VAR thread 2022/23

[i went to rotherham]

No it wouldn’t.

we need to revert to some bloody football fundamentals.
Offside is not a science. It never was and until we have the technology to track the very instant a ball leaves the foot and at the same time monitor exactly the position of up to 20 other players body parts it never bloody will be.

ok let them draw lines for Var purposes but then simply apply a consistent margin for error. I’m sure I heard that the accuracy of Var is currently 2/3 cm. It’s easy then. Apply a 5cm margin of error across the game. To get back to clear daylight. Then last night is easy. Note also what the supporters will see/hear.

Goal scored
Goal check
referee; ok any reason why I can’t award this goal
Var, it’s tight for offside on no 9.
referee; let me see the pictures (clips shown with lines drawn in Stadium) not a flashing glimpse, the image is kept there during the decision making process.

Referee; ok wind back the picture and let me see it in slow mo.
that happens and is shown on screen.
Referee; stop the image there and reapply the offside lines.
Var does it and that image is shown on screen
Referee; ok, I see no ‘clear daylight’ that would show an offside situation, do you agree? (Lines are touching, a scenario we have seen time again).
Var; yes. We can confirm the lines are less than 5cm apart
Referee; ok. No 9 not offside. Is there anything else that I should look at?
var; No.
Referee; ok. Goal given.

Can you see the difference?
The technology and VAR team are there to help the referee
the referee remains the decision maker even where he overturns an initial decision
The Tv audience and match going crowd remain involved in the process as they can see and hear( if they choose to tune in on headphones mor match going fans).

So So much better. If you don’t think this would work, go watch rugby.

I may be wrong on this (happy to be corrected) but my understanding is that the decisive moment is when the foot makes contact with the ball and NOT when the ball leaves the foot.
I find it unbelievable that they do not, in the first instance, view the incident (and show it), frame by frame to determine the EXACT moment the foot makes contact with the ball. Once established, then move on to draw the lines across the pitch to determine players positions and wether offside or not.
The difference between foot making contact with ball, and ball leaving foot, could make a huge difference in an attacking players position, as they move so fast.
If we're stuck with VAR it must be improved to determine exact moment the foot makes contact with the ball !!

 

[Saddleworth2]

I may be wrong on this (happy to be corrected) but my understanding is that the decisive moment is when the foot makes contact with the ball and NOT when the ball leaves the foot.
I find it unbelievable that they do not, in the first instance, view the incident (and show it), frame by frame to determine the EXACT moment the foot makes contact with the ball. Once established, then move on to draw the lines across the pitch to determine players positions and wether offside or not.
The difference between foot making contact with ball, and ball leaving foot, could make a huge difference in an attacking players position, as they move so fast.
If we're stuck with VAR it must be improved to determine exact moment the foot makes contact with the ball !!

The technology is not capable just now of doing that hence their must be a margin of error built in to the decision making. No point in claiming someone is offside by a toenail when it isn’t possible to measure that.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

The Spurs game serves to highlight the really simple thing they could do to make VAR not only work but be palatable. If they just made the law say: “If ANY part of the attacker is onside, it’s onside” there would be absolutely NO controversy.

 

[blueinsa]

The Spurs game serves to highlight the really simple thing they could do to make VAR not only work but be palatable. If they just made the law say: “If ANY part of the attacker is onside, it’s onside” there would be absolutely NO controversy.

This.

Last foot only should be the benchmark imo.

 

[Phil1]

It’s not stopped controversial decisions, it’s not stopped people bickering and it’s not stopped accusations from all sides of wrongdoings.
It has stopped the flow of the game, it has stopped the spontaneous joy that the game is meant to provide and it has stopped referees from taking responsibility.

It’s not, IMO helped the game and the decisions being made are negligible at best as to wherever it’s beneficial to football as a whole.

Goal line technology is the only thing needed right now. VAR is just a very expensive experiment doomed to failure whilst it’s reliant on humans to carry it out.

 

[kaz7]

Should be feet on or offside , it is taking into account other bits of the body that causes confusion, i think

 

[Cricket Blue]

We are going to get to a stage where fans don't cheer goals in the future
It's ruined the game

 

[Stephen230]

The Spurs game serves to highlight the really simple thing they could do to make VAR not only work but be palatable. If they just made the law say: “If ANY part of the attacker is onside, it’s onside” there would be absolutely NO controversy.

There’d be exactly the same amount of controversy. It would just be controversy taking place a few inches further up the pitch.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

The technology is not capable just now of doing that hence their must be a margin of error built in to the decision making. No point in claiming someone is offside by a toenail when it isn’t possible to measure that.

Sterling goal v Dipper's was offside by a toenail and there is some debate as to whether VAR was even working at all during that game.

 

[Stephen230]

Should be feet on or offside , it is taking into account other bits of the body that causes confusion, i think

It would certainly make it easier to adjudicate but the whole point of a VAR is to increase the number of correct decisions, not to change the laws of the game to make them easier to apply.