comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson - Football Is D... (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 49 minutes ago
What about the foul on Rodri in the penalty area yesterday?
The fans saw it, the players appealed for it, MOTD picked up on it yet the people monitoring VAR ignored it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't ignore it, they checked it. They must have decided it wasnt a clear and obvious error as it was certainly a foul.
Because despite the injustice we still loved the game.
=====
We'll still love the game, just with less injustice then before.
comment by Klopptimus Prime - Die Unerträglichen (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
Because despite the injustice we still loved the game.
=====
We'll still love the game, just with less injustice then before.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson - Football Is D... (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 49 minutes ago
What about the foul on Rodri in the penalty area yesterday?
The fans saw it, the players appealed for it, MOTD picked up on it yet the people monitoring VAR ignored it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't ignore it, they checked it. They must have decided it wasnt a clear and obvious error as it was certainly a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On an issue like this is where VAR justifiably has its critics, because its a subjective opinion.
On matters such as offside it's great. The offside law could be changed to make it more palitable for the luddites, but I'm all for technology being used for black and white decisions, which offside is.
Other global sports have embraced modern technology and it has enhanced the sport. it does take an adjustment period and that's where we are at the moment with VAR. .
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'&scaron... (U1541)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson - Football Is D... (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 49 minutes ago
What about the foul on Rodri in the penalty area yesterday?
The fans saw it, the players appealed for it, MOTD picked up on it yet the people monitoring VAR ignored it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't ignore it, they checked it. They must have decided it wasnt a clear and obvious error as it was certainly a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On an issue like this is where VAR justifiably has its critics, because its a subjective opinion.
On matters such as offside it's great. The offside law could be changed to make it more palitable for the luddites, but I'm all for technology being used for black and white decisions, which offside is.
Other global sports have embraced modern technology and it has enhanced the sport. it does take an adjustment period and that's where we are at the moment with VAR. .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Completely agree but at least the subjective ones mean the debate down the pub that everyone was worried about isn't lost.
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'&scaron... (U1541)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson - Football Is D... (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 49 minutes ago
What about the foul on Rodri in the penalty area yesterday?
The fans saw it, the players appealed for it, MOTD picked up on it yet the people monitoring VAR ignored it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't ignore it, they checked it. They must have decided it wasnt a clear and obvious error as it was certainly a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On an issue like this is where VAR justifiably has its critics, because its a subjective opinion.
On matters such as offside it's great. The offside law could be changed to make it more palitable for the luddites, but I'm all for technology being used for black and white decisions, which offside is.
Other global sports have embraced modern technology and it has enhanced the sport. it does take an adjustment period and that's where we are at the moment with VAR. .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Completely agree but at least the subjective ones mean the debate down the pub that everyone was worried about isn't lost.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The pub chat argument is beyond rettarded.
On an issue like this is where VAR justifiably has its critics, because its a subjective opinion.
========
Agreed but was it ever going to work like a well oiled machine from the start? Valid criticism but not when used as an argument to do away with VAR.
To my mind, VAR is the sort of thing you use for a while, then take a step back and assess then adjust if necessary and improve.
There will be space for improvement.
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson - Football Is D... (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 49 minutes ago
What about the foul on Rodri in the penalty area yesterday?
The fans saw it, the players appealed for it, MOTD picked up on it yet the people monitoring VAR ignored it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't ignore it, they checked it. They must have decided it wasnt a clear and obvious error as it was certainly a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On an issue like this is where VAR justifiably has its critics, because its a subjective opinion.
On matters such as offside it's great. The offside law could be changed to make it more palitable for the luddites, but I'm all for technology being used for black and white decisions, which offside is.
Other global sports have embraced modern technology and it has enhanced the sport. it does take an adjustment period and that's where we are at the moment with VAR. .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Offside is only black and white based on the most recent variation of a rule that has been adjusted and changed on numerous occasions. The current variation doesn’t sit right with me (and many others) because it’s not what the original intent of the law was - doesn’t make us luddites!
Apart from that, I agree. VAR is a positive development for the game - but it does require an adjustment for the handball and offside rules IMO.
So offside law was to prevent goal hanging but with today's technology, we can see that officials miss offsides sometimes, even if there's daylight between the players.
Last season in a City match, the central ref overruled his own linesman on an offside call. The linesman had got it right and the central ref overruled him. After that City scored another 3 goals.
That's just an example but with the detail and technology available today, such injustices are arguably more likely to put people off from becoming fans of a game fraught with clear injustice and ridiculousness.
What you don't know won't hurt you. Without replays, people didn't know. Now we have replays and tech, people know and that changes things.
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson - Football Is D... (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 49 minutes ago
What about the foul on Rodri in the penalty area yesterday?
The fans saw it, the players appealed for it, MOTD picked up on it yet the people monitoring VAR ignored it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't ignore it, they checked it. They must have decided it wasnt a clear and obvious error as it was certainly a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On an issue like this is where VAR justifiably has its critics, because its a subjective opinion.
On matters such as offside it's great. The offside law could be changed to make it more palitable for the luddites, but I'm all for technology being used for black and white decisions, which offside is.
Other global sports have embraced modern technology and it has enhanced the sport. it does take an adjustment period and that's where we are at the moment with VAR. .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Offside is only black and white based on the most recent variation of a rule that has been adjusted and changed on numerous occasions. The current variation doesn’t sit right with me (and many others) because it’s not what the original intent of the law was - doesn’t make us luddites!
Apart from that, I agree. VAR is a positive development for the game - but it does require an adjustment for the handball and offside rules IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As you well know the law for offside is repeatedly changed. Which generally causes some consternation amongst football fans
VAR can only apply the law as it is written. Those who decry it's use because of the laws are misplacing their ire (this obviously isn't directed at yourself)
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson - Football Is D... (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 49 minutes ago
What about the foul on Rodri in the penalty area yesterday?
The fans saw it, the players appealed for it, MOTD picked up on it yet the people monitoring VAR ignored it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't ignore it, they checked it. They must have decided it wasnt a clear and obvious error as it was certainly a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On an issue like this is where VAR justifiably has its critics, because its a subjective opinion.
On matters such as offside it's great. The offside law could be changed to make it more palitable for the luddites, but I'm all for technology being used for black and white decisions, which offside is.
Other global sports have embraced modern technology and it has enhanced the sport. it does take an adjustment period and that's where we are at the moment with VAR. .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Offside is only black and white based on the most recent variation of a rule that has been adjusted and changed on numerous occasions. The current variation doesn’t sit right with me (and many others) because it’s not what the original intent of the law was - doesn’t make us luddites!
Apart from that, I agree. VAR is a positive development for the game - but it does require an adjustment for the handball and offside rules IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As you well know the law for offside is repeatedly changed. Which generally causes some consternation amongst football fans
VAR can only apply the law as it is written. Those who decry it's use because of the laws are misplacing their ire (this obviously isn't directed at yourself)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
👍🏻
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson - Football Is D... (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 49 minutes ago
What about the foul on Rodri in the penalty area yesterday?
The fans saw it, the players appealed for it, MOTD picked up on it yet the people monitoring VAR ignored it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't ignore it, they checked it. They must have decided it wasnt a clear and obvious error as it was certainly a foul.
--------------------------------------------------
It was clearer and more obvious than the alleged 'handball'.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson - Football Is Dead (U5901)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson - Football Is D... (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 49 minutes ago
What about the foul on Rodri in the penalty area yesterday?
The fans saw it, the players appealed for it, MOTD picked up on it yet the people monitoring VAR ignored it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't ignore it, they checked it. They must have decided it wasnt a clear and obvious error as it was certainly a foul.
--------------------------------------------------
It was clearer and more obvious than the alleged 'handball'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a handball. The rules make it so. VAR got it spot on
The pen gives you something to chat about in the boozer.
The intent of the law is in the definition of the law. If they wanted to just stop goal hanging them they could have introduced many different laws to handle it.
Ths IFAB chose the offside law, whichnmeant that attackers couldn't move beyond the second last defender before the ball was played forward. There have been tweaks as to how to best manage this but they have never actually changed the definition of where the offside line is. Since they have had decades to amend this, they obviously intended for it to be as the rule is applied.
All VAR does is makes it more likely that the correct decision, as per the rule, is applied. If you start saying that missing some decisions is ok because they were marginal them you give huge advantages to teams who get that advantage and those that don't.
I'm not convinced it was handball, there's plenty of clips on FB showing it hit the Spurs player rather than Laportea[ arm.
If there's that degree of uncertainty then for the good of football, goals like that should stand.
Clips on FB. That's all the evidence one needs
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 9 minutes ago
The intent of the law is in the definition of the law. If they wanted to just stop goal hanging them they could have introduced many different laws to handle it.
Ths IFAB chose the offside law, whichnmeant that attackers couldn't move beyond the second last defender before the ball was played forward. There have been tweaks as to how to best manage this but they have never actually changed the definition of where the offside line is. Since they have had decades to amend this, they obviously intended for it to be as the rule is applied.
All VAR does is makes it more likely that the correct decision, as per the rule, is applied. If you start saying that missing some decisions is ok because they were marginal them you give huge advantages to teams who get that advantage and those that don't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean the original intent of the offside law when it was first introduced. That was to prevent goal hanging, not to argue over millimetres. They could go with the ‘clear daylight’ directive or the ‘advantage with attacker’ rule but for me the current ruling is too harsh on the attacking side and that wasn’t the original intent of the law.
I agree that it isn’t VAR’s fault though - but what VAR does is push it into focus. When you had assistant referees making the decisions a borderline call wouldn’t be disputed particularly but described as ‘tight’. VAR makes that rule black and white, in my opinion that’s why the rule needs adjusting.
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 9 minutes ago
The intent of the law is in the definition of the law. If they wanted to just stop goal hanging them they could have introduced many different laws to handle it.
Ths IFAB chose the offside law, whichnmeant that attackers couldn't move beyond the second last defender before the ball was played forward. There have been tweaks as to how to best manage this but they have never actually changed the definition of where the offside line is. Since they have had decades to amend this, they obviously intended for it to be as the rule is applied.
All VAR does is makes it more likely that the correct decision, as per the rule, is applied. If you start saying that missing some decisions is ok because they were marginal them you give huge advantages to teams who get that advantage and those that don't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean the original intent of the offside law when it was first introduced. That was to prevent goal hanging, not to argue over millimetres. They could go with the ‘clear daylight’ directive or the ‘advantage with attacker’ rule but for me the current ruling is too harsh on the attacking side and that wasn’t the original intent of the law.
I agree that it isn’t VAR’s fault though - but what VAR does is push it into focus. When you had assistant referees making the decisions a borderline call wouldn’t be disputed particularly but described as ‘tight’. VAR makes that rule black and white, in my opinion that’s why the rule needs adjusting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it wouldn't solve anything. If you move the offside line you still have close decisions and it needs to be correct.
The reason that there were directives like "favour the attacker" was because they knew that at the time you couldn't be sure the linesman was correct, so felt it was better to err on the attacking side. Now that we can have these decisions correct to about 1/25th of a second, here is no need to give advantage to either side.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 9 minutes ago
The intent of the law is in the definition of the law. If they wanted to just stop goal hanging them they could have introduced many different laws to handle it.
Ths IFAB chose the offside law, whichnmeant that attackers couldn't move beyond the second last defender before the ball was played forward. There have been tweaks as to how to best manage this but they have never actually changed the definition of where the offside line is. Since they have had decades to amend this, they obviously intended for it to be as the rule is applied.
All VAR does is makes it more likely that the correct decision, as per the rule, is applied. If you start saying that missing some decisions is ok because they were marginal them you give huge advantages to teams who get that advantage and those that don't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean the original intent of the offside law when it was first introduced. That was to prevent goal hanging, not to argue over millimetres. They could go with the ‘clear daylight’ directive or the ‘advantage with attacker’ rule but for me the current ruling is too harsh on the attacking side and that wasn’t the original intent of the law.
I agree that it isn’t VAR’s fault though - but what VAR does is push it into focus. When you had assistant referees making the decisions a borderline call wouldn’t be disputed particularly but described as ‘tight’. VAR makes that rule black and white, in my opinion that’s why the rule needs adjusting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it wouldn't solve anything. If you move the offside line you still have close decisions and it needs to be correct.
The reason that there were directives like "favour the attacker" was because they knew that at the time you couldn't be sure the linesman was correct, so felt it was better to err on the attacking side. Now that we can have these decisions correct to about 1/25th of a second, here is no need to give advantage to either side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the current rule gives advantage to the defending team. If you’re a millimetre offside (which is completely down to luck) then the goal is disallowed.
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 9 minutes ago
The intent of the law is in the definition of the law. If they wanted to just stop goal hanging them they could have introduced many different laws to handle it.
Ths IFAB chose the offside law, whichnmeant that attackers couldn't move beyond the second last defender before the ball was played forward. There have been tweaks as to how to best manage this but they have never actually changed the definition of where the offside line is. Since they have had decades to amend this, they obviously intended for it to be as the rule is applied.
All VAR does is makes it more likely that the correct decision, as per the rule, is applied. If you start saying that missing some decisions is ok because they were marginal them you give huge advantages to teams who get that advantage and those that don't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean the original intent of the offside law when it was first introduced. That was to prevent goal hanging, not to argue over millimetres. They could go with the ‘clear daylight’ directive or the ‘advantage with attacker’ rule but for me the current ruling is too harsh on the attacking side and that wasn’t the original intent of the law.
I agree that it isn’t VAR’s fault though - but what VAR does is push it into focus. When you had assistant referees making the decisions a borderline call wouldn’t be disputed particularly but described as ‘tight’. VAR makes that rule black and white, in my opinion that’s why the rule needs adjusting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it wouldn't solve anything. If you move the offside line you still have close decisions and it needs to be correct.
The reason that there were directives like "favour the attacker" was because they knew that at the time you couldn't be sure the linesman was correct, so felt it was better to err on the attacking side. Now that we can have these decisions correct to about 1/25th of a second, here is no need to give advantage to either side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the current rule gives advantage to the defending team. If you’re a millimetre offside (which is completely down to luck) then the goal is disallowed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Luck, or skill. The number of goals disallowed is tiny when compared to total goals scored.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 9 minutes ago
The intent of the law is in the definition of the law. If they wanted to just stop goal hanging them they could have introduced many different laws to handle it.
Ths IFAB chose the offside law, whichnmeant that attackers couldn't move beyond the second last defender before the ball was played forward. There have been tweaks as to how to best manage this but they have never actually changed the definition of where the offside line is. Since they have had decades to amend this, they obviously intended for it to be as the rule is applied.
All VAR does is makes it more likely that the correct decision, as per the rule, is applied. If you start saying that missing some decisions is ok because they were marginal them you give huge advantages to teams who get that advantage and those that don't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean the original intent of the offside law when it was first introduced. That was to prevent goal hanging, not to argue over millimetres. They could go with the ‘clear daylight’ directive or the ‘advantage with attacker’ rule but for me the current ruling is too harsh on the attacking side and that wasn’t the original intent of the law.
I agree that it isn’t VAR’s fault though - but what VAR does is push it into focus. When you had assistant referees making the decisions a borderline call wouldn’t be disputed particularly but described as ‘tight’. VAR makes that rule black and white, in my opinion that’s why the rule needs adjusting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it wouldn't solve anything. If you move the offside line you still have close decisions and it needs to be correct.
The reason that there were directives like "favour the attacker" was because they knew that at the time you couldn't be sure the linesman was correct, so felt it was better to err on the attacking side. Now that we can have these decisions correct to about 1/25th of a second, here is no need to give advantage to either side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the current rule gives advantage to the defending team. If you’re a millimetre offside (which is completely down to luck) then the goal is disallowed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Luck, or skill. The number of goals disallowed is tiny when compared to total goals scored.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but when a vital goal is disallowed by millimetres (take Lingard in the Nations League for example) is that right?
There are decisions that VAR overturn that are brilliant. I’ll give an example of my own team benefiting - Drogba at Old Trafford in 2010 - that kind of decision VAR needs to intervene on. But the current interpretation of offside favours the defensive side too much in my opinion.
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'&scaron... (U1541)
posted 39 minutes ago
Clips on FB. That's all the evidence one need
------------------------------------------------------
They highlight what the VAR guy missed, the same guy who couldn't even get to Stamford Bridge today to officate an actual game.
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 9 minutes ago
The intent of the law is in the definition of the law. If they wanted to just stop goal hanging them they could have introduced many different laws to handle it.
Ths IFAB chose the offside law, whichnmeant that attackers couldn't move beyond the second last defender before the ball was played forward. There have been tweaks as to how to best manage this but they have never actually changed the definition of where the offside line is. Since they have had decades to amend this, they obviously intended for it to be as the rule is applied.
All VAR does is makes it more likely that the correct decision, as per the rule, is applied. If you start saying that missing some decisions is ok because they were marginal them you give huge advantages to teams who get that advantage and those that don't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean the original intent of the offside law when it was first introduced. That was to prevent goal hanging, not to argue over millimetres. They could go with the ‘clear daylight’ directive or the ‘advantage with attacker’ rule but for me the current ruling is too harsh on the attacking side and that wasn’t the original intent of the law.
I agree that it isn’t VAR’s fault though - but what VAR does is push it into focus. When you had assistant referees making the decisions a borderline call wouldn’t be disputed particularly but described as ‘tight’. VAR makes that rule black and white, in my opinion that’s why the rule needs adjusting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it wouldn't solve anything. If you move the offside line you still have close decisions and it needs to be correct.
The reason that there were directives like "favour the attacker" was because they knew that at the time you couldn't be sure the linesman was correct, so felt it was better to err on the attacking side. Now that we can have these decisions correct to about 1/25th of a second, here is no need to give advantage to either side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the current rule gives advantage to the defending team. If you’re a millimetre offside (which is completely down to luck) then the goal is disallowed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Luck, or skill. The number of goals disallowed is tiny when compared to total goals scored.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but when a vital goal is disallowed by millimetres (take Lingard in the Nations League for example) is that right?
There are decisions that VAR overturn that are brilliant. I’ll give an example of my own team benefiting - Drogba at Old Trafford in 2010 - that kind of decision VAR needs to intervene on. But the current interpretation of offside favours the defensive side too much in my opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When a vital goal is scored by a player offside (even by mm) then the team who it has been scored against has been cheated. Why should they have to accept it, when we have tech to show it?
comment by Klopptimus Prime - Die Unerträglichen (U1282)
posted 2 hours, 19 minutes ago
Because despite the injustice we still loved the game.
=====
We'll still love the game, just with less injustice then before.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Less injustice is debatable.
It was the one blight from what was a great game at the Etihad.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 9 minutes ago
The intent of the law is in the definition of the law. If they wanted to just stop goal hanging them they could have introduced many different laws to handle it.
Ths IFAB chose the offside law, whichnmeant that attackers couldn't move beyond the second last defender before the ball was played forward. There have been tweaks as to how to best manage this but they have never actually changed the definition of where the offside line is. Since they have had decades to amend this, they obviously intended for it to be as the rule is applied.
All VAR does is makes it more likely that the correct decision, as per the rule, is applied. If you start saying that missing some decisions is ok because they were marginal them you give huge advantages to teams who get that advantage and those that don't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean the original intent of the offside law when it was first introduced. That was to prevent goal hanging, not to argue over millimetres. They could go with the ‘clear daylight’ directive or the ‘advantage with attacker’ rule but for me the current ruling is too harsh on the attacking side and that wasn’t the original intent of the law.
I agree that it isn’t VAR’s fault though - but what VAR does is push it into focus. When you had assistant referees making the decisions a borderline call wouldn’t be disputed particularly but described as ‘tight’. VAR makes that rule black and white, in my opinion that’s why the rule needs adjusting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it wouldn't solve anything. If you move the offside line you still have close decisions and it needs to be correct.
The reason that there were directives like "favour the attacker" was because they knew that at the time you couldn't be sure the linesman was correct, so felt it was better to err on the attacking side. Now that we can have these decisions correct to about 1/25th of a second, here is no need to give advantage to either side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the current rule gives advantage to the defending team. If you’re a millimetre offside (which is completely down to luck) then the goal is disallowed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Luck, or skill. The number of goals disallowed is tiny when compared to total goals scored.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but when a vital goal is disallowed by millimetres (take Lingard in the Nations League for example) is that right?
There are decisions that VAR overturn that are brilliant. I’ll give an example of my own team benefiting - Drogba at Old Trafford in 2010 - that kind of decision VAR needs to intervene on. But the current interpretation of offside favours the defensive side too much in my opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When a vital goal is scored by a player offside (even by mm) then the team who it has been scored against has been cheated. Why should they have to accept it, when we have tech to show it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because you’re judging that injustice by the current variation of the rule (any part of he attacker being offside is offside).
Sign in if you want to comment
VAR IS The Issue
Page 3 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 18/8/19
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson - Football Is D... (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 49 minutes ago
What about the foul on Rodri in the penalty area yesterday?
The fans saw it, the players appealed for it, MOTD picked up on it yet the people monitoring VAR ignored it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't ignore it, they checked it. They must have decided it wasnt a clear and obvious error as it was certainly a foul.
posted on 18/8/19
Because despite the injustice we still loved the game.
=====
We'll still love the game, just with less injustice then before.
posted on 18/8/19
comment by Klopptimus Prime - Die Unerträglichen (U1282)
posted 5 minutes ago
Because despite the injustice we still loved the game.
=====
We'll still love the game, just with less injustice then before.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Exactly
posted on 18/8/19
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson - Football Is D... (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 49 minutes ago
What about the foul on Rodri in the penalty area yesterday?
The fans saw it, the players appealed for it, MOTD picked up on it yet the people monitoring VAR ignored it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't ignore it, they checked it. They must have decided it wasnt a clear and obvious error as it was certainly a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On an issue like this is where VAR justifiably has its critics, because its a subjective opinion.
On matters such as offside it's great. The offside law could be changed to make it more palitable for the luddites, but I'm all for technology being used for black and white decisions, which offside is.
Other global sports have embraced modern technology and it has enhanced the sport. it does take an adjustment period and that's where we are at the moment with VAR. .
posted on 18/8/19
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'&scaron... (U1541)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson - Football Is D... (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 49 minutes ago
What about the foul on Rodri in the penalty area yesterday?
The fans saw it, the players appealed for it, MOTD picked up on it yet the people monitoring VAR ignored it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't ignore it, they checked it. They must have decided it wasnt a clear and obvious error as it was certainly a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On an issue like this is where VAR justifiably has its critics, because its a subjective opinion.
On matters such as offside it's great. The offside law could be changed to make it more palitable for the luddites, but I'm all for technology being used for black and white decisions, which offside is.
Other global sports have embraced modern technology and it has enhanced the sport. it does take an adjustment period and that's where we are at the moment with VAR. .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Completely agree but at least the subjective ones mean the debate down the pub that everyone was worried about isn't lost.
posted on 18/8/19
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'&scaron... (U1541)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson - Football Is D... (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 49 minutes ago
What about the foul on Rodri in the penalty area yesterday?
The fans saw it, the players appealed for it, MOTD picked up on it yet the people monitoring VAR ignored it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't ignore it, they checked it. They must have decided it wasnt a clear and obvious error as it was certainly a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On an issue like this is where VAR justifiably has its critics, because its a subjective opinion.
On matters such as offside it's great. The offside law could be changed to make it more palitable for the luddites, but I'm all for technology being used for black and white decisions, which offside is.
Other global sports have embraced modern technology and it has enhanced the sport. it does take an adjustment period and that's where we are at the moment with VAR. .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Completely agree but at least the subjective ones mean the debate down the pub that everyone was worried about isn't lost.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The pub chat argument is beyond rettarded.
posted on 18/8/19
On an issue like this is where VAR justifiably has its critics, because its a subjective opinion.
========
Agreed but was it ever going to work like a well oiled machine from the start? Valid criticism but not when used as an argument to do away with VAR.
To my mind, VAR is the sort of thing you use for a while, then take a step back and assess then adjust if necessary and improve.
There will be space for improvement.
posted on 18/8/19
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson - Football Is D... (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 49 minutes ago
What about the foul on Rodri in the penalty area yesterday?
The fans saw it, the players appealed for it, MOTD picked up on it yet the people monitoring VAR ignored it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't ignore it, they checked it. They must have decided it wasnt a clear and obvious error as it was certainly a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On an issue like this is where VAR justifiably has its critics, because its a subjective opinion.
On matters such as offside it's great. The offside law could be changed to make it more palitable for the luddites, but I'm all for technology being used for black and white decisions, which offside is.
Other global sports have embraced modern technology and it has enhanced the sport. it does take an adjustment period and that's where we are at the moment with VAR. .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Offside is only black and white based on the most recent variation of a rule that has been adjusted and changed on numerous occasions. The current variation doesn’t sit right with me (and many others) because it’s not what the original intent of the law was - doesn’t make us luddites!
Apart from that, I agree. VAR is a positive development for the game - but it does require an adjustment for the handball and offside rules IMO.
posted on 18/8/19
So offside law was to prevent goal hanging but with today's technology, we can see that officials miss offsides sometimes, even if there's daylight between the players.
Last season in a City match, the central ref overruled his own linesman on an offside call. The linesman had got it right and the central ref overruled him. After that City scored another 3 goals.
That's just an example but with the detail and technology available today, such injustices are arguably more likely to put people off from becoming fans of a game fraught with clear injustice and ridiculousness.
What you don't know won't hurt you. Without replays, people didn't know. Now we have replays and tech, people know and that changes things.
posted on 18/8/19
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson - Football Is D... (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 49 minutes ago
What about the foul on Rodri in the penalty area yesterday?
The fans saw it, the players appealed for it, MOTD picked up on it yet the people monitoring VAR ignored it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't ignore it, they checked it. They must have decided it wasnt a clear and obvious error as it was certainly a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On an issue like this is where VAR justifiably has its critics, because its a subjective opinion.
On matters such as offside it's great. The offside law could be changed to make it more palitable for the luddites, but I'm all for technology being used for black and white decisions, which offside is.
Other global sports have embraced modern technology and it has enhanced the sport. it does take an adjustment period and that's where we are at the moment with VAR. .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Offside is only black and white based on the most recent variation of a rule that has been adjusted and changed on numerous occasions. The current variation doesn’t sit right with me (and many others) because it’s not what the original intent of the law was - doesn’t make us luddites!
Apart from that, I agree. VAR is a positive development for the game - but it does require an adjustment for the handball and offside rules IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As you well know the law for offside is repeatedly changed. Which generally causes some consternation amongst football fans
VAR can only apply the law as it is written. Those who decry it's use because of the laws are misplacing their ire (this obviously isn't directed at yourself)
posted on 18/8/19
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson - Football Is D... (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 49 minutes ago
What about the foul on Rodri in the penalty area yesterday?
The fans saw it, the players appealed for it, MOTD picked up on it yet the people monitoring VAR ignored it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't ignore it, they checked it. They must have decided it wasnt a clear and obvious error as it was certainly a foul.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
On an issue like this is where VAR justifiably has its critics, because its a subjective opinion.
On matters such as offside it's great. The offside law could be changed to make it more palitable for the luddites, but I'm all for technology being used for black and white decisions, which offside is.
Other global sports have embraced modern technology and it has enhanced the sport. it does take an adjustment period and that's where we are at the moment with VAR. .
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Offside is only black and white based on the most recent variation of a rule that has been adjusted and changed on numerous occasions. The current variation doesn’t sit right with me (and many others) because it’s not what the original intent of the law was - doesn’t make us luddites!
Apart from that, I agree. VAR is a positive development for the game - but it does require an adjustment for the handball and offside rules IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As you well know the law for offside is repeatedly changed. Which generally causes some consternation amongst football fans
VAR can only apply the law as it is written. Those who decry it's use because of the laws are misplacing their ire (this obviously isn't directed at yourself)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
👍🏻
posted on 18/8/19
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson - Football Is D... (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 49 minutes ago
What about the foul on Rodri in the penalty area yesterday?
The fans saw it, the players appealed for it, MOTD picked up on it yet the people monitoring VAR ignored it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't ignore it, they checked it. They must have decided it wasnt a clear and obvious error as it was certainly a foul.
--------------------------------------------------
It was clearer and more obvious than the alleged 'handball'.
posted on 18/8/19
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson - Football Is Dead (U5901)
posted 11 seconds ago
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'š _P䆆ê®ÑëÐ_ÐrÊåm§ (U1541)
posted 14 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson - Football Is D... (U5901)
posted 2 hours, 49 minutes ago
What about the foul on Rodri in the penalty area yesterday?
The fans saw it, the players appealed for it, MOTD picked up on it yet the people monitoring VAR ignored it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't ignore it, they checked it. They must have decided it wasnt a clear and obvious error as it was certainly a foul.
--------------------------------------------------
It was clearer and more obvious than the alleged 'handball'.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It was a handball. The rules make it so. VAR got it spot on
The pen gives you something to chat about in the boozer.
posted on 18/8/19
The intent of the law is in the definition of the law. If they wanted to just stop goal hanging them they could have introduced many different laws to handle it.
Ths IFAB chose the offside law, whichnmeant that attackers couldn't move beyond the second last defender before the ball was played forward. There have been tweaks as to how to best manage this but they have never actually changed the definition of where the offside line is. Since they have had decades to amend this, they obviously intended for it to be as the rule is applied.
All VAR does is makes it more likely that the correct decision, as per the rule, is applied. If you start saying that missing some decisions is ok because they were marginal them you give huge advantages to teams who get that advantage and those that don't.
posted on 18/8/19
I'm not convinced it was handball, there's plenty of clips on FB showing it hit the Spurs player rather than Laportea[ arm.
If there's that degree of uncertainty then for the good of football, goals like that should stand.
posted on 18/8/19
Clips on FB. That's all the evidence one needs
posted on 18/8/19
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 9 minutes ago
The intent of the law is in the definition of the law. If they wanted to just stop goal hanging them they could have introduced many different laws to handle it.
Ths IFAB chose the offside law, whichnmeant that attackers couldn't move beyond the second last defender before the ball was played forward. There have been tweaks as to how to best manage this but they have never actually changed the definition of where the offside line is. Since they have had decades to amend this, they obviously intended for it to be as the rule is applied.
All VAR does is makes it more likely that the correct decision, as per the rule, is applied. If you start saying that missing some decisions is ok because they were marginal them you give huge advantages to teams who get that advantage and those that don't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean the original intent of the offside law when it was first introduced. That was to prevent goal hanging, not to argue over millimetres. They could go with the ‘clear daylight’ directive or the ‘advantage with attacker’ rule but for me the current ruling is too harsh on the attacking side and that wasn’t the original intent of the law.
I agree that it isn’t VAR’s fault though - but what VAR does is push it into focus. When you had assistant referees making the decisions a borderline call wouldn’t be disputed particularly but described as ‘tight’. VAR makes that rule black and white, in my opinion that’s why the rule needs adjusting.
posted on 18/8/19
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 9 minutes ago
The intent of the law is in the definition of the law. If they wanted to just stop goal hanging them they could have introduced many different laws to handle it.
Ths IFAB chose the offside law, whichnmeant that attackers couldn't move beyond the second last defender before the ball was played forward. There have been tweaks as to how to best manage this but they have never actually changed the definition of where the offside line is. Since they have had decades to amend this, they obviously intended for it to be as the rule is applied.
All VAR does is makes it more likely that the correct decision, as per the rule, is applied. If you start saying that missing some decisions is ok because they were marginal them you give huge advantages to teams who get that advantage and those that don't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean the original intent of the offside law when it was first introduced. That was to prevent goal hanging, not to argue over millimetres. They could go with the ‘clear daylight’ directive or the ‘advantage with attacker’ rule but for me the current ruling is too harsh on the attacking side and that wasn’t the original intent of the law.
I agree that it isn’t VAR’s fault though - but what VAR does is push it into focus. When you had assistant referees making the decisions a borderline call wouldn’t be disputed particularly but described as ‘tight’. VAR makes that rule black and white, in my opinion that’s why the rule needs adjusting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it wouldn't solve anything. If you move the offside line you still have close decisions and it needs to be correct.
The reason that there were directives like "favour the attacker" was because they knew that at the time you couldn't be sure the linesman was correct, so felt it was better to err on the attacking side. Now that we can have these decisions correct to about 1/25th of a second, here is no need to give advantage to either side.
posted on 18/8/19
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 9 minutes ago
The intent of the law is in the definition of the law. If they wanted to just stop goal hanging them they could have introduced many different laws to handle it.
Ths IFAB chose the offside law, whichnmeant that attackers couldn't move beyond the second last defender before the ball was played forward. There have been tweaks as to how to best manage this but they have never actually changed the definition of where the offside line is. Since they have had decades to amend this, they obviously intended for it to be as the rule is applied.
All VAR does is makes it more likely that the correct decision, as per the rule, is applied. If you start saying that missing some decisions is ok because they were marginal them you give huge advantages to teams who get that advantage and those that don't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean the original intent of the offside law when it was first introduced. That was to prevent goal hanging, not to argue over millimetres. They could go with the ‘clear daylight’ directive or the ‘advantage with attacker’ rule but for me the current ruling is too harsh on the attacking side and that wasn’t the original intent of the law.
I agree that it isn’t VAR’s fault though - but what VAR does is push it into focus. When you had assistant referees making the decisions a borderline call wouldn’t be disputed particularly but described as ‘tight’. VAR makes that rule black and white, in my opinion that’s why the rule needs adjusting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it wouldn't solve anything. If you move the offside line you still have close decisions and it needs to be correct.
The reason that there were directives like "favour the attacker" was because they knew that at the time you couldn't be sure the linesman was correct, so felt it was better to err on the attacking side. Now that we can have these decisions correct to about 1/25th of a second, here is no need to give advantage to either side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the current rule gives advantage to the defending team. If you’re a millimetre offside (which is completely down to luck) then the goal is disallowed.
posted on 18/8/19
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 9 minutes ago
The intent of the law is in the definition of the law. If they wanted to just stop goal hanging them they could have introduced many different laws to handle it.
Ths IFAB chose the offside law, whichnmeant that attackers couldn't move beyond the second last defender before the ball was played forward. There have been tweaks as to how to best manage this but they have never actually changed the definition of where the offside line is. Since they have had decades to amend this, they obviously intended for it to be as the rule is applied.
All VAR does is makes it more likely that the correct decision, as per the rule, is applied. If you start saying that missing some decisions is ok because they were marginal them you give huge advantages to teams who get that advantage and those that don't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean the original intent of the offside law when it was first introduced. That was to prevent goal hanging, not to argue over millimetres. They could go with the ‘clear daylight’ directive or the ‘advantage with attacker’ rule but for me the current ruling is too harsh on the attacking side and that wasn’t the original intent of the law.
I agree that it isn’t VAR’s fault though - but what VAR does is push it into focus. When you had assistant referees making the decisions a borderline call wouldn’t be disputed particularly but described as ‘tight’. VAR makes that rule black and white, in my opinion that’s why the rule needs adjusting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it wouldn't solve anything. If you move the offside line you still have close decisions and it needs to be correct.
The reason that there were directives like "favour the attacker" was because they knew that at the time you couldn't be sure the linesman was correct, so felt it was better to err on the attacking side. Now that we can have these decisions correct to about 1/25th of a second, here is no need to give advantage to either side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the current rule gives advantage to the defending team. If you’re a millimetre offside (which is completely down to luck) then the goal is disallowed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Luck, or skill. The number of goals disallowed is tiny when compared to total goals scored.
posted on 18/8/19
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 9 minutes ago
The intent of the law is in the definition of the law. If they wanted to just stop goal hanging them they could have introduced many different laws to handle it.
Ths IFAB chose the offside law, whichnmeant that attackers couldn't move beyond the second last defender before the ball was played forward. There have been tweaks as to how to best manage this but they have never actually changed the definition of where the offside line is. Since they have had decades to amend this, they obviously intended for it to be as the rule is applied.
All VAR does is makes it more likely that the correct decision, as per the rule, is applied. If you start saying that missing some decisions is ok because they were marginal them you give huge advantages to teams who get that advantage and those that don't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean the original intent of the offside law when it was first introduced. That was to prevent goal hanging, not to argue over millimetres. They could go with the ‘clear daylight’ directive or the ‘advantage with attacker’ rule but for me the current ruling is too harsh on the attacking side and that wasn’t the original intent of the law.
I agree that it isn’t VAR’s fault though - but what VAR does is push it into focus. When you had assistant referees making the decisions a borderline call wouldn’t be disputed particularly but described as ‘tight’. VAR makes that rule black and white, in my opinion that’s why the rule needs adjusting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it wouldn't solve anything. If you move the offside line you still have close decisions and it needs to be correct.
The reason that there were directives like "favour the attacker" was because they knew that at the time you couldn't be sure the linesman was correct, so felt it was better to err on the attacking side. Now that we can have these decisions correct to about 1/25th of a second, here is no need to give advantage to either side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the current rule gives advantage to the defending team. If you’re a millimetre offside (which is completely down to luck) then the goal is disallowed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Luck, or skill. The number of goals disallowed is tiny when compared to total goals scored.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but when a vital goal is disallowed by millimetres (take Lingard in the Nations League for example) is that right?
There are decisions that VAR overturn that are brilliant. I’ll give an example of my own team benefiting - Drogba at Old Trafford in 2010 - that kind of decision VAR needs to intervene on. But the current interpretation of offside favours the defensive side too much in my opinion.
posted on 18/8/19
comment by Pâî§Lë¥'&scaron... (U1541)
posted 39 minutes ago
Clips on FB. That's all the evidence one need
------------------------------------------------------
They highlight what the VAR guy missed, the same guy who couldn't even get to Stamford Bridge today to officate an actual game.
posted on 18/8/19
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 9 minutes ago
The intent of the law is in the definition of the law. If they wanted to just stop goal hanging them they could have introduced many different laws to handle it.
Ths IFAB chose the offside law, whichnmeant that attackers couldn't move beyond the second last defender before the ball was played forward. There have been tweaks as to how to best manage this but they have never actually changed the definition of where the offside line is. Since they have had decades to amend this, they obviously intended for it to be as the rule is applied.
All VAR does is makes it more likely that the correct decision, as per the rule, is applied. If you start saying that missing some decisions is ok because they were marginal them you give huge advantages to teams who get that advantage and those that don't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean the original intent of the offside law when it was first introduced. That was to prevent goal hanging, not to argue over millimetres. They could go with the ‘clear daylight’ directive or the ‘advantage with attacker’ rule but for me the current ruling is too harsh on the attacking side and that wasn’t the original intent of the law.
I agree that it isn’t VAR’s fault though - but what VAR does is push it into focus. When you had assistant referees making the decisions a borderline call wouldn’t be disputed particularly but described as ‘tight’. VAR makes that rule black and white, in my opinion that’s why the rule needs adjusting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it wouldn't solve anything. If you move the offside line you still have close decisions and it needs to be correct.
The reason that there were directives like "favour the attacker" was because they knew that at the time you couldn't be sure the linesman was correct, so felt it was better to err on the attacking side. Now that we can have these decisions correct to about 1/25th of a second, here is no need to give advantage to either side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the current rule gives advantage to the defending team. If you’re a millimetre offside (which is completely down to luck) then the goal is disallowed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Luck, or skill. The number of goals disallowed is tiny when compared to total goals scored.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but when a vital goal is disallowed by millimetres (take Lingard in the Nations League for example) is that right?
There are decisions that VAR overturn that are brilliant. I’ll give an example of my own team benefiting - Drogba at Old Trafford in 2010 - that kind of decision VAR needs to intervene on. But the current interpretation of offside favours the defensive side too much in my opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When a vital goal is scored by a player offside (even by mm) then the team who it has been scored against has been cheated. Why should they have to accept it, when we have tech to show it?
posted on 18/8/19
comment by Klopptimus Prime - Die Unerträglichen (U1282)
posted 2 hours, 19 minutes ago
Because despite the injustice we still loved the game.
=====
We'll still love the game, just with less injustice then before.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Less injustice is debatable.
It was the one blight from what was a great game at the Etihad.
posted on 18/8/19
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 28 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 9 minutes ago
The intent of the law is in the definition of the law. If they wanted to just stop goal hanging them they could have introduced many different laws to handle it.
Ths IFAB chose the offside law, whichnmeant that attackers couldn't move beyond the second last defender before the ball was played forward. There have been tweaks as to how to best manage this but they have never actually changed the definition of where the offside line is. Since they have had decades to amend this, they obviously intended for it to be as the rule is applied.
All VAR does is makes it more likely that the correct decision, as per the rule, is applied. If you start saying that missing some decisions is ok because they were marginal them you give huge advantages to teams who get that advantage and those that don't.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean the original intent of the offside law when it was first introduced. That was to prevent goal hanging, not to argue over millimetres. They could go with the ‘clear daylight’ directive or the ‘advantage with attacker’ rule but for me the current ruling is too harsh on the attacking side and that wasn’t the original intent of the law.
I agree that it isn’t VAR’s fault though - but what VAR does is push it into focus. When you had assistant referees making the decisions a borderline call wouldn’t be disputed particularly but described as ‘tight’. VAR makes that rule black and white, in my opinion that’s why the rule needs adjusting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But it wouldn't solve anything. If you move the offside line you still have close decisions and it needs to be correct.
The reason that there were directives like "favour the attacker" was because they knew that at the time you couldn't be sure the linesman was correct, so felt it was better to err on the attacking side. Now that we can have these decisions correct to about 1/25th of a second, here is no need to give advantage to either side.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the current rule gives advantage to the defending team. If you’re a millimetre offside (which is completely down to luck) then the goal is disallowed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Luck, or skill. The number of goals disallowed is tiny when compared to total goals scored.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes but when a vital goal is disallowed by millimetres (take Lingard in the Nations League for example) is that right?
There are decisions that VAR overturn that are brilliant. I’ll give an example of my own team benefiting - Drogba at Old Trafford in 2010 - that kind of decision VAR needs to intervene on. But the current interpretation of offside favours the defensive side too much in my opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When a vital goal is scored by a player offside (even by mm) then the team who it has been scored against has been cheated. Why should they have to accept it, when we have tech to show it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because you’re judging that injustice by the current variation of the rule (any part of he attacker being offside is offside).
Page 3 of 8
6 | 7 | 8