By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I may have this wrong but I thought VAR was there to be used to "correct" any "clear and obvious" mistakes by officials.
Perhaps the rules have changed but it now seems to be used for checking the legitimacy of goals - regardless of whether an error has been made - and to revisit situations in which no decision was made but the VAR official has "spotted" something.
Either way, VAR officials continue to get things wrong even with the advantage of slow motion and three/four minutes for a decision a ref made in half a second. It seems that the "sanction" for such official error is to miss a game or two. With respect, not much of a sanction.
VAR has also robbed the game of spontaneity. Can you celebrate a goal when you have to wait three minutes for a check? It slows the game down, costs time that does not seem to be added on and leads to as much debate in the pub afterwards as not having it would over some "dodgy" decisions.
Personally I think the experiment has failed.
In cricket, a VAR decision does not really disrupt the timing or pace of the game and it's pretty obvious 99% of the time what the right decision is. In rugby (league and union) the rules are much more strict as to what is legal and illegal and as such TMO (limited as it is to try scoring etc) is perhaps easier. (Also rugby refs can be heard on the pitch discussing their decisions with their assistants, which helps).
In football, as I said, it's disruptive, remains uncertain, does not take away the judgement of officials (quite the opposite as on field refs seem to feel obliged to change their mind if summoned by VAR) and does not reduce controversy but creates it.
Time to say goodbye to a failed experiment in my view.
0
VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 11:48 - Apr 28 with 984 views
VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 11:00 - Apr 28 by PaleRider
It's very simple - it's poorly applied by idiots. Goodness only knows what the standard of refereeing is like in the lower leagues if these are our best referees.
Cue a 25 page poorly written essay!
It was applied correctly last night.
VAR can legitimately rule a player offside because of the length of his feet.
Granted sometimes the officials don't help, but the system itself is fundamentally flawed.
VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 08:10 - Apr 28 by DorsetIan
Right on cue...
Che Adams, as a player, was ‘level’ with the other defenders. Only someone who doesn’t understand English could say differently.
He was given offside because of the position of his toe.
If you think this is reasonable, that’s that what people understand by the word ‘level’, that this isn’t a massive change from the many many years of how we understood the offside rule, and that this change is somehow a positive thing for the world of football, then I really can’t help you.
For me, and I think most people, this is complete and utter nonsense. A joke. It’s turned a robust common sense game into a video game from the early days of the ZX Spectrum...
...and in this case, it wiped of a perfectly good goal, denied us the chance of a barnstorming end to the game, and absolutely secured our relegation.
God I hate VAR and what it’s done to the game. Hate it.
do you know what the word level means? when i try and get my shelves level, i dont have one side higher than the other, that isnt level.
- - << they are level _ - <<< they are not.
Being level, as has already been explained to you, is onside.
I would be pissed if that was a goal against us and it stood.
0
VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 15:09 - Apr 28 with 942 views
VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 14:57 - Apr 28 by Messysaints
do you know what the word level means? when i try and get my shelves level, i dont have one side higher than the other, that isnt level.
- - << they are level _ - <<< they are not.
Being level, as has already been explained to you, is onside.
I would be pissed if that was a goal against us and it stood.
In the context of offside, everybody knows when two players are 'level'.
In 1990 when they changed to the law to make 'level' players onside, I don't remember anyone complaining that without spirit levels or slide rules, the new rule would be impossible to apply.
It worked perfectly well until the introduction of VAR when that rule has effectively disappeared.
I know that level is onside. Che was level. He was onside.
But you focus on his toes if you like VAR so much. I prefer common sense.
VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 15:09 - Apr 28 by DorsetIan
In the context of offside, everybody knows when two players are 'level'.
In 1990 when they changed to the law to make 'level' players onside, I don't remember anyone complaining that without spirit levels or slide rules, the new rule would be impossible to apply.
It worked perfectly well until the introduction of VAR when that rule has effectively disappeared.
I know that level is onside. Che was level. He was onside.
But you focus on his toes if you like VAR so much. I prefer common sense.
Ian, it is about common sense. That is down to the application not the system and therefore down to the people who run it.
0
VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 15:30 - Apr 28 with 921 views
VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 15:13 - Apr 28 by PaleRider
Ian, it is about common sense. That is down to the application not the system and therefore down to the people who run it.
The system drew lines based on toes which showed Che to be offside.
Were the officials supposed to ignore that? That's the system they are told to use.
I don't think they should have a system that requires the drawing of lines.
If they removed the drawing of lines from the system and asked the VAR people to judge it based on the position of the players with the naked eye - behind, level, in front - it would make a million times more sense.
VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 15:30 - Apr 28 by DorsetIan
The system drew lines based on toes which showed Che to be offside.
Were the officials supposed to ignore that? That's the system they are told to use.
I don't think they should have a system that requires the drawing of lines.
If they removed the drawing of lines from the system and asked the VAR people to judge it based on the position of the players with the naked eye - behind, level, in front - it would make a million times more sense.
no it wouldnt, the out come would vary, the decisions for each offside would be inconsistent, as it was back in the day, and as history has proven, the officials got most close calls wrong, not right.
0
VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 16:15 - Apr 29 with 844 views
VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 11:58 - Apr 29 by Messysaints
no it wouldnt, the out come would vary, the decisions for each offside would be inconsistent, as it was back in the day, and as history has proven, the officials got most close calls wrong, not right.
Rubbish. Ask 1000 people to look at any photo of scorer and defenders and in most cases there will be broad consensus about whether the player is behind, level or in front.
Because most people understand fine well what these terms mean. And particularly that it’s not about the position of toes.
You just love VAR so much, you can’t imagine a better system.
VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 15:13 - Apr 28 by PaleRider
Ian, it is about common sense. That is down to the application not the system and therefore down to the people who run it.
Yeah because when the officials are hired to do a job and told to use technology to the most accurate level that it can be currently used at, that’s completely down to them and not those that are in charge of VAR and when tech’s the prem uses. Especially when it’s for something that is factual and really shouldn’t have any debating around it whatsoever…
VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 16:15 - Apr 29 by DorsetIan
Rubbish. Ask 1000 people to look at any photo of scorer and defenders and in most cases there will be broad consensus about whether the player is behind, level or in front.
Because most people understand fine well what these terms mean. And particularly that it’s not about the position of toes.
You just love VAR so much, you can’t imagine a better system.
So if i was to rewind to the United Saints final of 2017,
And Gabby waas ruled offside because he was onside, your happy with that out come? and every single saints fan ( Not including my self ofc ) was happy with the decission? because he was deemed offside even though he was inches onside?
Ok.. if you say so. me personally, i would like goals which are not goals ruled out, and legit goals awarded as so.
[Post edited 29 Apr 2023 20:34]
0
VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 19:52 - Apr 29 with 824 views
VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 16:15 - Apr 29 by DorsetIan
Rubbish. Ask 1000 people to look at any photo of scorer and defenders and in most cases there will be broad consensus about whether the player is behind, level or in front.
Because most people understand fine well what these terms mean. And particularly that it’s not about the position of toes.
You just love VAR so much, you can’t imagine a better system.
But like you’ve just said there’d be a broad consensus over it, which for factual things like offside, there shouldn’t be in the first place. As you talk about VAR not reducing controversy and only making more of it, yet what your suggesting would only do that even more on top of all the controversy we get around the non black and white decisions we get.
As look at the end of the day whether and what we use VAR for is opinionated and really there isn’t no right or wrong to it. But for when it is being used for these offsides it’s like a maths question, as to them there’s only ever 1 correct answer, and it doesn’t matter how close/far you were to it, as if you didn’t write down that correct answer then you’ve got it wrong as it’s not opinionated or up for debate. Whilst for things like handballs, whether it’s a yellow or a red etc… they’re like English questions as there’s multiple right answers and some can even contradict each other, but at the end of the day it’s opinionated. Which is why, yeah you can complain about how long it takes, what it ruins, how inconsistent it is for fouls, pens, reds etc… but you can’t for determining whether players are in an offside position or not, as it’s factual, and it doesn’t matter how close it is, as there’s always just 1 defender or attacker that’s the second nearest to the goalline at any point in play, and for them to be actually level is practically a mathematical impossibility.
VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 19:52 - Apr 29 by Messysaints
So if i was to rewind to the United Saints final of 2017,
And Gabby waas ruled offside because he was onside, your happy with that out come? and every single saints fan ( Not including my self ofc ) was happy with the decission? because he was deemed offside even though he was inches onside?
Ok.. if you say so. me personally, i would like goals which are not goals ruled out, and legit goals awarded as so.
[Post edited 29 Apr 2023 20:34]
It was clear to a naked eye review of the freeze frame that Gabiadini was level, and therefore onside.
What’s your point?
I object to the microscopic drawing of lines and decisions made on the basis of body parts, rather than the whole player.
Gabiadini was level.
Che was level
Tens of players who were level have been ruled offside by VAR.
It wasn’t meant to change the offside rule, but it has. And for the worse.
VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 19:52 - Apr 29 by SFC_Referee
But like you’ve just said there’d be a broad consensus over it, which for factual things like offside, there shouldn’t be in the first place. As you talk about VAR not reducing controversy and only making more of it, yet what your suggesting would only do that even more on top of all the controversy we get around the non black and white decisions we get.
As look at the end of the day whether and what we use VAR for is opinionated and really there isn’t no right or wrong to it. But for when it is being used for these offsides it’s like a maths question, as to them there’s only ever 1 correct answer, and it doesn’t matter how close/far you were to it, as if you didn’t write down that correct answer then you’ve got it wrong as it’s not opinionated or up for debate. Whilst for things like handballs, whether it’s a yellow or a red etc… they’re like English questions as there’s multiple right answers and some can even contradict each other, but at the end of the day it’s opinionated. Which is why, yeah you can complain about how long it takes, what it ruins, how inconsistent it is for fouls, pens, reds etc… but you can’t for determining whether players are in an offside position or not, as it’s factual, and it doesn’t matter how close it is, as there’s always just 1 defender or attacker that’s the second nearest to the goalline at any point in play, and for them to be actually level is practically a mathematical impossibility.
You’re wrong about offside.
VAR does not ask whether players are level. It only looks at body parts. That’s not how it should be done.
VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 21:17 - Apr 29 by DorsetIan
You’re wrong about offside.
VAR does not ask whether players are level. It only looks at body parts. That’s not how it should be done.
You really can’t see that Che was level??
Var doesn’t talk. It’s the var staff and referees you should be addressing. Try looking at the open arbitration in Rugby where fans are allowed to hear the referee talking to his assistants. Football is still in the dark ages. No crap with players bullying refs allowed either.
0
VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 21:40 - Apr 29 with 769 views
VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 21:31 - Apr 29 by Bazza
Var doesn’t talk. It’s the var staff and referees you should be addressing. Try looking at the open arbitration in Rugby where fans are allowed to hear the referee talking to his assistants. Football is still in the dark ages. No crap with players bullying refs allowed either.
The VAR rules are wrong. The drawing of lines to determine offside leads to ridiculous decisions.
VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 21:40 - Apr 29 by DorsetIan
The VAR rules are wrong. The drawing of lines to determine offside leads to ridiculous decisions.
could it not be that it is you that is wrong?
I think VAR usage on offside is perfect ( A bit unahppy at the time it takes some times, but i rather the right decision be made regardless of time taken ). i dont like the goal line though, i think the ball needs to be level with the line, with the perfect amount of line on each side on the center of the ball, none of this crossing the line ballshit. who cares for he inches and feet, let just call it all level.
0
VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 22:09 - Apr 29 with 752 views
VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 21:17 - Apr 29 by DorsetIan
You’re wrong about offside.
VAR does not ask whether players are level. It only looks at body parts. That’s not how it should be done.
You really can’t see that Che was level??
Ok but that’s not what the LOTG state, so that’s got absolutely nothing to do with VAR or the refs, but simply just down to IFAB and the LOTG, which all match officials (including myself) must follow all the time. As sorry but the one actual qualified ref on this forum who actually knows the LOTG themselves isn’t going to be “wrong” about what the LOTG state.
As by what you’ve now just said, I think your more complaining about the law itself, rather than how it’s being used by VAR. As under the LOTG that offside decision given against Che was the correct one, as it’s the body parts they’re meant to look at as that’s what determines if he’s on or offside. So look Dorsetlan, I’m not sure if you don’t know what the law is for offside currently, you don’t agree with it, or you want it changed, but right now under the LOTG VAR very rarely nesses up with offsides (and that’s almost always around whether a player intervened with play or not, but not if they were in an offside position or not) and that is a fact that you just can’t argue with .
As what you think the law should be around it, and whether VAR should be used for it etc… is all up to you and I certainly can understand where many fans come from when saying certain points. But for what VAR’s meant to be doing right now, it is, and that’s why you can’t criticise it or the officials whatsoever for offsides like the Adams one on Thursday.
VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 22:09 - Apr 29 by SFC_Referee
Ok but that’s not what the LOTG state, so that’s got absolutely nothing to do with VAR or the refs, but simply just down to IFAB and the LOTG, which all match officials (including myself) must follow all the time. As sorry but the one actual qualified ref on this forum who actually knows the LOTG themselves isn’t going to be “wrong” about what the LOTG state.
As by what you’ve now just said, I think your more complaining about the law itself, rather than how it’s being used by VAR. As under the LOTG that offside decision given against Che was the correct one, as it’s the body parts they’re meant to look at as that’s what determines if he’s on or offside. So look Dorsetlan, I’m not sure if you don’t know what the law is for offside currently, you don’t agree with it, or you want it changed, but right now under the LOTG VAR very rarely nesses up with offsides (and that’s almost always around whether a player intervened with play or not, but not if they were in an offside position or not) and that is a fact that you just can’t argue with .
As what you think the law should be around it, and whether VAR should be used for it etc… is all up to you and I certainly can understand where many fans come from when saying certain points. But for what VAR’s meant to be doing right now, it is, and that’s why you can’t criticise it or the officials whatsoever for offsides like the Adams one on Thursday.
You should get off your high horse. I know what the law says. It says this:
‘A player is not in an offside position if level with the: second-last opponent or last two opponents’
And I have been watching football since before 1990, so I know what this change was meant to mean and how it has been interpreted since then.
VAR has changed it, whether you like it or not. A system which focuses solely on body parts is not consistent with this rule - either in letter or spirit - and that’s what has lead to all the stupidity in relation to VAR and offside.
The attitude you display to this is the same as all the officials implementing VAR. You cannot see the wood for the trees.
In every game since 1990, Che was level. In every game where VAR is not operating, Che is level. And this is because...Che was level. And if he was level he was onside.
VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 06:07 - Apr 30 by DorsetIan
You should get off your high horse. I know what the law says. It says this:
‘A player is not in an offside position if level with the: second-last opponent or last two opponents’
And I have been watching football since before 1990, so I know what this change was meant to mean and how it has been interpreted since then.
VAR has changed it, whether you like it or not. A system which focuses solely on body parts is not consistent with this rule - either in letter or spirit - and that’s what has lead to all the stupidity in relation to VAR and offside.
The attitude you display to this is the same as all the officials implementing VAR. You cannot see the wood for the trees.
In every game since 1990, Che was level. In every game where VAR is not operating, Che is level. And this is because...Che was level. And if he was level he was onside.
Read the rule, it’s clear enough.
We thought that we had the answers,
It was the questions we had wrong.
VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 06:07 - Apr 30 by DorsetIan
You should get off your high horse. I know what the law says. It says this:
‘A player is not in an offside position if level with the: second-last opponent or last two opponents’
And I have been watching football since before 1990, so I know what this change was meant to mean and how it has been interpreted since then.
VAR has changed it, whether you like it or not. A system which focuses solely on body parts is not consistent with this rule - either in letter or spirit - and that’s what has lead to all the stupidity in relation to VAR and offside.
The attitude you display to this is the same as all the officials implementing VAR. You cannot see the wood for the trees.
In every game since 1990, Che was level. In every game where VAR is not operating, Che is level. And this is because...Che was level. And if he was level he was onside.
Read the rule, it’s clear enough.
Ok look lad, you’ve gotta except that what your describing as nothing to do with VAR, as even before it was introduced they’d of said on Sky or MOTD that Che Adams was offside for the goal he got against Bournemouth, and all VAR has done is correct decisions like that.
And anyway yeah the law does state that, but as it also states under law 11… “A player is in an offside position if: any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent.”
Which is exactly what VAR does it to, as it’s LITERALLY what the law states to do. As what your talking about with being level, is for the nearest legal parts to the second to last defender and the striker both being in identical positions for how close they are to the goal line (which allow me to add is almost a mathematical impossibility.
And no I’m not on a high horse or displaying any real lack of attitude towards this discussion, but am someone who actually knows what the letter of the law states, and someone who realises that changing a black and white decision into a debatable is only gonna make things more controversial and poor. Whilst yourself on the other hand can’t seem to except what the law states nor what VAR is told to do in situations like we had on Thursday. As yeah you can have your opinions on VAR and what it’s used for, that’s all fair enough, but criticising VAR for incidents like Thursday and saying that they’re all getting it wrong is just the typical fan like attitude I used to have to deal with loads in the past back when I did Sunday leagues, having players saying that fouls on the line were just free kicks and not pens, or how you could be offside from a corner etc… as it doesn’t matter what you thought the laws been since 1990, but for what the law states right now, your simply wrong, but just can’t seem to except that, even with others on here other than myself telling you that.
As yeah I can see the wood from the trees, but when your building that shed, you only need to see the wood, not the trees. As sorry but what I’ve just stated directly from the LOTG should have ended this debate
VAR has failed - time for post match reviews on 09:39 - Apr 30 by SFC_Referee
Ok look lad, you’ve gotta except that what your describing as nothing to do with VAR, as even before it was introduced they’d of said on Sky or MOTD that Che Adams was offside for the goal he got against Bournemouth, and all VAR has done is correct decisions like that.
And anyway yeah the law does state that, but as it also states under law 11… “A player is in an offside position if: any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent.”
Which is exactly what VAR does it to, as it’s LITERALLY what the law states to do. As what your talking about with being level, is for the nearest legal parts to the second to last defender and the striker both being in identical positions for how close they are to the goal line (which allow me to add is almost a mathematical impossibility.
And no I’m not on a high horse or displaying any real lack of attitude towards this discussion, but am someone who actually knows what the letter of the law states, and someone who realises that changing a black and white decision into a debatable is only gonna make things more controversial and poor. Whilst yourself on the other hand can’t seem to except what the law states nor what VAR is told to do in situations like we had on Thursday. As yeah you can have your opinions on VAR and what it’s used for, that’s all fair enough, but criticising VAR for incidents like Thursday and saying that they’re all getting it wrong is just the typical fan like attitude I used to have to deal with loads in the past back when I did Sunday leagues, having players saying that fouls on the line were just free kicks and not pens, or how you could be offside from a corner etc… as it doesn’t matter what you thought the laws been since 1990, but for what the law states right now, your simply wrong, but just can’t seem to except that, even with others on here other than myself telling you that.
As yeah I can see the wood from the trees, but when your building that shed, you only need to see the wood, not the trees. As sorry but what I’ve just stated directly from the LOTG should have ended this debate
P.S it’s laws, not rules
VAR does not sensibly acknowledge the law that I quoted. It has effectively changed the nature of offside.
It’s pretty obvious. We wouldn’t be discussing it, if it hadn’t.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
