So what does fans not knowing whether the decision was correct or not until they get home have to do with VAR?
Pre VAR fans went home not knowing whether the decision was correct or not.
After VAR fans will go home not knowing whether the decision was correct or not.
Am I missing something here?
comment by Klopptimus Prime - Die Unerträglichen (U1282)
posted 10 minutes ago
So what does fans not knowing whether the decision was correct or not until they get home have to do with VAR?
Pre VAR fans went home not knowing whether the decision was correct or not.
After VAR fans will go home not knowing whether the decision was correct or not.
Am I missing something here?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think that is the problem. I think the problem would be for example City's third in the game on Saturday. You have no idea why it wasn't allowed. It would be easy to relay this information in the stadium.
Pre VAR: Ref makes decision and reasons for said decision relayed in the stadium.
After VAR: Ref makes VAR assisted decision and reasons for said decision relayed in the stadium.
Perhaps that's not happening but I don't see why not? If the reason for the decision was known to the fans pre VAR, then it should be known after VAR through the same means IMO.
Also, even with big screens, a some times the fans would still not know (or be sure) why a goal is disallowed until the info is relayed.
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 40 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 7 hours, 31 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 57 minutes ago
You still haven't answered the questions. You've just repeated what you've already said.
The offside rule hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed is the fact that they don't give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker, as they don't need to. The rule was brought in to stop the attacker getting the advantage but some decisions were too difficult to get right and then you had replays showing incorrect decisions so they gave the advantage to the attacker. We don't need that anymore as now it's not difficult, the officials get help and we get the correct decision instead.
Rather than it being OK if it's just a little bit offside, why not be happy with it being close to perfect and if it's offside it's offside. This leaves no interpretation and we have easy decisions which are easy to understand. Using VAR to judge decisions which are just a little bit offside or not would be a circus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say the rule hasn’t changed and then give an exact way that it has been adjusted over the years!
If you want an alternative then you can have if any part of the attacker is onside, they’re onside. You’ll always have borderline decisions but at least that way the benefit of the doubt is with the attacking team - as it should be.
Comes down to - if your team had a goal disallowed in a Champions League semi final that was similar to the one that Man City has disallowed last weekend - would you deep down be ok with that? I’d find it very difficult to accept.
At the end of the day, if you’re happy with the current offside ruling then great and I don’t want to carry on going round in circles. But ruling out goals for mm is not what the offside rule was introduced for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it hasn't been adjusted. The law has remained the same. The guidance given to referees has changed, as the decisions have become more difficult as the speed of the game increased and the cameras picked up more mistakes. Therefore they made it easier and advised officials to give the benefit of doubt, which covered themselves for any mistakes made.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what distance you would allow the attackers to be a little bit offside and how you would measure it? How would this work?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I gave you one idea that has been discussed which is that if any part of the attacker is onside, then they’re ruled onside. Giving the advantage back to the attacking team.
The only way to completely solve offside problem is perhaps with electronic chips.
Surprised that no one has mentioned this throughout all this furore.
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 40 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 7 hours, 31 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 57 minutes ago
You still haven't answered the questions. You've just repeated what you've already said.
The offside rule hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed is the fact that they don't give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker, as they don't need to. The rule was brought in to stop the attacker getting the advantage but some decisions were too difficult to get right and then you had replays showing incorrect decisions so they gave the advantage to the attacker. We don't need that anymore as now it's not difficult, the officials get help and we get the correct decision instead.
Rather than it being OK if it's just a little bit offside, why not be happy with it being close to perfect and if it's offside it's offside. This leaves no interpretation and we have easy decisions which are easy to understand. Using VAR to judge decisions which are just a little bit offside or not would be a circus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say the rule hasn’t changed and then give an exact way that it has been adjusted over the years!
If you want an alternative then you can have if any part of the attacker is onside, they’re onside. You’ll always have borderline decisions but at least that way the benefit of the doubt is with the attacking team - as it should be.
Comes down to - if your team had a goal disallowed in a Champions League semi final that was similar to the one that Man City has disallowed last weekend - would you deep down be ok with that? I’d find it very difficult to accept.
At the end of the day, if you’re happy with the current offside ruling then great and I don’t want to carry on going round in circles. But ruling out goals for mm is not what the offside rule was introduced for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it hasn't been adjusted. The law has remained the same. The guidance given to referees has changed, as the decisions have become more difficult as the speed of the game increased and the cameras picked up more mistakes. Therefore they made it easier and advised officials to give the benefit of doubt, which covered themselves for any mistakes made.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what distance you would allow the attackers to be a little bit offside and how you would measure it? How would this work?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I gave you one idea that has been discussed which is that if any part of the attacker is onside, then they’re ruled onside. Giving the advantage back to the attacking team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This would work and be as easy to gauge but why do you want to give the advantage to the attacking team? Why not leave it as it is and have it equal?
Because I don’t think the offside rule was designed for the disallowing goals for millimetres. Before VAR cane in would we really feel outrageously hard done by if Man City’s goal last weekend had been scored against our teams? I don’t think we would, we accepted that tight decisions like that can go either way for offside. With VAR coming in and taking the rule as black and white, that’s changed. That’s not a slight on VAR but it has changed the way the rule is interpreted.
For me that doesn’t feel right when thinking about what the offside rule was actually put in place for.
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 40 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 7 hours, 31 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 57 minutes ago
You still haven't answered the questions. You've just repeated what you've already said.
The offside rule hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed is the fact that they don't give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker, as they don't need to. The rule was brought in to stop the attacker getting the advantage but some decisions were too difficult to get right and then you had replays showing incorrect decisions so they gave the advantage to the attacker. We don't need that anymore as now it's not difficult, the officials get help and we get the correct decision instead.
Rather than it being OK if it's just a little bit offside, why not be happy with it being close to perfect and if it's offside it's offside. This leaves no interpretation and we have easy decisions which are easy to understand. Using VAR to judge decisions which are just a little bit offside or not would be a circus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say the rule hasn’t changed and then give an exact way that it has been adjusted over the years!
If you want an alternative then you can have if any part of the attacker is onside, they’re onside. You’ll always have borderline decisions but at least that way the benefit of the doubt is with the attacking team - as it should be.
Comes down to - if your team had a goal disallowed in a Champions League semi final that was similar to the one that Man City has disallowed last weekend - would you deep down be ok with that? I’d find it very difficult to accept.
At the end of the day, if you’re happy with the current offside ruling then great and I don’t want to carry on going round in circles. But ruling out goals for mm is not what the offside rule was introduced for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it hasn't been adjusted. The law has remained the same. The guidance given to referees has changed, as the decisions have become more difficult as the speed of the game increased and the cameras picked up more mistakes. Therefore they made it easier and advised officials to give the benefit of doubt, which covered themselves for any mistakes made.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what distance you would allow the attackers to be a little bit offside and how you would measure it? How would this work?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I gave you one idea that has been discussed which is that if any part of the attacker is onside, then they’re ruled onside. Giving the advantage back to the attacking team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But this doesn't address the issue of tight calls being (correctly) called. People will still be upset that a player was a little bit beyond your new offside line and say that it isn't in the "spirit" of the law.
Attackers currently hang around in line with the last defender so that they can quickly chase a ball through and be onside. If you move the offside line 2 feet behind the defender then the attackers will just start hanging around behind the defender. I cant see that anything would change whatsoever.
It might possibly make the timing of through balls slightly more lenient, but considering there have been about 3 goals per game this season so far, I'm not sure attackers need any more help.
Surely to solve the fans in the stadium issue you just need to do it like they do in rugby and cricket with replays on the screen and a tannoy announcement.
Saturday for example after the goals scored, tannoy says "VAR review in progress for possible handball", replays pop up on screen, tannoy says "handball on player number X, goal disallowed".
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 40 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 7 hours, 31 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 57 minutes ago
You still haven't answered the questions. You've just repeated what you've already said.
The offside rule hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed is the fact that they don't give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker, as they don't need to. The rule was brought in to stop the attacker getting the advantage but some decisions were too difficult to get right and then you had replays showing incorrect decisions so they gave the advantage to the attacker. We don't need that anymore as now it's not difficult, the officials get help and we get the correct decision instead.
Rather than it being OK if it's just a little bit offside, why not be happy with it being close to perfect and if it's offside it's offside. This leaves no interpretation and we have easy decisions which are easy to understand. Using VAR to judge decisions which are just a little bit offside or not would be a circus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say the rule hasn’t changed and then give an exact way that it has been adjusted over the years!
If you want an alternative then you can have if any part of the attacker is onside, they’re onside. You’ll always have borderline decisions but at least that way the benefit of the doubt is with the attacking team - as it should be.
Comes down to - if your team had a goal disallowed in a Champions League semi final that was similar to the one that Man City has disallowed last weekend - would you deep down be ok with that? I’d find it very difficult to accept.
At the end of the day, if you’re happy with the current offside ruling then great and I don’t want to carry on going round in circles. But ruling out goals for mm is not what the offside rule was introduced for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it hasn't been adjusted. The law has remained the same. The guidance given to referees has changed, as the decisions have become more difficult as the speed of the game increased and the cameras picked up more mistakes. Therefore they made it easier and advised officials to give the benefit of doubt, which covered themselves for any mistakes made.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what distance you would allow the attackers to be a little bit offside and how you would measure it? How would this work?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I gave you one idea that has been discussed which is that if any part of the attacker is onside, then they’re ruled onside. Giving the advantage back to the attacking team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But this doesn't address the issue of tight calls being (correctly) called. People will still be upset that a player was a little bit beyond your new offside line and say that it isn't in the "spirit" of the law.
Attackers currently hang around in line with the last defender so that they can quickly chase a ball through and be onside. If you move the offside line 2 feet behind the defender then the attackers will just start hanging around behind the defender. I cant see that anything would change whatsoever.
It might possibly make the timing of through balls slightly more lenient, but considering there have been about 3 goals per game this season so far, I'm not sure attackers need any more help.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There will absolutely still be borderline calls, VAR makes them unavoidable.
What you won’t have is goals being disallowed because someone’s left big toe was offside, which to me feels unsatisfactory and isn’t what the law is there for.
I don’t know if it would change how attackers and defenders approach the offside trap. I think it would be pretty similar to how it worked before VAR as those kind of borderline decisions could have gone either way last season anyway.
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 2 minutes ago
Because I don’t think the offside rule was designed for the disallowing goals for millimetres. Before VAR cane in would we really feel outrageously hard done by if Man City’s goal last weekend had been scored against our teams? I don’t think we would, we accepted that tight decisions like that can go either way for offside. With VAR coming in and taking the rule as black and white, that’s changed. That’s not a slight on VAR but it has changed the way the rule is interpreted.
For me that doesn’t feel right when thinking about what the offside rule was actually put in place for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Our ability to judge offside accurately has changed and therefore it's only natural there will be slight tweaks on guidance for officials as it's easier to judge. I don't see the problem.
This comes down to you not wanting the game to be equal but to advantage the attacker because of a reason, that may or may not have been the reason for offside in the first place, brought into the game 150 years ago. You're forgetting the rule firstly advantaged the attacker as you had to be behind the last three/two defenders, until 1990, when they changed it to allow you to be level. Now you want to push it further in that direction and allow you to be a little offside. For me this is crazy.
firstly advantaged the defender*
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7367933/An-offside-decision-never-black-white-VAR.html
This article sums up my view on offside far better than I can, he references some of the rule adjustments to offside that you have but comes to the same conclusion as me. It puts forward my point of the argument far more articulately than I can!
He also makes a good point about frame rates and margin for error when VAR considers offside calls, which is interesting - using Sterling’s goal as an example.
In particular these paragraphs:
“Yet the current technological dissection of offside means that now we're heading back to the pre-1990 offside rule. If you're level, which should be onside, you're pretty much sure to be, in some way, offside. Your armpit (as in Sterling's case), nose, toe: something is likely look offside. And you can draw a line on TV which supposedly proves it. To be sure of being onside by the VAR, the striker now really has to be behind the defender, giving the defender a massive advantage.
The quickest and easier solution would be simply to apply the 'clear and obvious' criteria to the offside law. Then, you're not searching to find a way to disallow a great goal; you're only trying to assess whether the assistant could reasonably have spotted it. That's what happens in cricket, where if Hawkeye shows the ball clipping the bails, the decision is considered so marginal that you go with the umpire's call. That way, neither Jesus' goal nor Lingard's would be ruled out.
I would also favour experimenting with a tweak in the rules, so that if any playing part of the body is onside, then you're onside. So you can't dangle your arm onside and steal a yard but you can get one step ahead of defender. That would restore the intended advantage to the attackers.
Of course, there will always be contentious decisions and you have to draw the line somewhere. But right now, it's being drawn in the wrong place and making life too easy for defenders.”
That’s pretty much what I was trying to say but explained much clearer.
This is incorrect. Level was onside after 1990 and still is now. He's arguing against something which is incorrect.
What he’s saying though is that the rule of ‘level’ when brought in after 1990 wasn’t being dissected at a microscopic level, which it does with VAR. The Man City goal would have been deemed ‘level’ had it been scored last year. With VAR looking at it at a level of millimetres (which have a margin for error as well) they get disallowed. So VAR has changed he way the offside rule is being enforced.
Anyway, enjoyed debating the issue but it’s mostly going round in circles now. Have to agree to disagree on it. It is a worthwhile debate though and it certainly isn’t ridiculous as a few posters said earlier to suggest that there is an issue with offside and VAR.
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 4 minutes ago
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7367933/An-offside-decision-never-black-white-VAR.html
This article sums up my view on offside far better than I can, he references some of the rule adjustments to offside that you have but comes to the same conclusion as me. It puts forward my point of the argument far more articulately than I can!
He also makes a good point about frame rates and margin for error when VAR considers offside calls, which is interesting - using Sterling’s goal as an example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure I find that article compelling.
They claim that Sterling was 2.4 cm offside but there is a margin of error of 13 cm so he was more than likely onside. I might be wrong but this seems like bad maths. If the 2.4 cm is the point if the margin of error then he is more than likely off. It is a small chance he was onside. People are only moaning that VAR caught this. If the linesman had raised his flag then it would have been accepted (because that is the system we used to have) bit we dont know if the linesman did catch it. He won't raise his flag until the play stops un case goal is scored and he was wrong.
Also one of their central points is that because there is this potential doubt it is not worth it. This is bad logic. It is clearly more accurate than the old system, so not being 100% accurate isn't really an argument against.
As for making it easy for defenders - so far we have had an average of 2.6 goals per game. This seems pretty close to the average last season of 2.8. This will be monitored going forward but there is currently no evidence to suggest that the new rule will be of unfair advantage to defenders. Especially when you consider VAR will wipe out all the times a striker was incorrectly flagged offside and would have otherwise scored.
It’s a tiny sample size so I don’t think we can judge yet but 0.2 less goals a game is not insignificant. It will be interesting to see if that continues throughout the season. Very interesting stat.
I think we can all agree that VAR should be there for those really clear offside decisions that are wrong. It’s whether the change in the offside law from 1990 onwards is fit for purpose when being enforced in a VAR context.
I think we can all agree that VAR should be there for those really clear offside decisions that are wrong.
====
This is not practicable IMO. How far offside is"really clear offside" in your opinion?
comment by Klopptimus Prime - Die Unerträglichen (U1282)
posted 12 seconds ago
I think we can all agree that VAR should be there for those really clear offside decisions that are wrong.
====
This is not practicable IMO. How far offside is"really clear offside" in your opinion?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think having it that if any part of the attacking player is onside then it’s should be onside.
"I think we can all agree that VAR should be there for those really clear offside decisions that are wrong"
Nope, I can't agree with that. For me VAR should be there for all offside decisions, that require correcting the officials or for those tight ones where the official hasn't raised his flag at all. It's one of those where it's black and white and therefore it should be left alone.
Other uses of VAR will rely on some kind of interpretation and therefore the rules may be looked at but at least now, the interpretation will be made with help from many angles and replays which has so far proven to increase correct decisions by over 6%.
proven to increase correct decisions by over 6%.
=====
I expect this figure to grow as time passes too.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Nope, I can't agree with that. For me VAR should be there for all offside decisions, that require correcting the officials or for those tight ones where the official hasn't raised his flag at all. It's one of those where it's black and white and therefore it should be left alone.
—————
Just have to agree to disagree then. I feel that the current law, when enforced by VAR ruling out goals for toes being offside is too harsh on the attacking team. As I said above none of us would have been shouting about injustices when those goals were given last year - they were legitimate goals. VAR has changed how the practicality of the law being enforced which for me means the law needs looking at the maintain the balance.
I completely get your point though, there is just something that doesn’t feel right about those kind of goals being disallowed.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Sign in if you want to comment
VAR IS The Issue
Page 5 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 19/8/19
So what does fans not knowing whether the decision was correct or not until they get home have to do with VAR?
Pre VAR fans went home not knowing whether the decision was correct or not.
After VAR fans will go home not knowing whether the decision was correct or not.
Am I missing something here?
posted on 19/8/19
comment by Klopptimus Prime - Die Unerträglichen (U1282)
posted 10 minutes ago
So what does fans not knowing whether the decision was correct or not until they get home have to do with VAR?
Pre VAR fans went home not knowing whether the decision was correct or not.
After VAR fans will go home not knowing whether the decision was correct or not.
Am I missing something here?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't think that is the problem. I think the problem would be for example City's third in the game on Saturday. You have no idea why it wasn't allowed. It would be easy to relay this information in the stadium.
posted on 19/8/19
Pre VAR: Ref makes decision and reasons for said decision relayed in the stadium.
After VAR: Ref makes VAR assisted decision and reasons for said decision relayed in the stadium.
Perhaps that's not happening but I don't see why not? If the reason for the decision was known to the fans pre VAR, then it should be known after VAR through the same means IMO.
Also, even with big screens, a some times the fans would still not know (or be sure) why a goal is disallowed until the info is relayed.
posted on 19/8/19
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 40 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 7 hours, 31 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 57 minutes ago
You still haven't answered the questions. You've just repeated what you've already said.
The offside rule hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed is the fact that they don't give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker, as they don't need to. The rule was brought in to stop the attacker getting the advantage but some decisions were too difficult to get right and then you had replays showing incorrect decisions so they gave the advantage to the attacker. We don't need that anymore as now it's not difficult, the officials get help and we get the correct decision instead.
Rather than it being OK if it's just a little bit offside, why not be happy with it being close to perfect and if it's offside it's offside. This leaves no interpretation and we have easy decisions which are easy to understand. Using VAR to judge decisions which are just a little bit offside or not would be a circus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say the rule hasn’t changed and then give an exact way that it has been adjusted over the years!
If you want an alternative then you can have if any part of the attacker is onside, they’re onside. You’ll always have borderline decisions but at least that way the benefit of the doubt is with the attacking team - as it should be.
Comes down to - if your team had a goal disallowed in a Champions League semi final that was similar to the one that Man City has disallowed last weekend - would you deep down be ok with that? I’d find it very difficult to accept.
At the end of the day, if you’re happy with the current offside ruling then great and I don’t want to carry on going round in circles. But ruling out goals for mm is not what the offside rule was introduced for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it hasn't been adjusted. The law has remained the same. The guidance given to referees has changed, as the decisions have become more difficult as the speed of the game increased and the cameras picked up more mistakes. Therefore they made it easier and advised officials to give the benefit of doubt, which covered themselves for any mistakes made.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what distance you would allow the attackers to be a little bit offside and how you would measure it? How would this work?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I gave you one idea that has been discussed which is that if any part of the attacker is onside, then they’re ruled onside. Giving the advantage back to the attacking team.
posted on 19/8/19
The only way to completely solve offside problem is perhaps with electronic chips.
Surprised that no one has mentioned this throughout all this furore.
posted on 19/8/19
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 40 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 7 hours, 31 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 57 minutes ago
You still haven't answered the questions. You've just repeated what you've already said.
The offside rule hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed is the fact that they don't give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker, as they don't need to. The rule was brought in to stop the attacker getting the advantage but some decisions were too difficult to get right and then you had replays showing incorrect decisions so they gave the advantage to the attacker. We don't need that anymore as now it's not difficult, the officials get help and we get the correct decision instead.
Rather than it being OK if it's just a little bit offside, why not be happy with it being close to perfect and if it's offside it's offside. This leaves no interpretation and we have easy decisions which are easy to understand. Using VAR to judge decisions which are just a little bit offside or not would be a circus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say the rule hasn’t changed and then give an exact way that it has been adjusted over the years!
If you want an alternative then you can have if any part of the attacker is onside, they’re onside. You’ll always have borderline decisions but at least that way the benefit of the doubt is with the attacking team - as it should be.
Comes down to - if your team had a goal disallowed in a Champions League semi final that was similar to the one that Man City has disallowed last weekend - would you deep down be ok with that? I’d find it very difficult to accept.
At the end of the day, if you’re happy with the current offside ruling then great and I don’t want to carry on going round in circles. But ruling out goals for mm is not what the offside rule was introduced for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it hasn't been adjusted. The law has remained the same. The guidance given to referees has changed, as the decisions have become more difficult as the speed of the game increased and the cameras picked up more mistakes. Therefore they made it easier and advised officials to give the benefit of doubt, which covered themselves for any mistakes made.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what distance you would allow the attackers to be a little bit offside and how you would measure it? How would this work?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I gave you one idea that has been discussed which is that if any part of the attacker is onside, then they’re ruled onside. Giving the advantage back to the attacking team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This would work and be as easy to gauge but why do you want to give the advantage to the attacking team? Why not leave it as it is and have it equal?
posted on 19/8/19
Because I don’t think the offside rule was designed for the disallowing goals for millimetres. Before VAR cane in would we really feel outrageously hard done by if Man City’s goal last weekend had been scored against our teams? I don’t think we would, we accepted that tight decisions like that can go either way for offside. With VAR coming in and taking the rule as black and white, that’s changed. That’s not a slight on VAR but it has changed the way the rule is interpreted.
For me that doesn’t feel right when thinking about what the offside rule was actually put in place for.
posted on 19/8/19
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 40 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 7 hours, 31 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 57 minutes ago
You still haven't answered the questions. You've just repeated what you've already said.
The offside rule hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed is the fact that they don't give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker, as they don't need to. The rule was brought in to stop the attacker getting the advantage but some decisions were too difficult to get right and then you had replays showing incorrect decisions so they gave the advantage to the attacker. We don't need that anymore as now it's not difficult, the officials get help and we get the correct decision instead.
Rather than it being OK if it's just a little bit offside, why not be happy with it being close to perfect and if it's offside it's offside. This leaves no interpretation and we have easy decisions which are easy to understand. Using VAR to judge decisions which are just a little bit offside or not would be a circus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say the rule hasn’t changed and then give an exact way that it has been adjusted over the years!
If you want an alternative then you can have if any part of the attacker is onside, they’re onside. You’ll always have borderline decisions but at least that way the benefit of the doubt is with the attacking team - as it should be.
Comes down to - if your team had a goal disallowed in a Champions League semi final that was similar to the one that Man City has disallowed last weekend - would you deep down be ok with that? I’d find it very difficult to accept.
At the end of the day, if you’re happy with the current offside ruling then great and I don’t want to carry on going round in circles. But ruling out goals for mm is not what the offside rule was introduced for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it hasn't been adjusted. The law has remained the same. The guidance given to referees has changed, as the decisions have become more difficult as the speed of the game increased and the cameras picked up more mistakes. Therefore they made it easier and advised officials to give the benefit of doubt, which covered themselves for any mistakes made.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what distance you would allow the attackers to be a little bit offside and how you would measure it? How would this work?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I gave you one idea that has been discussed which is that if any part of the attacker is onside, then they’re ruled onside. Giving the advantage back to the attacking team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But this doesn't address the issue of tight calls being (correctly) called. People will still be upset that a player was a little bit beyond your new offside line and say that it isn't in the "spirit" of the law.
Attackers currently hang around in line with the last defender so that they can quickly chase a ball through and be onside. If you move the offside line 2 feet behind the defender then the attackers will just start hanging around behind the defender. I cant see that anything would change whatsoever.
It might possibly make the timing of through balls slightly more lenient, but considering there have been about 3 goals per game this season so far, I'm not sure attackers need any more help.
posted on 19/8/19
Surely to solve the fans in the stadium issue you just need to do it like they do in rugby and cricket with replays on the screen and a tannoy announcement.
Saturday for example after the goals scored, tannoy says "VAR review in progress for possible handball", replays pop up on screen, tannoy says "handball on player number X, goal disallowed".
posted on 19/8/19
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 50 seconds ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 18 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 40 minutes ago
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 7 hours, 31 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 57 minutes ago
You still haven't answered the questions. You've just repeated what you've already said.
The offside rule hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed is the fact that they don't give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker, as they don't need to. The rule was brought in to stop the attacker getting the advantage but some decisions were too difficult to get right and then you had replays showing incorrect decisions so they gave the advantage to the attacker. We don't need that anymore as now it's not difficult, the officials get help and we get the correct decision instead.
Rather than it being OK if it's just a little bit offside, why not be happy with it being close to perfect and if it's offside it's offside. This leaves no interpretation and we have easy decisions which are easy to understand. Using VAR to judge decisions which are just a little bit offside or not would be a circus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You say the rule hasn’t changed and then give an exact way that it has been adjusted over the years!
If you want an alternative then you can have if any part of the attacker is onside, they’re onside. You’ll always have borderline decisions but at least that way the benefit of the doubt is with the attacking team - as it should be.
Comes down to - if your team had a goal disallowed in a Champions League semi final that was similar to the one that Man City has disallowed last weekend - would you deep down be ok with that? I’d find it very difficult to accept.
At the end of the day, if you’re happy with the current offside ruling then great and I don’t want to carry on going round in circles. But ruling out goals for mm is not what the offside rule was introduced for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it hasn't been adjusted. The law has remained the same. The guidance given to referees has changed, as the decisions have become more difficult as the speed of the game increased and the cameras picked up more mistakes. Therefore they made it easier and advised officials to give the benefit of doubt, which covered themselves for any mistakes made.
I'm still waiting for you to tell me what distance you would allow the attackers to be a little bit offside and how you would measure it? How would this work?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I gave you one idea that has been discussed which is that if any part of the attacker is onside, then they’re ruled onside. Giving the advantage back to the attacking team.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But this doesn't address the issue of tight calls being (correctly) called. People will still be upset that a player was a little bit beyond your new offside line and say that it isn't in the "spirit" of the law.
Attackers currently hang around in line with the last defender so that they can quickly chase a ball through and be onside. If you move the offside line 2 feet behind the defender then the attackers will just start hanging around behind the defender. I cant see that anything would change whatsoever.
It might possibly make the timing of through balls slightly more lenient, but considering there have been about 3 goals per game this season so far, I'm not sure attackers need any more help.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There will absolutely still be borderline calls, VAR makes them unavoidable.
What you won’t have is goals being disallowed because someone’s left big toe was offside, which to me feels unsatisfactory and isn’t what the law is there for.
I don’t know if it would change how attackers and defenders approach the offside trap. I think it would be pretty similar to how it worked before VAR as those kind of borderline decisions could have gone either way last season anyway.
posted on 19/8/19
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 2 minutes ago
Because I don’t think the offside rule was designed for the disallowing goals for millimetres. Before VAR cane in would we really feel outrageously hard done by if Man City’s goal last weekend had been scored against our teams? I don’t think we would, we accepted that tight decisions like that can go either way for offside. With VAR coming in and taking the rule as black and white, that’s changed. That’s not a slight on VAR but it has changed the way the rule is interpreted.
For me that doesn’t feel right when thinking about what the offside rule was actually put in place for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Our ability to judge offside accurately has changed and therefore it's only natural there will be slight tweaks on guidance for officials as it's easier to judge. I don't see the problem.
This comes down to you not wanting the game to be equal but to advantage the attacker because of a reason, that may or may not have been the reason for offside in the first place, brought into the game 150 years ago. You're forgetting the rule firstly advantaged the attacker as you had to be behind the last three/two defenders, until 1990, when they changed it to allow you to be level. Now you want to push it further in that direction and allow you to be a little offside. For me this is crazy.
posted on 19/8/19
firstly advantaged the defender*
posted on 19/8/19
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7367933/An-offside-decision-never-black-white-VAR.html
This article sums up my view on offside far better than I can, he references some of the rule adjustments to offside that you have but comes to the same conclusion as me. It puts forward my point of the argument far more articulately than I can!
He also makes a good point about frame rates and margin for error when VAR considers offside calls, which is interesting - using Sterling’s goal as an example.
posted on 19/8/19
In particular these paragraphs:
“Yet the current technological dissection of offside means that now we're heading back to the pre-1990 offside rule. If you're level, which should be onside, you're pretty much sure to be, in some way, offside. Your armpit (as in Sterling's case), nose, toe: something is likely look offside. And you can draw a line on TV which supposedly proves it. To be sure of being onside by the VAR, the striker now really has to be behind the defender, giving the defender a massive advantage.
The quickest and easier solution would be simply to apply the 'clear and obvious' criteria to the offside law. Then, you're not searching to find a way to disallow a great goal; you're only trying to assess whether the assistant could reasonably have spotted it. That's what happens in cricket, where if Hawkeye shows the ball clipping the bails, the decision is considered so marginal that you go with the umpire's call. That way, neither Jesus' goal nor Lingard's would be ruled out.
I would also favour experimenting with a tweak in the rules, so that if any playing part of the body is onside, then you're onside. So you can't dangle your arm onside and steal a yard but you can get one step ahead of defender. That would restore the intended advantage to the attackers.
Of course, there will always be contentious decisions and you have to draw the line somewhere. But right now, it's being drawn in the wrong place and making life too easy for defenders.”
That’s pretty much what I was trying to say but explained much clearer.
posted on 19/8/19
This is incorrect. Level was onside after 1990 and still is now. He's arguing against something which is incorrect.
posted on 19/8/19
What he’s saying though is that the rule of ‘level’ when brought in after 1990 wasn’t being dissected at a microscopic level, which it does with VAR. The Man City goal would have been deemed ‘level’ had it been scored last year. With VAR looking at it at a level of millimetres (which have a margin for error as well) they get disallowed. So VAR has changed he way the offside rule is being enforced.
Anyway, enjoyed debating the issue but it’s mostly going round in circles now. Have to agree to disagree on it. It is a worthwhile debate though and it certainly isn’t ridiculous as a few posters said earlier to suggest that there is an issue with offside and VAR.
posted on 19/8/19
comment by JohnTerrysHardTackle - #Lampard211 (U1634)
posted 4 minutes ago
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-7367933/An-offside-decision-never-black-white-VAR.html
This article sums up my view on offside far better than I can, he references some of the rule adjustments to offside that you have but comes to the same conclusion as me. It puts forward my point of the argument far more articulately than I can!
He also makes a good point about frame rates and margin for error when VAR considers offside calls, which is interesting - using Sterling’s goal as an example.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure I find that article compelling.
They claim that Sterling was 2.4 cm offside but there is a margin of error of 13 cm so he was more than likely onside. I might be wrong but this seems like bad maths. If the 2.4 cm is the point if the margin of error then he is more than likely off. It is a small chance he was onside. People are only moaning that VAR caught this. If the linesman had raised his flag then it would have been accepted (because that is the system we used to have) bit we dont know if the linesman did catch it. He won't raise his flag until the play stops un case goal is scored and he was wrong.
Also one of their central points is that because there is this potential doubt it is not worth it. This is bad logic. It is clearly more accurate than the old system, so not being 100% accurate isn't really an argument against.
As for making it easy for defenders - so far we have had an average of 2.6 goals per game. This seems pretty close to the average last season of 2.8. This will be monitored going forward but there is currently no evidence to suggest that the new rule will be of unfair advantage to defenders. Especially when you consider VAR will wipe out all the times a striker was incorrectly flagged offside and would have otherwise scored.
posted on 19/8/19
It’s a tiny sample size so I don’t think we can judge yet but 0.2 less goals a game is not insignificant. It will be interesting to see if that continues throughout the season. Very interesting stat.
I think we can all agree that VAR should be there for those really clear offside decisions that are wrong. It’s whether the change in the offside law from 1990 onwards is fit for purpose when being enforced in a VAR context.
posted on 19/8/19
I think we can all agree that VAR should be there for those really clear offside decisions that are wrong.
====
This is not practicable IMO. How far offside is"really clear offside" in your opinion?
posted on 19/8/19
comment by Klopptimus Prime - Die Unerträglichen (U1282)
posted 12 seconds ago
I think we can all agree that VAR should be there for those really clear offside decisions that are wrong.
====
This is not practicable IMO. How far offside is"really clear offside" in your opinion?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think having it that if any part of the attacking player is onside then it’s should be onside.
posted on 19/8/19
"I think we can all agree that VAR should be there for those really clear offside decisions that are wrong"
Nope, I can't agree with that. For me VAR should be there for all offside decisions, that require correcting the officials or for those tight ones where the official hasn't raised his flag at all. It's one of those where it's black and white and therefore it should be left alone.
Other uses of VAR will rely on some kind of interpretation and therefore the rules may be looked at but at least now, the interpretation will be made with help from many angles and replays which has so far proven to increase correct decisions by over 6%.
posted on 19/8/19
proven to increase correct decisions by over 6%.
=====
I expect this figure to grow as time passes too.
posted on 19/8/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 19/8/19
Nope, I can't agree with that. For me VAR should be there for all offside decisions, that require correcting the officials or for those tight ones where the official hasn't raised his flag at all. It's one of those where it's black and white and therefore it should be left alone.
—————
Just have to agree to disagree then. I feel that the current law, when enforced by VAR ruling out goals for toes being offside is too harsh on the attacking team. As I said above none of us would have been shouting about injustices when those goals were given last year - they were legitimate goals. VAR has changed how the practicality of the law being enforced which for me means the law needs looking at the maintain the balance.
I completely get your point though, there is just something that doesn’t feel right about those kind of goals being disallowed.
posted on 19/8/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Page 5 of 8
6 | 7 | 8