblue said:
Indeed !

I've been against VAR from the off and fuck all has changed my mind. In fact, the dubious decisions i've witnessed only strengthen my initial trepidation. For this attitude i've been called a 'dinosaur', told i'm an 'old man who doesn't like change' and labelled a 'luddite'.

Sky obviously love the idea of VAR given the constant 'positiveness' of the commentators whenever it's in use. Last night we heard;
'It's a great system, just needs tweaking' THEY'VE BEEN SAYING THAT SINCE DAY ONE AND WE'RE NOW 2 YEARS DOWN THE LINE.
'It'll cut out wrong decisions.' WRONG.
'It's only for red cards, pens and mistaken identity.' YEAH RIGHT.
'It'll make the game error free.' IT'S A GAME. NOT ROCKET SCIENCE OR MATHS.
Overall it will improve the game.' BOLLOX
'But there's so much money at stake.' CORRECT. AND THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S BEEN SO FUCKING SUCCESSFUL FOR 100 YEARS WITHOUT VAR.'
Click to expand...
VAR in the CL 1/4 final last year and we don’t go out. I couldn’t be happier it’s coming in.
 
mat said:


Keith Hackett claiming PiGMOL are not using VAR as per the official rules. Very interesting thread this.
Click to expand...

As already mentioned on this thread, the problem is going to be with the officials' interpretation of what they see/are told when it comes to VAR. And the problem of how far we go back in a move is always going to be a contentious one. But if VAR is not even getting off-sides right (via officials' interpretations) then what is the point of it?
 
SWP's back said:
Couldn’t disagree more. Just been watching it on SSN. It does.

And that’s without the fact that the attacker is supposedly meant to be given the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...

No, it absolutely doesn't & if there is any evidence from that ridiculous, unworkable angle, it suggests 'almost' perfectly that Kane must be offside.

His foot appears to be level, with the defender.

Unless the defender is limbo dancing, then Kane, leaning forward MUST be offside.

Even giving him 'the benefit of the doubt' there is no sufficient reason to be certain the lino is wrong.

Anyone arguing this, is being unreasonable in order to be 'right'.

It is NOT CLEAR the lino is wrong, by any stretch of the imagination & not how v.a.r. is supposed to be implemented.
 
Bert Trautmann's Parachute said:
As already mentioned on this thread, the problem is going to be with the officials' interpretation of what they see/are told when it comes to VAR. And the problem of how far we go back in a move is always going to be a contentious one. But if VAR is not even getting off-sides right (via officials' interpretations) then what is the point of it?
Click to expand...

There HAS to be side on camera angles for offside.

The Chelsea one is much closer to where the camera should be.

They must have several in order for it to work.

Put them in the roof.
 
Neville Kneville said:
There HAS to be side on camera angles for offside.

The Chelsea one is much closer to where the camera should be.

They must have several in order for it to work.

Put them in the roof.
Click to expand...
You put them on the roof, I'm having my dinner.

I'm hoping that eventually they'll get it sorted out to everyone's satisfaction, it just seems it's going to be a much longer trek than it needs to be (thanks to the authorities).
 
Neville Kneville said:
No, it absolutely doesn't & if there is any evidence from that ridiculous, unworkable angle, it suggests 'almost' perfectly that Kane must be offside.

His foot appears to be level, with the defender.

Unless the defender is limbo dancing, then Kane, leaning forward MUST be offside.

Even giving him 'the benefit of the doubt' there is no sufficient reason to be certain the lino is wrong.

Anyone arguing this, is being unreasonable in order to be 'right'.

It is NOT CLEAR the lino is wrong, by any stretch of the imagination & not how v.a.r. is supposed to be implemented.
Click to expand...

Close decisions on offside are never going to be clear. At what point does the ball leave a foot? Is it midframe? When it's really, really tight it is going to be guesswork. Now it can be argued that it might be more accurate than the linesman, but it seems somewhat arbitrary to overrule when it's that close. It probably needs an equivalent to "umpire's call", but it won't happen that way.

It's just the nature of a close offside more than anything.
 
Last nights decision took some time but it got it right. Had VARS not been in use we would all be arguing about why it should be used. Crazy.

It's all gone a bit brexit, anything could happen now with the way they implement it.
 
Henkeman said:
Close decisions on offside are never going to be clear. At what point does the ball leave a foot? Is it midframe? When it's really, really tight it is going to be guesswork. Now it can be argued that it might be more accurate than the linesman, but it seems somewhat arbitrary to overrule when it's that close. It probably needs an equivalent to "umpire's call", but it won't happen that way.

It's just the nature of a close offside more than anything.
Click to expand...
If it’s to close to call, I my mind the decision should go in favour of the attacking side.
 
andyhinch said:
If it’s to close to call, I my mind the decision should go in favour of the attacking side.
Click to expand...

That's also fair as a policy they can stick to. What isn't going to work is a pretence we can be absolutely sure it is offside or onside when it's really tight, so there needs to be some kind of principle set.
 
i said it before VAR will not last a season in the premier league unless the rules are changed to make clear the offside rules ?? its changed so many times over the years from clear day light between players to now being level and any part of the body you can score with and don't get me start on interfering or 2nd ball (can of worms)

how about a new rule for offside and make it clear and easy to work with like (bin it) its a defences tool for defenders and modern day football fans want goals and star players scoring goals (would you miss it)
 
aguero93:20 said:
Which has always been the official position and is why the linesman was wrong to flag.
Click to expand...

This is a potential can of worms though. With offsides the thing that surprises me more than anything is how often they are right, not how often they are wrong. It's such a hard thing to do to look at the ball, look at the line, all at the same time. I can't say the linesman was wrong to flag when it's so tight, it's not fair on them.

Now we could move to a system where the linesman only puts his flag up when its clear and obvious - that's always possible. And you'll have 20 VAR decisions a game. But the fundamental point is that most offsides ARE quite close, because a player is trying to time their run properly.
 
aguero93:20 said:
Which has always been the official position and is why the linesman was wrong to flag.
Click to expand...

I have to apologise to you & SWP that it's now not certain that he did flag, he did definitely stop following play.

If he didn't flag, then the ludicrous offside camera would mean that it becomes impossible for the v.a.r. box to overrule it & give offside, as there is no hope in hell anyone can judge from that angle.

In the rag game, he did flag imnediately, but they chose to overrule him & give a pen for the subsequent contact, after the ball had gone, anyhow
 
Henkeman said:
This is a potential can of worms though. With offsides the thing that surprises me more than anything is how often they are right, not how often they are wrong. It's such a hard thing to do to look at the ball, look at the line, all at the same time. I can't say the linesman was wrong to flag when it's so tight, it's not fair on them.

Now we could move to a system where the linesman only puts his flag up when its clear and obvious - that's always possible. And you'll have 20 VAR decisions a game. But the fundamental point is that most offsides ARE quite close, because a player is trying to time their run properly.
Click to expand...
They're not supposed to flag unless they're 100% sure it's offside, which they can't be in the tightest calls. So I'd quite happily say that he's in the wrong. The rule has moved from giving the attacker the benefit to giving the defender the benefit somehow even though that's against what every governing body in the sport says it should be.
In the interests of letting the game flow it needs to go back to only flagging when they'd bet their careers on it being offside and then querying with VAR if the attack ends with a goal, penalty or red card.
 
aguero93:20 said:
Which has always been the official position and is why the linesman was wrong to flag.
Click to expand...
The two still shots we have seen are, in my opinion, taken at slightly different times - a fraction of a fraction of a second difference, and we can see how further forward Kane seems to have got in that time. I think he was ever so slightly offside in the official shot (about 1.12cm?) because of the way his body was angled, but that was too close to call. A linesman has one chance to make his decision and won't see exactly when the ball leaves the foot (possibly using sound instead of vision) so giving Kane further time to move forward. I think the linesman got it right. People are too harsh . You'd need Marty Feldman eyes to see everything happen at the same time.

The players need to fecking listen to what they're told (play to the whistle) and stop whinging.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top