Var debate 2019/20

[Aytoun]

You need to ask?

Of course not, but Shirley that is last seasons narrative. We spent a great deal of time on Saturday agonisingly watching dean & co desperately trying to PROVE our goals were illegal. Indeed dean was touching his shoulder frantically for ages after the man in a van had projected a subjective downward lines. We then learned that any part of your body that can legally score a goal is the criteria for offside. OK look at the still on the last page & rashfords big head is in front.

Someone has said it was checked OK where is the downward line & any other necessary evidence ?

 

[OB1]

I held the view for some time now that the offside law needs amending; especially with the advent of VAR.

The whole point of the offside law was to prevent goal-hanging.

Goals like the one Gabby scored on Saturday and the one Sterling scored against Spurs did not involve City gaining any advantage from a player being fractionally offside. Both goals were instances of City getting the better of their opponents through good play and should not be getting chalked off.

Nothing to do with offside but that Wolves goal getting chalked off was ridiculous too. I fully support the idea that you should not be able to put the ball into the net with any part of your arm (below the shoulder) regardless of intent but that wasn't what happened; unlike the goal Wolves scored at home to us last season.

I still remain fundamentally opposed to VAR on the grounds that waiting to see if you can celebrate a goal is utter nonsense.

 

[Marvin]

Of course not, but Shirley that is last seasons narrative. We spent a great deal of time on Saturday agonisingly watching dean & co desperately trying to PROVE our goals were illegal. Indeed dean was touching his shoulder frantically for ages after the man in a van had projected a subjective downward lines. We then learned that any part of your body that can legally score a goal is the criteria for offside. OK look at the still on the last page & rashfords big head is in front.

Someone has said it was checked OK where is the downward line & any other necessary evidence ?

It is onside. I took that image quickly. Don't take it as definitive. I had problems working out when Pogba made the pass. When does it leave his foot, or when does he first strike it. VAR are apparently using when they first strike it, but you could argue they should not. It's actually mich easier to work out when a player's foor strikes the ball, than when the ball leaves the foot because of the relative velocity of foot and ball before during and after the act of kicking a ball.

I am pleased to hear that VAR and the rules of offside are to be reviewed. That is excellent. Of course the outcome is as yet unknown.

 

[OB1]

They really are trying their best to make the game fairer and better, the toys out the pram reaction after 1 weekend in which VAR was overall a success is frustrating.

The toys came out of the pram when Sterling's goal v Spurs was disallowed. They ain't getting back in any time soon.

 

[BlueHammer85]

The toys came out of the pram when Sterling's goal v Spurs was disallowed. They ain't getting back in any time soon.

but the 'old system' had far far more goals disallowed which they shouldn't have been

 

[Marvin]

I held the view for some time now that the offside law needs amending; especially with the advent of VAR.

The whole point of the offside law was to prevent goal-hanging.

Goals like the one Gabby scored on Saturday and the one Sterling scored against Spurs did not involve City gaining any advantage from a player being fractionally offside. Both goals were instances of City getting the better of their opponents through good play and should not be getting chalked off.

Nothing to do with offside but that Wolves goal getting chalked off was ridiculous too. I fully support the idea that you should not be able to put the ball into the net with any part of your arm (below the shoulder) regardless of intent but that wasn't what happened; unlike the goal Wolves scored at home to us last season.

I still remain fundamentally opposed to VAR on the grounds that waiting to see if you can celebrate a goal is utter nonsense.

Yes. It's all probably good entertainment if you're neutral, but if you're supporting one side or another it's crazy. Even if VAR does not get involved, every time we score now I look to the ref, and wait. Is he getting a message? I watched the game on BT Sport. I heard that celebrations of a glorious Sterling goal (the lob) were muted because many blues thought it would be ruled out because of VAR. Very sad. It damages enjoyment of fans at the game and introduces an added layer of complexity.

I am in favour of a VAR that works accurately and quickly. The sooner that happens the better. Probably 4-5 seasons off yet. This effort is premature.

 

[Marvin]

but the 'old system' had far far more goals disallowed which they shouldn't have been

This system is probably more accurate than a human in the moment, but if it's made 2 minutes later it's no good. Football is about instant reaction and feeling the ebb and flow of the game. Perhaps a little less than when the crowd moved like a metronome inline with the game but still our emotions and heads are still attuned to the game we just watch more as individuals now than when once part of a crowd. Still it messes it up totally if you celebrate a goal and then see it ruled out.

We got to some very very interesting moments last season eg City's goal that was ruled out in the last moment of the Champions League Q/F. Imagine if Spurs winner in the semi-final had fallen. It is only a matter of time before a high profile final descends into farce. Unfortunately those who are implementing this have invested too much in it to pull it now, but I am pretty confident that in time it will change. For a start technology will improve. And it is in football's interest to remain credible. There will be parts of FIFA who will hold their hands up in horror. It's already happening. VAR in its current form will not last. It fell on Day 1, but it's like the tree that falls in a forest with no one there to hear it. The ramifications will take time to work out.

 

[west didsblue]

Until they can get round the fact that at 25 camera frames per second, the margin of error can be up to about a foot, they need to think again about using it for millimetre margins.

Thinking about it, the margin of error is going to be proportional to the closing speed of the attacker and defender and it should not be impossible to allow for that error in the calculation.

 

[Jazzman]

There should be a range in which VAR will not judge offside or not. Sterling's goal was such a case. Move the spot on his shoulder 1 cm and he is no longer offside, use 1 picture frame earlier and he is no longer offside.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Of course not, but Shirley that is last seasons narrative. We spent a great deal of time on Saturday agonisingly watching dean & co desperately trying to PROVE our goals were illegal. Indeed dean was touching his shoulder frantically for ages after the man in a van had projected a subjective downward lines. We then learned that any part of your body that can legally score a goal is the criteria for offside. OK look at the still on the last page & rashfords big head is in front.

Someone has said it was checked OK where is the downward line & any other necessary evidence ?

ALL goals are VAR checked.

Not all goals will have offside calls. The Rashford goal wasn't close to being offside, therefore no lines were deemed necessary.