VAR (PL introduction 2019)

[SWP's back]

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

How absolutely convenient for you.

Edit. I’ve seen you comment since regarding the flag (or lack there of).

 

[aguero93:20]

There would be no one left at PiGMOB

There'd be nobody left of the current batch but we'd have a bunch of better refs, the umpires in cricket have made far less incorrect decisions since reviews came in as there's a clear incentive to improve.

 

[SWP's back]

The whole point of VAR was that it would be used when there’s an obvious mistake.
Therefore the offside should have stayed with the linesman, as it wasn’t obvious.

So you saw the linesman flag before Kane was taken out?

 

[Neville Kneville]

You do realise I was joking with the 1.12cm as a reference to a recent game!

No.

But fair enough.

 

[Henkeman]

Yes, so you give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker as has always been intended to be the case and was before the linesmen decided it was better to call offside and be wrong than to call onside and be wrong.

Unless there's any evidence that they are calling more onsides offside than the other way around, there's absolutely no reason to assume that they aren't giving the benefit of the doubt to attackers. It's still going to be the case that what you might consider obviously onside or offside is a question of a fraction of a second in either direction. The idea that they can only give clear and obvious offsides is a fantasy, the game is too fast for that to happen. They either give what they think is offside or they don't.

 

[Neville Kneville]

No, but the umpires are more often proved right than wrong and if an umpire is regularly being overruled, they lose their job.

They get a lot wrong & now have stopped giving a lot of decisions such as no ball or a tight caught behind, preferring to use the cameras, & the cameras are sometimes unable to 'prove' a catch was taken cleanly, even though it's almost certain it was, so guys who are 'out' get to stay 'in'.

 

[Neville Kneville]

Yes, so you give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker as has always been intended to be the case and was before the linesmen decided it was better to call offside and be wrong than to call onside and be wrong.

You should not have 'benefit of the doubt' on an electronic line decision.

You should either have an almost perfect decision or no technology & 'benefit of the doubt'.

 

[aguero93:20]

Unless there's any evidence that they are calling more onsides offside than the other way around, there's absolutely no reason to assume that they aren't giving the benefit of the doubt to attackers. It's still going to be the case that what you might consider obviously onside or offside is a question of a fraction of a second in either direction. The idea that they can only give clear and obvious offsides is a fantasy, the game is too fast for that to happen. They either give what they think is offside or they don't.

Why do you need stats? They get less grief for disallowing legitimate goals than they do for allowing offside ones. We get debates about whether someone's bloody shoulder is offside as if they're going to run onto a through ball and throw themselves on the ground like a porpoise using their shoulder to knock the ball past the keeper. Attackers are supposed to get the benefit of the doubt and they don't.

 

[aguero93:20]

You should not have 'benefit of the doubt' on an electronic line decision.

You should either have an almost perfect decision or no technology & 'benefit of the doubt'.

When we have the camera system perfect and we get the exact moment the pass is played straight along the line fair enough. Anything else and the call should be onside if it's not beyond reasonable doubt that they're off. But it needs to be a VAR call as it's obviously well beyond the linesmen. They can stat pad with correctly called throw ins and goal kicks/corners all they want, they're guessing with the offside decisions and guessing 'safe'.

 

[Henkeman]

Why do you need stats? They get less grief for disallowing legitimate goals than they do for allowing offside ones. We get debates about whether someone's bloody shoulder is offside as if they're going to run onto a through ball and throw themselves on the ground like a porpoise using their shoulder to knock the ball past the keeper. Attackers are supposed to get the benefit of the doubt and they don't.

Because you're making the claim that they are supposed to give the attacker the benefit of the doubt. The implication is that they don't, so I'm asking what evidence there is for that - you can't just assert it as though it's universal truth.

Once again, when it comes to whether someone's shoulder is offside, they aren't basing it on that, they are basing it on what they see, and a freeze frame of a shoulder ahead of play looks entirely different one frame later or one frame before. You're not taking the linesman's decision, you're taking the replay of the linesman's decision.

 

[citytilllidie]

So last night i thought Kane was maybe a fraction offside yet we don't really get a great angle of it.

I thought there was a nailed on pen early in the second half when i think it may have been Rudiger cleaned out someone but no one made a fuss of it.

Rudiger when flying in double footed on somebody,

The whole point of VAR was that it would be used when there’s an obvious mistake.
Therefore the offside should have stayed with the linesman, as it wasn’t obvious.

That's what I thought, clear and obvious mistake.

So, liner puts his flag up, Offside.
Why let Kane carry on and do his swan dive?

But no, we have this VAR.

Oliver: ''Darren, you sure he's offside?''
Cann: ''Looked like it to me, Mike''.
Oliver: ''Jon, can you check, Is that a clear and obvious mistake by Darren?''
Moss: '' Welllll, no......aaaaand yes''
Cann: '' 'kin 'ell Jon, you taking the piss?''
Oliver: ''Hurry up Jon, the camera's are on me''
Moss: ''Listen, it's too close to call, but I think his feet are on side, can't check about the rest of him, angles are crap''
Cann: ''Told you''
Oliver: ''FFS, most of him onside then?''
Moss: 'Yeah, go for it''
Oliver: ''Okay, so penalty?''
Moss: ''What?''
Oliver: ''Did the keeper take Kane out?''
Moss: '' Dunno, these blinking buttons. Taking ages this, fuck it yeah''
Cann: ''Pair of Cnuts, don't include me in this''

 

[aguero93:20]

Because you're making the claim that they are supposed to give the attacker the benefit of the doubt. The implication is that they don't, so I'm asking what evidence there is for that - you can't just assert it as though it's universal truth.

Once again, when it comes to whether someone's shoulder is offside, they aren't basing it on that, they are basing it on what they see, and a freeze frame of a shoulder ahead of play looks entirely different one frame later or one frame before. You're not taking the linesman's decision, you're taking the replay of the linesman's decision.

I'm not making any claim mate, it's the official position yet we frequently see linesmen out of position calling offside or flagging someone's middle finger nail as offside so they're obviously not doing it.

The shoulder debate is frequently used to defend a linesman taking a stab on the dark and guessing wrongly when they don't have a clue. Which is why I brought it up. "I don't know Martin, I think he might be just off there". That's not giving the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Neville Kneville]

When we have the camera system perfect and we get the exact moment the pass is played straight along the line fair enough. Anything else and the call should be onside if it's not beyond reasonable doubt that they're off. But it needs to be a VAR call as it's obviously well beyond the linesmen. They can stat pad with correctly called throw ins and goal kicks/corners all they want, they're guessing with the offside decisions and guessing 'safe'.

The lino would likely have called Kane, as correctly offside. As the lino wouldn't even have looked at feet, he would have looked at Kane's body.

But the whole point of having technology, is for it to be right, not just using it for fun.

The lino btw, was in a perfect position.

 

[Henkeman]

I'm not making any claim mate, it's the official position yet we frequently see linesmen out of position calling offside or flagging someone's middle finger nail as offside so they're obviously not doing it.

The shoulder debate is frequently used to defend a linesman taking a stab on the dark and guessing wrongly when they don't have a clue. Which is why I brought it up. "I don't know Martin, I think he might be just off there". That's not giving the benefit of the doubt.

No, they aren't "obviously not doing it" at all. To repeat, it's extremely fast and you seem to be under the impression that something that can vary by a couple of yards in a fraction of a second is remotely possible to decide the closeness of. It just isn't, it's not humanly possible. The only time it can be is if something is two yards onside or two yards offside. Anything closer than that is a tiny, tiny, fraction of a second. Now, if you want a system whereby they don't put the flag up unless a player is at least a couple of yards offside, that's fine, but if not, it's simply not reasonable to assume they aren't giving the benefit of the doubt.

 

[aguero93:20]

The lino would likely have called Kane, as correctly offside. As the lino wouldn't even have looked at feet, he would have looked at Kane's body.

But the whole point of having technology, is for it to be right, not just using it for fun.

You've decided he was off. It's not clear, he still looks on to me and that's after the ball has been played.

 

[waspish]

It’ll take a full season of Var for it to be all ironed out theyll be mistakes but mainly the big decisions will be corrected.

 

[aguero93:20]

No, they aren't "obviously not doing it" at all. To repeat, it's extremely fast and you seem to be under the impression that something that can vary by a couple of yards in a fraction of a second is remotely possible to decide the closeness of. It just isn't, it's not humanly possible. The only time it can be is if something is two yards onside or two yards offside. Anything closer than that is a tiny, tiny, fraction of a second. Now, if you want a system whereby they don't put the flag up unless a player is at least a couple of yards offside, that's fine, but if not, it's simply not reasonable to assume they aren't giving the benefit of the doubt.

That was the original intention of the law mate, that only clear and obvious offsides were called. The rule was brought in to stop strikers goal hanging when the ball was in the other half, not to penalize strikers for having a millimetre of shoulder past the second last defender.

 

[Neville Kneville]

You've decided he was off. It's not clear, he still looks on to me and that's after the ball has been played.

Well you must be pissed if you think that's on.

Nowhere near.

But again, it's from an untrustworthy source.

 

[squirtyflower]

So you saw the linesman flag before Kane was taken out?

I don’t know, I was watching our under 21s in sunny Rochdale

 

[aguero93:20]

Well you must be pissed if you think that's on.

Nowhere near.

But again, it's from an untrustworthy source.

Yeah a magic marker line from a Chelsea coach, that bisects Kane 6 foot above the ground falling victim to perspective, with the ball having already travelled a yard from Alderwereild's foot. And he still looks on.