VAR

[pintor 32]

Its early days, but with all the money in the game now I can see problems ahead with VAR, imagine in a final where a decision is controversial,  there could be clubs/countries wanting to reverse the decision, demanding replays  etc, look at Cameroon yesterday, imagine that in a champions league final 

[taxman 12]

It took about 7 minutes to make a decision about a penalty in the current USA v Spain game, thats just stupid.

 

As has been said before the refs seem to be using VAR as a safety blanket rather than trusting their own judgement.

 

It seems this womens world cup is having a lot more teething troubles than the mens last year.

[Longcol 594]

 

 

VAR should be limited to major incidents the ref and assistants aren't in a decent position to make a call for - "did the ball cross the line for a goal" eg the Lampard incident v Germany,  mistaken identity for a card, and off the ball incidents not seen by the officials warranting a card- not is a fraction of a players body a millimetre ahead of an opponent. 

Edited June 24, 2019 by Longcol

[tinfoilhat 11]

1 hour ago, Longcol said:

 

 

VAR should be limited to major incidents the ref and assistants aren't in a decent position to make a call for - "did the ball cross the line for a goal" eg the Lampard incident v Germany,  mistaken identity for a card, and off the ball incidents not seen by the officials warranting a card- not is a fraction of a players body a millimetre ahead of an opponent. 

And they ignored the Cameroon player elbowing the England player in the face. It could be much better. It will sort itself out.

[Longcol 594]

32 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

And they ignored the Cameroon player elbowing the England player in the face. It could be much better. It will sort itself out.

The sooner they adopt a sensible position on offside the better. They don't have camera's directly in line with play all the time and rely on computer generated lines which they acknowledge aren't perfect.

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/offside-rule-explained-var-football-12661936

 

"From the TV camera angles, lines are placed across the pitch and an external official, working from a TV studio outside of the ground, will make a decision based on the footage and the technology as to whether it is correct.

However, this has caused some controversy when the TV camera is not in line, sometimes suggesting that there is a skewed perspective.

The system is still very much in its trial stage and it has had its problems, but it is constantly being reevaluated."

 

The few millimetre decisions are certainly getting well away from the intention of the offside law which was to prevent "seeking an unfair advantage" ie. goal hanging.

 

 

[JamesR123 0]

2 hours ago, Longcol said:

 

 

VAR should be limited to major incidents the ref and assistants aren't in a decent position to make a call for - "did the ball cross the line for a goal" eg the Lampard incident v Germany,  mistaken identity for a card, and off the ball incidents not seen by the officials warranting a card- not is a fraction of a players body a millimetre ahead of an opponent. 

So major incidents, but not goals?

4 hours ago, Michael_W said:

 

As for the offside rule, it really does need changing to daylight merely to simplify it for officials at every level of the game, it will then genuinely advantage the strikers …. more goals and proper refereeing controversy really do make better games IMHO !

Define "daylight".

[*_ash_* 88]

VAR will probably ruin football in same way this 'absolute law' has ruined f1.

 

 

Now of course, we all going to say, decisions decisions. Some horrendous ones in the past we know. It's obvious that in the tech age this would happen. If not you have the 1,657 fans in the stands taking pictures with phones right on the line instead of watching the f'ing match! And people now would argue all day about every decision. based on this. (i.e. you only won because you scored an illegal goal)

 

It clearly has some advantages, but in its earlier life, and probably won't change much now, will ruin games. If nothing else, this latest world cup has shown up so many flaws.  And importantly it's not stamping out behaviour where it supposed to. Eng V cameroon for example.

 

I probably won't cheer at a goal knowing it will be scrutinised for a millimetre, just watch the screen then clap.  It's like most modern things. It bores me.

 

 

[Longcol 594]

1 hour ago, JamesR123 said:

So major incidents, but not goals?

 

Leave the judgement to the ref and the assistant - seems to have worked OK in 99.99% of cases in the 55 years I've been watching the game. And I did say a ball crossing the line like Lampards "goal" against Germany where neither the ref or assistant were close enough to make a call.

 

(although I'll swear to my dying day Megson's disallowed goal in the 5-4 win over Man Utd in 68 was a good 'un - I mean, Fantham hadn't interfered with play for a good season up til then).

Edited June 24, 2019 by Longcol

[RiffRaff 10]

11 hours ago, JamesR123 said:

Are you suggesting that when someone is a millimetre offside, that we should just pretend they aren't?

Did I suggest that?

No, I didn't.

It stands to reason that if the rule is going to be applied to such small margins, it's bound to lead to more arguments and time-wasting, waiting for a decision. Imagine having to stand around for 7 minutes - as in the example somebody mentioned above - in the middle of a typical February match. It's a boring development, and as somebody else pointed out, should only be used to check goalmouth scrambles, penalty claims and such like.

[Voice of reason 0]

In terms of offside, I agree with the OP. The principle of offside is not giving yourself an adavantage over the defence. And to stop what, as kids, we called bog lining. The fact your toe is offside is irrelevant.

 

I don't like attacking players standing offside near the goalie, and goals been given. Even if technically they aren't affecting play, I can't see how it isn't off-putting to the goalie. That is a way bigger advantage to the attacking team than being a toe in front.

 

I'd use VAR after the event for diving, and faking offences much more. Issuing bans to stamp it out.

[iansheff 84]

Well according to the article below the referee over ruled VAR twice to stop the Cameroon players walking off the pitch, and FIFA agreed with her decisions. What a spineless bunch of officials FIFA are, what is the point of VAR if  they are going to ignore the decision because they are scared players will react and walk off the pitch. They should have said no the VAR is correct and if the Cameroon players had walked off the pitch they should have banned them from playing in competitions for ten years.

 

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/sport/womensworldcup/referee-in-england-game-twice-overruled-var-advice-to-prevent-cameroon-walking-off-in-womens-world-cup-clash/ar-AADmqPc?ocid=spartanntp

[JamesR123 0]

On 25/06/2019 at 00:21, RiffRaff said:

Did I suggest that?

No, I didn't.

It stands to reason that if the rule is going to be applied to such small margins, it's bound to lead to more arguments and time-wasting, waiting for a decision. Imagine having to stand around for 7 minutes - as in the example somebody mentioned above - in the middle of a typical February match. It's a boring development, and as somebody else pointed out, should only be used to check goalmouth scrambles, penalty claims and such like.

Yes you did.  You said paring back to millimetres was  backward step.  This was in a discussion about Var and being able to accurately measure millimetres.

 

You imply that applying the rule " to such small margins" is a "boring development".

 

So do we ignore the millimetres like you seem to be suggesting, or do we apply the law and take a "backward step" and a "boring development"