The problem is they're trying to use it for a level of detail that it can't cope with. So they'll need to come up with a principle for the operation for offsides. The one earlier that if too close to call the benefit goes with the attacker is reasonable enough, and everyone would know where they stood with it. Or to stay with the linesman's decision, that would also work. But trying to do it on the basis of a big toe being offside assuming the freeze frame is correct when it showed the ball being passed is a recipe for argument.
VAR (PL introduction 2019)
- Thread starter greasedupdeafguy
- Start date
The problem is they're trying to use it for a level of detail that it can't cope with. So they'll need to come up with a principle for the operation for offsides. The one earlier that if too close to call the benefit goes with the attacker is reasonable enough, and everyone would know where they stood with it. Or to stay with the linesman's decision, that would also work. But trying to do it on the basis of a big toe being offside assuming the freeze frame is correct when it showed the ball being passed is a recipe for argument.
Neville Kneville
Well-Known Member
He absolutely doesn't, from either angle.
It's almost impossible for him not to be offside, with his foot level with a bloke going the opposite way.
Not sure the intention behind a law in 1863 that was entirely different to now is especially relevant.
Assuming the freeze frame is at the correct moment the ball left the foot...
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
Ball being struck, Azpilicueta has his right foot behind him as he's turning back towards goal to deal with the long ball, Kane side on with the foot closest to the Tottenham goal onside, looking backwards not leaning towards goal.
Ball has already been struck, Kane beginning to run, slight possibility that a small part of shoulder or head might be offside but doesn't matter as this is after the ball has been struck.
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
The same law that has been restated several times since with the official position being that any benefit of doubt should be given to the attacking player. The attacking player, not the defending one.
And once again, there is no reason whatever to state that they don't. None. Assertion isn't fact.
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
The fact that they flag instances in which they can't possibly be sure is proof that they don't.
No, it's proof that in an incredibly fast changing set of circumstances, where they are trying to point one eye in one direction and one in another, that a fraction of a second can make a difference in a couple of yards either way, that they make mistakes sometimes.
aguero93:20
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 90,256
- Location
- Hunting Cats.
- Team supported
- Some gobshites in day-glo green and black.
They'd not make those 'mistakes' in that manner if they gave the benefit of doubt where it's meant to go, as the 'mistakes' would be leaning heavily toward offside players being called on and fuck all onside players would be called off.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,478
As far as I know he didn’t flag so no decision was over turned. He mentioned to the ref he thought it was close and VAR had a look and couldn’t give it offside as it’s not a clear offside (mainly as it’s onside).
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,478
Which is why VAR is such a good idea as it can show if something is clearly offside or not and when it’s not clearly offside, such as yesterday then it works perfectly.
If it's clear, it's fine. The problem with the really tight ones is that it often isn't - a question of when you decide it has left the boot, midframe differences and so on. It's not a criticism of VAR per se, there are limitations. I'm just saying that there needs to be a policy in place when it's debatable. Your example of the one yesterday is a good one, and if the policy was "go with the attacker", no problem.
Why is it taking so long for PL refs to adopt VAR, their learning process has now been going on for over two years. The World Cup took a decision on VAR and implemented it flawlessly compared to complete disaster here.
Sarri is right to complain - linesman should not have raised the flag as it disrupts the play besides the fact cameras were not in place for correct angle.
Sarri is right to complain - linesman should not have raised the flag as it disrupts the play besides the fact cameras were not in place for correct angle.
BlueRockape
Well-Known Member
It's not really about VAR for me it's about who is making the decisions if it's bent it's bent VAR isn't going to change it
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,478
He didn’t did he?
mancity2012_eamo
Well-Known Member
That's the crux of it for me too.
VAR is a necessity as far as I'm concerned, but the current implementation of it although only on trial, will do nothing to allay the cynicism or distrust I and many have of the powers that be behind it.
I'm no expert in Rugby Union rules, but as far as I see it works well there mainly, I believe, because it is transparent.
We would accept maybe a 1% error rate in these sort of decisions, if we could see what the VAR monitors are showing and hear what is being said by the officials.
The lack of transparency fuels the agenda/corruption debate.
It has been reported that he did, so Sarri has a valid reason to claim that defense might have stopped tracking back if they saw the flag.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,478
By whom?
Whenever VAR comes up, this gets stated, but there's a LOT of unhappiness in rugby about the TMO as it operates. The slo-mo replays making tackles look worse than they are, the going back to find something that would never normally be given to rule out a try, the time it takes to come to a decision and so on. It's only ever football fans who keep saying that it's somehow ideal, it drives a lot of rugby fans to distraction. It's not opposition to it existing, that debate has long gone, but to its implementation and use - absolutely it remains controversial.