We need the same VAR rules that the yanks have adopted. They ask whoever is on VAR duty if they can tell if it’s offside without the lines being drawn, they have 10 seconds to see if they can. If it’s too close to call, like yesterday, the goal stands.Created to avoid Goal hanging and now it's only used to offside Traps and millimeters Offside Decision.
It effectively robs attackers Instincts and prevents Goals. Was furious to see how Liverpool always tried to offside trap and our attackers had to adjust.
Horrible Horrible Rule atm
I defy anyone to say specifically when either the ball is kicked or it has left his foot. It is not humanly possible to tell without scientific equipment. It is a ‘best guess’ and therefore easily manipulated. If you produced something for a scientific journal using the equipment the FA have it would be laughed at and yet it is used to decide games which can have implications costing, literally, millions of pounds. I just don’t know how they are allowed to get away with it.I don’t think the rule is stupid, but it’s implementation with VAR definitely needs improving. I also think it’s being manipulated to get the outcome that the refs/PL favour.
For me, it’s all about the frame they use for the offside image. It’s needs to be consistent but it rarely is.
Some use the frame when the ball first hits the attackers foot when playing a pass and others use the frame when the ball has just left the foot. It might not seem like a big difference but it is the difference between a goal like Sterling’s yesterday.
If it was up to me, the image when the ball first hits the attackers foot is when the pass has started. That frame should be used and will give the benefit to the attacker like it should be.
Jesus himself was hesitant to celebrate at first. You have footballers playing with some kind of uncertainty at the back of their mind.Its not the rule its VAR. It spoils football. I didn't truly celebrate Jesus's goal and didn't celebrate sterling's at all. Just get fucking rid already.
A single frame can be as much as 20cm difference if the attacker is running at full speed."Apparently" (I have no evidence, it's just what we've been told, just like I have no evidence for VAR "checking all contentious events") they do now use thicker lines for the attackers compared to the defenders, but the defender's line is just ONE PIXEL wide compared to FIVE PIXELS for the attacker.
What is the real life distance of ONE PIXEL?
So....
1 - a guess-timated arbitrary point in time is chosen when the ball is played
(very, very rarely the FIRST point of contact as it should be)
2 - a guess-timated vertical line for the furthest back part of the defender
3 - a guess-timated vertical line for the furthest forward part of the attaker
...and they then conclude that they can measure and confidently pronounce that an attacker is definitively offside by 2cm. The whole thing is an absolute farce, it's been introduced far too quickly without any proper statistical analysis completed, and its "down to the mm" implementation by PiGMoL is laughable.
As others have said, where's the benefit of the doubt for the attacker?
The software they use CAN do the job and the frame rate IS sufficient, but the VAR gives the impression that the most important part of the calculation is rushed (When the ball was played) and then attempt to be too accurate.
The real problem, however, is that PiGMoL don't want it to work definitively (ala goal-line tech) they want it manipulatable so that they can create "drama"
I liked the idea of daylight between the defender and attacker. Having it as is I think gives too much advantage to the defenders when they play for the rags and dippers
Lower frame rates would be better. 50 per second is open to manipulation. A lower frame rate would give the attacker a better chance. Hearing them discuss decisions would take away any accusations of bias.The 'margin of error' can be applied subjectively which leaves it wide open to corruption, manipulation and unconscious bias.
VAR for offside decisions is NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE. Unless they improve the technology (more cameras, higher frame rates and tighter calibration of the timing signals) then it never will be fit for purpose, unless of course that purpose is corrupt intent.
That is the thicker lines debate. Whatever your parameters for offside are, there will always be marginal calls.Would Var work if it only intervened if it was a clear and obvious mistake by the linesman?
I think you could be onto something there, Trig.The 'margin of error' can be applied subjectively which leaves it wide open to corruption, manipulation and unconscious bias.
VAR for offside decisions is NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE. Unless they improve the technology (more cameras, higher frame rates and tighter calibration of the timing signals) then it never will be fit for purpose, unless of course that purpose is corrupt intent.
Nice try!I've said this before, but I still think it's a workable solution to the VAR shit-show we witness week in week out.
Keep the offside rule as it is.
Make the defender's line MUCH thicker (10 pixels (?) 20 pixels (?)) (starting at the point on the defender that is nearest the goal and stretching back towards the goal)
Make the attacker's line thinner (1 pixel (?))
Attackers line is nearer the goal, offside.
Overlap, onside.
Frame rate, speed of attacker, margin of error, benefit of doubt; all now sorted! Job done!
I've solved the VAR issue.