News:

Use a VPN to stream games Safely and Securely 🔒
A Virtual Private Network can also allow you to
watch games Not being broadcast in the UK For
more Information and how to Sign Up go to
https://go.nordvpn.net/SH4FE

Main Menu


How can VAR disallow a goal that close?

Started by Nick Bateman, June 06, 2019, 11:55:42 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Nick Bateman

The freeze-frame showed minimalistic distance between both parties yet no advantage given to the attacking side.  We were treated to a single frame, not a frame before or after to help decide the moment of contact precisely.

One may say this is sour grapes but one has seen Sky TV many times freezing the frame several moments after the ball was played to "prove" an opponent was correctly given offside by corrupt or incompetant (corrupt) officials.

One would not state these officials were corrupt, but having French adjudicators overwatching VAR against England, one feared a bias.  And it was the case, unjustly in one's learned layman's opinion.
Nick Bateman "knows his footie"

LittleErn

The problem is not with VAR but with the stupidity of the offside rule. It was originally(in the 1930s?) meant to stop forwards "goalhanging" which encouraged long ball hoofers. It is now penalising entertaining football by giving the advantage to the defenders. I would like to see it changed to make it clear that there must be clear daylight between the attacker and the defender before an offside can be given. VAR can easily show that, and defenders would be less likely to "step up" rather than tackling. It would favour attacking football and especially favour the speedy players that bring excitement to the game.

OK your turn to tell me what I've missed!

toshes mate

With or without VAR I do believe the current offside law (and, for that matter the 'old' and soon to be 'new' handball variety) is a recipe for controversy.  VAR just turns it into a farcical delay whereby nobody - even the referee - appears to actually know what (the ...) is going on.  During the live relay of the match there was little to assist by way of replays during the VAR assessment but the ones that were shown had no lines drawn across the pitch (that came later and was absolutely too close for anyone to call it either way) and so the whole was as ludicrous as most Uefa decisions have recently been.

Either football is determined to eliminate referee and official howlers from the game or they are turning into dictatorial thugs who have absolutely no interest in anything except the revenue that just keeps on coming.  Football could do worse than to determine all its official bodies need a long overdue overhaul and a complete elimination of corruption and the opportunity to be corrupt. 


St. Andrews White

Maybe because it was offside?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

The Intertoto might not exist anymore, but that doesn't matter. We'll still win it again.

filham

With or without VAR there is always going to be controversy about offside decisions, generally I think linos do a pretty god jobs with the way they see things generally being supported by TV replays.

O course the only way to eliminate all error would be to have no offside rule at all.
It would be interesting to see a few games played without offside, would certainly open the game up with midfield ball players enjoying a lot more space.

Vinnieffc

Quote from: LittleErn on June 07, 2019, 03:23:39 PM
The problem is not with VAR but with the stupidity of the offside rule. It was originally(in the 1930s?) meant to stop forwards "goalhanging" which encouraged long ball hoofers. It is now penalising entertaining football by giving the advantage to the defenders. I would like to see it changed to make it clear that there must be clear daylight between the attacker and the defender before an offside can be given. VAR can easily show that, and defenders would be less likely to "step up" rather than tackling. It would favour attacking football and especially favour the speedy players that bring excitement to the game.

OK your turn to tell me what I've missed!
Totally agree 100%

Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk



Tabby

Quote from: LittleErn on June 07, 2019, 03:23:39 PM
The problem is not with VAR but with the stupidity of the offside rule. It was originally(in the 1930s?) meant to stop forwards "goalhanging" which encouraged long ball hoofers. It is now penalising entertaining football by giving the advantage to the defenders. I would like to see it changed to make it clear that there must be clear daylight between the attacker and the defender before an offside can be given. VAR can easily show that, and defenders would be less likely to "step up" rather than tackling. It would favour attacking football and especially favour the speedy players that bring excitement to the game.

OK your turn to tell me what I've missed!

The new razor thin edge would be what "clear daylight" means. There will always be edge cases.

OldBrownShoe

Do away with offside. And lets go back to jumpers for goal posts. I will get me coat. :dft012:
Johny's in the basement
Mixing up the medicine
I'm on the pavement
Thinking about the government
The man in the trench coat
Badge out, laid off
Says he's got a bad cough
Wants to get it paid off
Look out kid
It's somethin' you did
God knows when
But you're doin' it again
l

toshes mate

Quote from: Tabby on June 07, 2019, 08:35:27 PM
The new razor thin edge would be what "clear daylight" means. There will always be edge cases.
To cover the width of a football pitch every vertical row of pixels of a HD broadcast picture every individual pixel covers about 3 to 6cm (dependent on the angle) of real width on the playing surface, and so it cannot possibly reveal anything razor sharp other than via close up images played side by side in real time with a much finer line drawn through each.  It is also the frame selected as the moment the ball is played (as stated in the OP) that is crucial and equally difficult to match accurately without a close up view.  A clear gap is easier to see and most offside decisions are definitely correct, but the gap would make the marginal incorrect decisions which are the food of VAR less likely to be wrong. 


WindyCity

Quote from: LittleErn on June 07, 2019, 03:23:39 PM
The problem is the stupidity of the offside rule. It was originally(in the 1930s?) meant to stop forwards "goalhanging" which encouraged long ball hoofers. It is now penalising entertaining football by giving the advantage to the defenders.

THANK YOU for pointing this out, and the shortcomings of the offside rule.  I too absolutely agree that it favors defenders and allows weaker players (defenders) success against solid offensive football.  I'm from across the pond, but I have a brother in law who was very good player, All-American, and his team traveled a lot for games outside the US, playing games in England and Mideast and other places.  I've often asked him about offsides, and he agrees that it's kind of a stupid rule.  Even though he was a defender.  But, they did play a number of games where there were no offsides being called, and he said the game didn't really change all that much.  Made very little, if any, difference.

I think they need to make some adjustments on offsides.  How silly is it that the sidelines offsides officials are being told to keep flag down on close plays, let it play out, and use VAR if needed.  Ridiculous.  I don't know any other sport where officials are told to hold back.  If you're an official, you blow the whistle on a foul, penalty, whatever it is.  Now we have "hesitation" officiating.  Dumb.

My thought would be to not have offsides called at all once the ball is in the penalty zone.  And also not called on any free kicks.  Not perfect, but just a thought.  The 'purists', and I do understand it, will slam both you and me for being so sacrilegious as to take this rule out of the game or modify it.  (Although modifications are already in play, with the "hesitation" officiating now in place.)

Nick Bateman

They might as well do away with linesmen/people/lgbts as they cost money to simply tell us which way the thrown-in should be - a ref could do that.  But one fears the FA are introducing it to the EPL to increase the cheating and blatant bias/corruption offered to the likes of Liverpool, Arsenal & Chelsea next season.
Nick Bateman "knows his footie"

LittleErn

Quote from: toshes mate on June 10, 2019, 04:18:00 PM
Quote from: Tabby on June 07, 2019, 08:35:27 PM
The new razor thin edge would be what "clear daylight" means. There will always be edge cases.
To cover the width of a football pitch every vertical row of pixels of a HD broadcast picture every individual pixel covers about 3 to 6cm (dependent on the angle) of real width on the playing surface, and so it cannot possibly reveal anything razor sharp other than via close up images played side by side in real time with a much finer line drawn through each.  It is also the frame selected as the moment the ball is played (as stated in the OP) that is crucial and equally difficult to match accurately without a close up view.  A clear gap is easier to see and most offside decisions are definitely correct, but the gap would make the marginal incorrect decisions which are the food of VAR less likely to be wrong. 
👍


RaySmith

The VAR related decision of handball against Scotland v England in the Womens' World Cup was a complete joke, and showed that the new handball law, with it's talk of unusual body shapes, makes this more subjective than before.