You can't be offside if you are behind the ball when it's played to you. As Cloughie said, if a player isn't interfering with play, what's he doing on the pitch. Interfering/not interfering is far more subjective thing, though I guess there's more excuse for the bloke who's on the floor.
Forest vs PGMOL
- Thread starter LynxRed
- Start date
You can't be offside if you are behind the ball when it's played to you. As Cloughie said, if a player isn't interfering with play, what's he doing on the pitch. Interfering/not interfering is far more subjective thing, though I guess there's more excuse for the bloke who's on the floor.
Barry Goldie
Vital Squad Member
How was your dance from AC chap?
Does anyone know who the VAR was in this clip?
TMFwanstead
Vital Reserves Team
My god what has happened to football, This is destroying the game. Just give the bloody goal they were virtually bloody level.
BlackGold
Vital 1st Team Regular
With the technology currently to hand, and the "implementation" governed by the PGMOL, they weren't level.
If Forest were Spurs, in this example, would you have been happy if "they were virtually level" logic been applied, as opposed to gauging the proper outcome?
forestfire_59
Vital 1st Team Regular
When you can get a pint and eat a 3 course meal in between an offside and VARs adjudication of that offside, then it’s time to ask the question whether VAR is in the spirit of the game. The real question is how are these split frame decisions clear and obvious.
weejockmcplop
Vital Champions League
The thing is I can see a world where VAR is implemented well and makes the game much, much better.
I have zero confidence that anyone in England is capable of that though.
I have zero confidence that anyone in England is capable of that though.
Pope John XXIII
Vital Football Legend
Yes.
Like with the Coventry one at the weekend, a toe offers no advantage whatsoever. I would not feel aggreived over a toe.
However, the issue is then where do you draw a line? It is either hard and universal, or subjective and down to the VAR. And I don't trust the VAR to be subjective anymore.
TMFwanstead
Vital Reserves Team
I would have been happy yes. There was nothing in it and would have settled for the original decision of the officials. That was a pantomime that took for ever to come to a decision . I have watched loads of championship games this year with no VAR and I cannot remember a scandalous decision. The game has flowed, fans have been able to celebrate goals and no team to my knowledge are saying they are the victims of the referees.
The Coventry offside goal was scandalous and ruined a great FA cup moment.
BlackGold
Vital 1st Team Regular
Why use technology and not make the outcome categoric - a millimetre (not sure if the lines can run to that degree, but you get the point) offside is offside - and rulings defined by the tech.
However, VAR are hamstrung by the tech itself.
For example, why are the cameras not UHD at the very minimum, given i saw content via tradeshows 15 years ago of 8K outputs.
Why do they use the camera speed governed for broadcast, i.e. 25 frames-per-second
Surely High Framerate is necessary for such minusule calls.
The money is there to implement a more forensic system, but the tech VAR have available is League One standard at best.
Subjective VAR would be even more of a catastrophe, IMO...might as well sack it all off, and allow the definitive and irrefutable call to be made by the referee and 2 linos.
Personally, i'd get rid of VAR entirely.
Wonder what the NFFC Twitter mod would complain of, if a similar thing happened to the penalty calls vs Everton without VAR...lol
Last edited:
TMFwanstead
Vital Reserves Team
For me get rid of Var. However, if not just use it for obvious mistakes. Tell the officials not to forensically examine every decision. When a goal is scored don’t look at it unless you think an obvious error from the on field officials has occurred.
Example. The Coventry disallowed goal. The pass to the winger initially looked offside. Take a look with one line and if he is obviously offside disallow it but he wasn’t obviously offside then immediately say it’s a goal
in_the_top_one
Vital Football Legend
How much is "obviously" offside?
Yes, I would have been happy. He was interfering in my book. Line of sight. He was also off. I would of been disappointed by the penalty given for the tackle as he got to the ball at same time if not before opposition. Would of been unhappy with red.
in_the_top_one
Vital Football Legend
You've missed my point. If what you and Clough said was true, then if a winger runs to the byline (but stays on the pitch), cuts the ball back for a tap in, then the winger would likely be offside. He has interfered in a way, I guess, because he just crossed the ball, but he isn't interfering with the shot. So you have to have some sort of 'not interfering' rule to account for that kind of scenario.
Barry Goldie
Vital Squad Member
Some of which is because they think they have the fall back of VAR to dig them out of the big mistakes so they let it slide.
Then VAR rarely seem to have the balls to overule the onfield decision and more and more extreme decisions seem to be falling foul of this I think.
LynxRed
Vital Squad Member
Having watched that video, and seeing how easily a decision can go either way based on which frame, precisely where they draw the lines, and how low quality the VAR picture is (for some reason?!) I think more benefit of those variables needs to go to the attacker.
At the very least they should use the most favourable frame for the attacker and probably build in a computerised "margin of error" where if the offside lines are touching it's given in favour of the attacking team.
At the very least they should use the most favourable frame for the attacker and probably build in a computerised "margin of error" where if the offside lines are touching it's given in favour of the attacking team.
I understand what you're saying , but the winger with the ball has never been offside under any of the rules, similarly anyone behind the ball who receives it. The difference now is if the player receiving the ball passes it again, and the winger is in an offside position, under the old rules the winger would now be offside , whereas under the new rules they now have to assess if he's interfering with play. Similarly a player standing offside anywhere (say) in the box would have been offside. Now there has to be an assessment of is he interfering with play/in the keepers eyeline.
The Wolves decision (against West Ham if I remember correctly) where the player was standing right in front of the keeper, the Manager complained it was a goal, and all three MOTD pundits said it was, when the bloke is clearly inches away from the keeper, blocking his view.
Basha73
Vital Football Legend
This is my issue. ‘Clear and obvious’ is the killer.
If you keep it then you have to say any review taking more than x seconds and the decision stands. That still leaves the ridiculous scenario of two identical situations and two different decisions which is just insane.
For me get rid of clear and obvious and make every decision review based on is it or isn’t it.
Pope John XXIII
Vital Football Legend
I think we can easily get bogged down on the decision making of VAR, which has been bad but hasn't been our main problem
We have faced 17 poor decisions this season, of which 15 at least have been really objectionally bad.
Not one of them has been "given" by VAR though.
All 17 have been the wrong on-field decision by the referee. All 17 have then been upheld by VAR. To the best of my knowledge, not a single one of the 17 has so much as sent the ref to the screen.
That is extraordinary.
15-16 really, particularly bad on field decisions (excluding the Rice handball which is dubious), all gotten wrong by the ref, not one even sent for review.
With 4 games to go we could easily get to 19 and therefore have a horrific decision every other game on average.
The first problem has been terrible initial decision making by the referees, which has been consistently against us and suspiciously so.
The second problem has been VAR just automatically confirming the referee's decision in every instance, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. We weren't seeing that last year, we have this. They are protecting each other
We have faced 17 poor decisions this season, of which 15 at least have been really objectionally bad.
Not one of them has been "given" by VAR though.
All 17 have been the wrong on-field decision by the referee. All 17 have then been upheld by VAR. To the best of my knowledge, not a single one of the 17 has so much as sent the ref to the screen.
That is extraordinary.
15-16 really, particularly bad on field decisions (excluding the Rice handball which is dubious), all gotten wrong by the ref, not one even sent for review.
With 4 games to go we could easily get to 19 and therefore have a horrific decision every other game on average.
The first problem has been terrible initial decision making by the referees, which has been consistently against us and suspiciously so.
The second problem has been VAR just automatically confirming the referee's decision in every instance, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. We weren't seeing that last year, we have this. They are protecting each other
Last edited:
