alphabet_king
Vital 1st Team Regular
So not offside if its 6 inches, but if its 6.1" then it is offside though?
VAR again (sorry)
- Thread starter Vambogills
- Start date
Beat me to it Waldo. Cricket has the balance about right.
Further, as there are constant natural breaks in the game after each ball anyway, the flow of the game isn't ruined like it is in football imo.
Even when VAR is used for close decisions, is the judgement of the split second when the ball is passed absolutely perfect? There must be a margin of error there even with VAR.
Trev_GFC
Vital 1st Team Regular
I don’t believe VAR is the death of football but it needs to be better implemented - reduce the decision time to a few seconds to properly prove, as others have said, that it was a clear and obvious error. Like goal line technology, this will almost eliminate the feeling that you can’t celebrate a goal anymore as you’re expecting it to be chalked off.
One thing VAR has done is shown up how shit some of our current rules are. Make there be daylight for offside. Make it only a deliberate movement to the ball determines handball. If we’re looking at a goalmouth handball then we can’t also see if it happened to be offside - the ref has in theory moved on.
And properly incorporate VAR into future concussion protocols by forcing players off for incidents not originally seen.
One thing VAR has done is shown up how shit some of our current rules are. Make there be daylight for offside. Make it only a deliberate movement to the ball determines handball. If we’re looking at a goalmouth handball then we can’t also see if it happened to be offside - the ref has in theory moved on.
And properly incorporate VAR into future concussion protocols by forcing players off for incidents not originally seen.
alphabet_king
Vital 1st Team Regular
I have considered the offside issues qt length, discussing it off this board previously. Making it 'daylight' will have no difference. You will get the same complaints if they are proven offside by daylight by a fingernail.
The line has to be somewhere, its fairly irrelevant whether its on the line of the defender, or daylight etc.. The issue now is that technology can tell us nearly to the centimeter whether they are offside or not. People dont seem to want this.
The handball rule is another one that VAR has got the blame for. Handhalls are penalised according to the laws, but VAR is getting the blame for the shite laws they introduced in the last year.
Last edited:
alphabet_king
Vital 1st Team Regular
I agree. This comes down to the frame rate of the video recording. I am sure when there was a close call last season someone did an analysis and confirmed that due to the frame rate, you may not capture the exact moment the ball was actually hit. Therefore not capturing the exact position of a player and so on. Generally proving it was tenuous to try to decide whether they were or weren't offside by a fingernail.
I would agree with introducing a tolerance of X inches to account for this discrepancy (X to be based on max distance a player/ball can reasonably travel in between the time it takes for two video frames to be captured. I am sure the scientists/mathematicians could work it out. If the player is found to be within this 'tolerance' then it goes to the ref's original decision. Just like in cricket. I think this would be much more acceptable to most, and remove the 'offside by a fingernail' issues.
alphabet_king
Vital 1st Team Regular
What's all this crap about 'flow of the game' that I hear when people moan about football? Yes I appreciate we do see some counter attacks sometimes. But how often? Do you realise that in the EPL (and across most european leagues) the ball is only in play on average 55-60 minutes of all premier league games? That's 30-35 minutes of breaks. it seems there's plenty of natural breaks already to me.
By all means, this data argues we don't want to be adding more unnecessary breaks to an already high number, but that's almost the exact opposite argument to this 'flow of the game' claim. To claim there's some amazing flow of the game I think is a bit of a romantic myth IMO.
The idea that referee errors "even out over the course of a season" is not born out by statistics.
Even if each Club experienced the same number of errors (unlikely),
they would need to both benefit and harm equally (also unlikely).
Then there is the matter of whether an error is crucial to the result and points. (variable).
Lastly, league position affects whether a points difference from an error is "life-changing" or not.
VAR has proved effective at reducing errors.
The fact that VAR officials take much longer than Rugby League officials is a problem.....
.....compounded by new and ridiculous interpretations of the laws.
Last edited:
Is adding a "tolerance" necessary ?
Surely all we have to decide is whether to use the frame before the kick - or after# ?
Then it's the same for everyone ....
...and still better than a linesman.....
...who's errors from parallax have been researched and evidenced.
# If applicable, whichever frame gives advantage to the attacker.
Last edited:
alphabet_king
Vital 1st Team Regular
Whether errors do even themselves out over the season or not is actually irrelevant to this point Tarian. Indeed I am unsure they do also, but also it's worth noting that I am not sure the people that say they do expect them to even themselves out mean it quite so literally as you've taken it.
The point is though that someone's saying they used to be satisfied that errors would even themselves out, but now there's VAR, all of a sudden they don't believe errors will even themselves out. I don't see how the introduction of VAR would stop this. If you had the opinion that errors evened themselves out before VAR. I would have thought logically it follows that you would still have the opinion that VAR errors will also even themselves out.
Trev_GFC
Vital 1st Team Regular
The key gripe is with the never-ending wait while a decision is made. A limit of a few seconds to check on VAR will surely satisfy most fans, as well as stopping these infuriating forensic ‘is there a pube playing someone on/off’ decisions. There’s not enough evidence in a few seconds to decide conclusively? Oh well, we’ll have to go with the referee’s original decision.
To me daylight will help with both the original decision by the linesman, the players, and finally VAR.
VAR as actually arguably helped the flow of the game as referees are less likely to blow for a foul or offside, waiting instead to see how the play pans out. I wonder if the ref needs a signal to denote this though, like with the advantage gesture. If the lino thinks there’s an offside then raise the flag, otherwise it can’t be used to chalk off a goal when the goal is already being reviewed for a different reason such as a foul/handball in the box. Again, this speeds up decision making.
To me daylight will help with both the original decision by the linesman, the players, and finally VAR.
VAR as actually arguably helped the flow of the game as referees are less likely to blow for a foul or offside, waiting instead to see how the play pans out. I wonder if the ref needs a signal to denote this though, like with the advantage gesture. If the lino thinks there’s an offside then raise the flag, otherwise it can’t be used to chalk off a goal when the goal is already being reviewed for a different reason such as a foul/handball in the box. Again, this speeds up decision making.
alphabet_king
Vital 1st Team Regular
I actually am not sure the key issue is the time it takes. The only time i've seen it mentioned is when the decision is actually still wrong.
I could get on board with the time limit (maybe 20 seconds) for a review though, to adhere to the 'clear and obvious' point.
I could also get on board with my above suggestion of a X inches tollerance of for offsides, to take in to account. Both suggestions I think would make the VAR experience better.
Last edited:
