Simple solution to VAR problems.
1) make offside a referee/linesman only decision
2) allow each team 3 appeals per 90 minutes and 1 in added time.
If a team’s appeal is successful, then they retain the appeal for later use.
Nothing complicated and we should adopt Rugby’s approach, showing what the reviewers are looking at and also hearing both their comments and the referees are saying.
Of course this means Man United and Liverpool will have to invest in large screen technology
VAR
posted on 2/1/20
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Bales (U22081)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Bales (U22081)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 2 minutes ago
Offside should be the furthest point forward that’s in contact with the pitch. Would make it far easier to measure as you’re just having a line on the pitch.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So if you're jumping (ie to head in a free kick) it doesn't count?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Your starting position will still be from the floor though. Not sure I’ve ever seen a player in mid air before the balls been played in......
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Could be his leading leg is off the floor?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Then that’s fine. As long as it’s the same for everyone and everyone is aware of it, then no one is gaining an unfair advantage.
My main point is that it would be a foolproof way of measuring offside because it’s one line on an actual surface.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok that's fair. It's still changing the rules to solve a problem that didn't really exist though. Linos were over 95% accurate IIRC. Sorry, can't be ar5ed to research that now.
posted on 2/1/20
95% accuracy means a problem does exist though. That’s not a dig at officials, I think they’ve got an incredibly difficult job with the speed of the game now, which is why they need help. Other major sports use technology to try and reduce incorrect decisions, so football was going to have to sooner or later.
Surely, if that 5% is the difference between being relegated, or winning a trophy, then it’s worth it, surely?
posted on 2/1/20
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 35 seconds ago
95% accuracy means a problem does exist though. That’s not a dig at officials, I think they’ve got an incredibly difficult job with the speed of the game now, which is why they need help. Other major sports use technology to try and reduce incorrect decisions, so football was going to have to sooner or later.
Surely, if that 5% is the difference between being relegated, or winning a trophy, then it’s worth it, surely?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Worth what?
A minor pause in the game every now and again, sure. But which 5% of decisions were they? We don't know. To be sure we have to check all of them. Which of the 5% didn't matter and which were crucial? We'll have to legislate for them all and find out. Which rule changes make the game worse to watch (aside from the stops for reviews)? Let's do it and find out.
Not worth it for me. The benefits should be clear and obvious.
posted on 2/1/20
comment by Bales (U22081)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Terminator1 (U1863)
posted 35 seconds ago
95% accuracy means a problem does exist though. That’s not a dig at officials, I think they’ve got an incredibly difficult job with the speed of the game now, which is why they need help. Other major sports use technology to try and reduce incorrect decisions, so football was going to have to sooner or later.
Surely, if that 5% is the difference between being relegated, or winning a trophy, then it’s worth it, surely?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Worth what?
A minor pause in the game every now and again, sure. But which 5% of decisions were they? We don't know. To be sure we have to check all of them. Which of the 5% didn't matter and which were crucial? We'll have to legislate for them all and find out. Which rule changes make the game worse to watch (aside from the stops for reviews)? Let's do it and find out.
Not worth it for me. The benefits should be clear and obvious.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can’t use historical data to decide what will be the crucial decisions in the future. I get that you’re against it and why, that’s fair enough. I’m pretty neutral tbh, but I think it’s here to stay and they need to find a way to make it more consistent and accurate.
posted on 2/1/20
Termitaor
I'm not deluded enough to think that it's going anywhere at this point and I do agree that it has to be better. I'll try to avoid these threads in future as I struggle to be constructive on the topic!
I have resigned myself to watching fewer games, as it really does affect my enjoyment of the sport, which is a shame. I'm really not a luddite either - I was all-for goal-line technology on the basis that it was virtually instant. It's great. I just don't see the payoff here.
posted on 3/1/20
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 3/1/20
comment by WearesoshiiiitTHFC (U19211)
posted 47 minutes ago
Its very simple with offside.. its your feet you run with so should be judged on feet alone, all this checking elbows etc is complete nonsense and ruining the spirit of the game ... or more radical and easier to judge .. offside there has to be a clear gap between the players for it to be offside
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This!
Offside isn’t and can’t be down to interpretation, you have to have a clear point of off or on and some of the ideas thrown about just don’t work.
Why should the attacker be given an advantage???
The feet would provide a clear point and allow for attackers bending their run and defenders leaning out!
posted on 3/1/20
VAR is a bit like Brexit - we've opened a can of worms that we can't shut.
The truth is that offsides were okay. The percentage of correct decisions was extremely high and I don't believe it was a big problem.
The matter of players being 2mm offside was a non-issue that doesn't affect the game and stopping it to sort those out is farcical.
But we can't go back now, of course. We know the technology is there and if you're going to fix the big mistakes then you may as well fix the small mistakes... there's no solution to the mess apart from hoping that someone comes up with a technological solution to prevent the ridiculous delays and messing around with lines.
posted on 3/1/20
I think the way rugby has implemented their TMO system would be ideal.
Offside should be onfield referees/linesman decision.
Penalties should be sent to VAR with the instruction that it is NOT a penalty unless VAR can show why it SHOULD be awarded.
All goals stand unless the referee thinks there may have been an infringement and if so he asks VAR if they can see any reason NOT to award it.
There should be NO prompting from the ref that may influence VAR decisions. VAR then uses the technology to try to see what the ref thinks he sees. If a good enough reason (a player standing less than 10cm offside is not enough) is found then the goal is disallowed.
All this should be shown live on the big screens, where available and the audio between ref & VAR should be played relayed over the stadium audio system.
posted on 3/1/20
Comment Deleted by Site Moderator