VAR decisions

The best thing is, because VAR has been such a disaster it will take the shine off Liverpools title win. It's the worst PL season ever ruined by daft VAR decisions.

 

This is where you're wrong. Regardless of how you like to portray people, I will be fair in my critique as I always am. This change is for the good of the game overall. No one wants a "goal" to be chalked off by VAR over something as minor as an armpit being 1mm offside. That's just ridiculous and those who claim it's perfectly correct are just as ridiculous. The margins are far too narrow. Who knows how well their machinery is calibrated?

Everyone accepts the goal line technology because it's instant and 100% accurate (to date). Judging an offside, on an angle, as it invariably is, by a camera that is not pitch level as it's always elevated, is not precise enough, regardless of how the VAR people portray their accuracy. It's a guide, but is not 100% as accurate as goal line technology is. How can it be? Who knows when the shot is framed? Is it when the ball leaves the boot or when the foot touches the ball before the pass? That can be 1 or 2 frames (maybe more) and will effect the position of where the striker is. It's not as black and white as goal line technology. There are too many variables.

You just have to apply commonsense and the spirit of the game to these decisions. You cannot have games interrupted for 3 minutes everytime a goal is scored with an offside issue. If it looks level, let it go and play the game. If it's clearly offside, then disallow it. This will lead to more goals, less VAR interruption and a more fluid match without unnecessary delays.

 

The problem is that any "benefit of the doubt" or "margin of error" makes decisions subjective and that leads to inconsistencies. Inconsistent refereeing was one of the biggest drivers behind VAR in the first place!

I don't think there is an easy answer. One thing that is clear is that those people that thought VAR would bring an end to controversy and the post match "debates down the pub" couldn't have been more wrong!

 

I've just plugged in some numbers reported here into the formula given here (using a 420g football) and I get closer to the 'accepted sports science figure' of the foot being in contact for 0.05s which is little more than a frame...

 

Of course there is a margin of error. This is why you cannot compare goal line technology with VAR offside. They are totally different systems. GLT is easy to get 100% accurate all the time because technology works well in a small area which is fixed, i.e the goal. The only test was would it detect the entire ball crossing the line every time, and it's passed that test with flying colours. Now everyone trusts it.

With VAR there are too many variables. When is the frame taken? Can you accurately gauge when the ball leaves the boot of the passing player? It makes a huge difference because a game is played at speed, even over 1 or 2 frames, the players could be in totally different positions. One frame he's offside, but the previous frame he's onside.

We can all see what the VAR official sees. These lines they draw seem to be very unscientific to me. It's like someone learning to use some Adobe software for the first time. If the lines were generated by computer, that would be more trustworthy, but it's a click and point system used by the VAR official. You cannot trust that. If he's a pixel out, it could mean the difference between a goal or not.

VAR offside is not accurate enough to make these finite decisions.

 

The choice is an absolute rule and technical implementation or a subjective opinion on whether it is within a "margin of error".

The former means that we get the marginal calls that are happening now. They are consistent and "fair" but you do get more goals ruled out against the "spirit" of the original law.

But the latter means that some offsides may not be given by one referee when a similar "close call" is given by another referee in another game.

Consistency is the most important thing for me but I think the offside rule needs to change to fit the new technology. It's just a matter of how.

 

Wrong again. If it's offside it's offside. I never want my team to be victim to an offside goal, irrespective of distance again. I genuinely thought that you, of all people, would be totally for that. The victims of many an offside goal can never have it inflicted on us again. I'm genuinely surprised you would choose the 'entertainment factor' of a unfair game over the exactitude of VAR.

Also, the way you've described VAR for offsides is completely wrong and indemic of how the general fan and pundit view it. You should read, in full, the link earlier in the thread. It's not how you describe it at all.

 

Yes it is.

 

I appreciate the rules are the rules and all the recent marginal offsides have been accurate, however marginal.

I do however think changing the rules so it was just based on the feet would make these decisions much more palatable to fans on either side.

When someone’s armpit is 1mm offside there is a feeling that it’s unfair because there is a feeling it hasn’t actually gained the attacker much, if any advantage. The rest of their body could be behind the defender but their armpit is just ahead so it (rightly) gets chalked off. I think it’s this that creates the sense of injustice because it’s like the attacker has been caught offside by default, rather than by them having an actual advantage. It’s like they are looking for any reason to rule it out, which they of course are, regardless of it being a realistic advantage.

Given that it’s your feet that propel you forward and actually get you into goal scoring positions, I think it would be much more palatable for fans of it was this the offsides were based on. If one of your feet is just 1mm ahead of a defenders foot then you’ve got an unfair advantage, however small. It doesn’t matter what the rest of the body is doing. I think fans would find that easier to deal with.

 

The main issue is the statement that they will only correct clear and obvious errors. Totally ambiguous. If you can clearly see that someone is 1cm offside is it a clear and obvious error ? If it's not, then what about 2cm ? . If they were to say 5cm is obvious, how sure can they be that it's 5.01cm as opposed to 4.99cm. If it looks like a player was probably fouled in the build up, was it clear and obvious ? **** knows.

 

It’s not ‘my’ margin of error as stated in the post to UEA. It was from an interview with a rep from Hawkeye on Sky Sports News where he quoted some numbers and said the numbers showed there is a margin of error in the way the PL are currently using it for offsides.

 

If you think an offside armpit, or whatever it was to disallow Pukki's goal, was fair, then I can't consider you as a really football fan. Again, here you go, putting me into some type of pigeonhole you've created in your head which doesn't seem to compute with you over what I'm saying. Maybe you have the wrong idea about me, heaven forbid!!

I just want fairness across the board. I don't want any favours nor do I want any stitch ups.

Leaning forward but having your feet in an onside position cannot be considered offside, or rather SHOULD NOT be considered offside.

It doesn't really matter about how it will effect Watford, as we've already seen we've had three handball goals go against us, which has cost us 7 points, yet these injustices are not being included in any VAR table I've seen recently. I think the BBC posted one, which airbrushed this from history. I make it we're 8-2 down on VAR decisions going for and against, yet the BBC have it as us being 2-1 up on decisions. So it's clear how things are perceived by those on the outside.

Whatever the rules are, or will be in the future, Watford will be on the rough end of it, and that's something that won't change, no matter what system is in place. No, but that's not the point. We're talking about what's good for the game in general, not how it will effect Watford.

 

Because what you say and think and what is reality are totally different.

What you want - a more lenient offside rule that is not exact, what is reality - an exact offside system. I won't suggest that you aren't a football fan by believing that, as I know you hate it when people suggest something like that about you - instead i'll suggest you have a penchant for taking the opposite opinion to reality.

It's not a pigeonhole to suggest you want a system that is completely opposite to your numerous threads about VAR and its 'unfairness' to Watford. It's certainly an odd opinion to take based on your historical views on it, but you're entitled to it, however inconsistent it may be.

Offside is offside. Whether half a millimetre or 10 yards. The rule does not include any margin for error. Long may that rule stay the same. If it bores those who don't like change, tough luck. The world and the game moves on.

 

I'm not suggesting offside should be ignored, but I'm questioning how accurate the VAR system is because it relies on when they take their freeze frame by which they perform their measurements. I do not believe this is accurate to a finite degree, which is what they are trying to make it. There could be a variance from one VAR official as to when he makes his freeze frame. This is what makes the system fallible. If it's not 100% accurate, like the GLT, then it can only be used as a guideline.

Even the IFAB have criticised how the PGMOL are using it. Here is a direct quote from them "If you spend multiple minutes trying to identify whether it is offside or not, then it's not clear and obvious and the original decision should stand. What we really need to stress is that 'clear and obvious' applies to every single situation that is being reviewed by the VAR or the referee. In theory, 1mm offside is offside, but if a decision is taken that a player is not offside and the VAR is trying to identify through looking at five, six, seven, 10, 12 cameras whether or not it was offside, then the original decision should stand."

This is exactly in line with how I see it to, so I think what I'm saying is correct and things will change for the better, regardless of your "offside is offside" stance.

 

As I specifically said about the IFAB comments earlier in the thread, if they say that an offside is theoretical then it's difficult to take them seriously.

I'll stick to reality on the subject which is how it currently is, offside is offside irrespective of the distance and you keep up the campaign for a margin of error which will never ever be good enough when your own team falls victim to it.

As someone else on the post said, if the rules change and we are relegated on the final day because of it, I'll look forward to those on this thread shrugging their shoulders and saying that the game is more exciting because of it, as we happily leave it all behind for the good old days of the Championship.

 

If the rules change and we are relegated because of it you'll be delighted to be able say I told you so...….I've never really understood that attitude. We may well get relegated because of a marginal goal we score which is disallowed because of extreme micro-analysing. Works both ways.

I'd much prefer a game where you cheer a goal, without someone nudging you 30 seconds later pointing the claret VAR scoreboard saying it's being checked because half an hour ago the referee gave a throw in to us instead of the opposition, meaning the rest of the game has been null and void from that moment onwards.

IFAB make the rules, so you can dismiss them all you like, it won't matter a jot. If they say that is the way it is, then that is the way it is, no matter how much you disagree.

 

No, it’s pedants like you. Football was never designed to be officiated to the millimetre by people who aren’t even present. Anyone who thinks the Pukki goal, and a good number of others this season, should have been disallowed isn’t really a football fan.

 

I won’t be shrugging my shoulders. I’ll be stood in the pub, upset at all the chat we could have been having about staying up while VAR was never introduced. That’s what it’s all about.

 

So if the Pukki goal was confirmed as 1cm offside what do we do ? Ignore it and allow it to stand ? If so, we aren't drawing the line at 0cm, so where do now draw it ? 5cm ? What if it seems to be dead on 5cm but could be a mm either side ?

 

I think you’re conflating two different things.

Should the Pukki goal have been disallowed? Absolutely. He was offside.
Would it be good to change the rules so the Pukki goal didn’t have to be disallowed? Absolutely.

The two positions aren’t mutually exclusive.

 

I'd suggest that it's more important to try and define what 'clear and obvious' means rather than worrying unduly about accuracy and freeze frames.

The VAR officials are currently trying to be as accurate as they can with the technology at their disposal. Which is pretty dammed accurate. Maybe it'll be refined to be even more accurate as we proceed. Hawkeye in tennis uses various elevated camera positions at various angles to the flight of the ball. It's now significantly better than when first introduced and nobody now doubts its positive contribution to tennis.

All the factors under consideration in this thread are important. GD's 'stickler for the rule' line and the importance of honouring it as best as can be done which is what's currently happening. And rightly referring to the fact that no team is now going to suffer the ignominy of being the victim of a blatantly offside goal. VAR officials aren't on a campaign to deny goals. They're just doing the best job they can with the tool and rule currently at their disposal.

But all those of us who are concerned about the 'spectacle' being compromised by a deficit of goals and ludicrously long delays have a point too. You can be sure that if Sky/BT thought that their very expensive purchase with a global audience was now being compromised there'd be pressure for change p.d.q. Maybe that is already happening.

So what to do? As TUT has said we can't have some arbitrary 1, 2, 5, 10 cm. 'too close to call' rule. So hang it on timing then. And you wouldn't have to mention 'too close to call' or 'clear and obvious'. Just say that the long delays are destroying the match as a spectacle for both the audience in the stadium and those watching on TV which I'd suggest is true. Only Markoa$ on this thread would appear to actually enjoy the VAR deliberation 'spectacle'. Which strikes me as a bit bizarre.

I'd suggest that the law change should be that if any part of an attacker's leading boot is behind any part of a defender's rear (nearest his own goal) boot then it's not offside. What's the width of a boot? 10cm? Length? 25cm+? So a marginal (no 'clear daylight' stuff) new advantage to the attacker, more goals and neatly taking care of the marginal <10cm 'no goal' decisions regrettably currently in play. All are allowed.

As a bit of an aside, how many goals would make for the best 'spectacle' in a top flight football match? As I understand it the average in the PL has been around 2.7 for a number of seasons. I'd suggest that doubling that would make for a better spectacle and less teams would lose 'unluckily' whilst still keeping the 'luck' element in play. No-one wants a basketball score though.

Easiest way to do that? Make the goal bigger. As far as I'm aware it's always been 8yds x 8ft since forever. When keepers were 6+ inches shorter and defences infinitely less organised. When I started playing the only formation in town was 2-3-5. Never varied. Gung-ho. Now everything is so much more organised and 'chess-like'.

Set the cat amongst the pigeons. Make the goal 9yds x 9ft or thereabouts.

 

It's a 'difference of opinion' as hb1 is often telling me. Accusations of 'not really being a football fan' aren't helpful.

 

Knew this thread would get worse/better when people dont have as much to whinge about on the pitch.

Or maybe when we start scoring goals again that VAR vould influence.

 

Lino’s call is an interesting concept if you have him get a 5% error benefit of doubt somehow. Problem is you’d need to have players keep playing if Lino flag goes up which might be hard instinctively.

 

It's pigeon among the cats mate.

 

Lost me there!

 

@CleyHorn

 

Haha! Yep I'd forgotten that particularly novel approach!

 

If they all had tracking microchips inserted into the folds in the back of the neck it would probably work as well. The ball would need an inertia recording chip in it to decide the point it was kicked.

 

This is something I have been thinking about recently (not the surgical implantation though!). If all players had a microchip in a small pocket, in the same place, inside their shirt - the location wouldn't be critical, but the centre of the chest or back seems logical - surely their distance from the goal-line could be measured easily. I don't think you need to do anything with the ball, the video would give a clear enough indication of the exact time it was struck.

Obviously this changes the rules with respect to bodyparts, armpits, toenails, etc. but as long as the microchip is in a consistent location on each player, I don't see any issue.......

 

Villa's turn to get stuffed ...

 

When Wood scored a perfectly fair header for Burnley just now, the Villa players were quick to surround and remonstrate with Michael Oliver. If players are going to look outraged and suggest there’s foul play even when the opposition scores a fair goal, we’re going to end up with more prolonged VAR reviews trying to work out what the players’ knickers are in a twist about. I bet it makes the video ref less likely to end a goal review quickly as the presumption is players upset = something untoward must have happened.

Players need to show restraint and only cry foul when it actually is (or might be). Obviously there’s no chance of that actually happening.

 

Finally someone speaking sense!