VAR

[Brend'Watkins]

How is it possible to prove that? Technology as it is with its lines is measurable, a distance figure of possible infringement is attained. “He looks level to me” Linesman, spectator or tv analyst is just an opinion based on varying eyesight with no figure of measurement. Therefore impossible to prove.

https://www.givemesport.com/1498162-there-are-flaws-in-var-that-mean-not-every-offside-decision-will-be-correct

An analysis is not proof. The issue is not with the technology as it is but the var officials interpretation for some highlighted incidents. Var decisions for offsides are not totally accurate yet but they are far more accurate overall than what went before. Glaring incorrect linesman decisions have all been but eliminated. 

As the tech improves we will be able to be exact with the moment the ball is touched and the distance a player is offside by millimetres which will put an end to human error.  We might not agree with the human aspect being removed from the game but if we’re to use technology then have it the best it can possibly be to take human error out of it.

[Ad@m]

'An analysis is not proof'?!

Unless you're disputing the laws of physics, it really is.

[The Edge]

The adjudicators of var have forgotten the fundamental point of var technology. It was introduced to stop clear and obvious errors. Chelsea scored a goal at Cardiff a few seasons ago where there player was standing in the six yard box a good 2 yards offside when the ball was played to him. He scored and the linesman had a mare. Goal stood. That's a clear and obvious error. Once you start drawing lines on the screen and you still can't be sure then that's not a clear and obvious error. How the officials have managed to tie everything in knots and continue to do so is a mystery. But one thing is certain there is no way that var has improved the game. There's more wrong decisions than there has ever been. I get the feeling that the officials don't want it and are deliberately setting out to sabotage it.

[RamboandBruno]

How is it possible to prove that? Technology as it is with its lines is measurable, a distance figure of possible infringement is attained. “He looks level to me” Linesman, spectator or tv analyst is just an opinion based on varying eyesight with no figure of measurement. Therefore impossible to prove.

https://www.givemesport.com/1498162-there-are-flaws-in-var-that-mean-not-every-offside-decision-will-be-correct

An analysis is not proof. The issue is not with the technology as it is but the var officials interpretation for some highlighted incidents. Var decisions for offsides are not totally accurate yet but they are far more accurate overall than what went before. Glaring incorrect linesman decisions have all been but eliminated. 

As the tech improves we will be able to be exact with the moment the ball is touched and the distance a player is offside by millimetres which will put an end to human error.  We might not agree with the human aspect being removed from the game but if we’re to use technology then have it the best it can possibly be to take human error out of it.

That’s missing one of the main points though isn’t it. Even if the tech was flawless and it was proved beyond doubt that the moment the ball was touched, Mane was 2 millimetres offside, is that within the spirit of the game, is that the route we really want to be going, sanitising the game to that extent. I dislike Liverpool probably more than any other club (bar the noses) and if we had been playing them yesterday, and Henderson’s goal was given and it was proved afterwards that Mane was 2 millimetres, I would have absolutely no problem with it.
I for one don’t want my football computer generated to that extent. I think Paul e said earlier in the thread about clear and obvious errors, and that is spot on. They are getting it so wrong, Pickford virtually decapitates Van Dyke, nothing, Mane a couple of millimetres offside! There has to be some common sense. With the offside, I don’t know whether the answer has to be both interfering with play and at least half a metre offside, or something along those lines.
The use of the technology and interpretation of rules by faceless wonders is spoiling the game.

[Zouch Villa]

As far as I’m concerned, the technology is perfectly adequate as it is, to enable an official to make an appropriate judgement. The issue is they’re trying to hide behind the technology, to avoid having to make a possibly disputable decision.

The fact is, they don’t seem to be allowing room for common sense, any perception they might make decisions that could undermine the on field officials, finding in favour of the attacking team when there are ridiculously marginal decisions, and taking retrospective action when the likes of Pickford and Mee get away with what could have been career ending ABH.

Match officials now have all the technology they need to make this happen, but continue to fluff these decisions.

[Brend'Watkins]

How is it possible to prove that? Technology as it is with its lines is measurable, a distance figure of possible infringement is attained. “He looks level to me” Linesman, spectator or tv analyst is just an opinion based on varying eyesight with no figure of measurement. Therefore impossible to prove.

https://www.givemesport.com/1498162-there-are-flaws-in-var-that-mean-not-every-offside-decision-will-be-correct

An analysis is not proof. The issue is not with the technology as it is but the var officials interpretation for some highlighted incidents. Var decisions for offsides are not totally accurate yet but they are far more accurate overall than what went before. Glaring incorrect linesman decisions have all been but eliminated. 

As the tech improves we will be able to be exact with the moment the ball is touched and the distance a player is offside by millimetres which will put an end to human error.  We might not agree with the human aspect being removed from the game but if we’re to use technology then have it the best it can possibly be to take human error out of it.

That’s missing one of the main points though isn’t it. Even if the tech was flawless and it was proved beyond doubt that the moment the ball was touched, Mane was 2 millimetres offside, is that within the spirit of the game, is that the route we really want to be going, sanitising the game to that extent. I dislike Liverpool probably more than any other club (bar the noses) and if we had been playing them yesterday, and Henderson’s goal was given and it was proved afterwards that Mane was 2 millimetres, I would have absolutely no problem with it.
I for one don’t want my football computer generated to that extent. I think Paul e said earlier in the thread about clear and obvious errors, and that is spot on. They are getting it so wrong, Pickford virtually decapitates Van Dyke, nothing, Mane a couple of millimetres offside! There has to be some common sense. With the offside, I don’t know whether the answer has to be both interfering with play and at least half a metre offside, or something along those lines.
The use of the technology and interpretation of rules by faceless wonders is spoiling the game.

As soon as we embraced technology the sanitisation of the game started. As has often been stated the Genie is out of the bottle. Now, we just need to make that Genie a good Genie.  That will be further sanitisation of the game to some but that is the way it will go.  We’ll get used to it in the same way that supporters got used to the introduction of the offside rule many years ago.

[andyh]

When they show that graphic with the lines and the gaps between players, it’s suppose to correspond with the moment the ball is kicked.
Well, they can’t measure the gap between the ball and the boot (like they think the can between players) so if they are just a fraction of a second off with when they think the ball is struck then that could be the 1mm difference when the player was onside.

And when you are having to discuss millimetres in a game of football, it just goes to show what a load of rubbish VAR is.

[robbo1874]

How is it possible to prove that? Technology as it is with its lines is measurable, a distance figure of possible infringement is attained. “He looks level to me” Linesman, spectator or tv analyst is just an opinion based on varying eyesight with no figure of measurement. Therefore impossible to prove.

https://www.givemesport.com/1498162-there-are-flaws-in-var-that-mean-not-every-offside-decision-will-be-correct

An analysis is not proof. The issue is not with the technology as it is but the var officials interpretation for some highlighted incidents. Var decisions for offsides are not totally accurate yet but they are far more accurate overall than what went before. Glaring incorrect linesman decisions have all been but eliminated. 

As the tech improves we will be able to be exact with the moment the ball is touched and the distance a player is offside by millimetres which will put an end to human error.  We might not agree with the human aspect being removed from the game but if we’re to use technology then have it the best it can possibly be to take human error out of it.

That’s missing one of the main points though isn’t it. Even if the tech was flawless and it was proved beyond doubt that the moment the ball was touched, Mane was 2 millimetres offside, is that within the spirit of the game, is that the route we really want to be going, sanitising the game to that extent. I dislike Liverpool probably more than any other club (bar the noses) and if we had been playing them yesterday, and Henderson’s goal was given and it was proved afterwards that Mane was 2 millimetres, I would have absolutely no problem with it.
I for one don’t want my football computer generated to that extent. I think Paul e said earlier in the thread about clear and obvious errors, and that is spot on. They are getting it so wrong, Pickford virtually decapitates Van Dyke, nothing, Mane a couple of millimetres offside! There has to be some common sense. With the offside, I don’t know whether the answer has to be both interfering with play and at least half a metre offside, or something along those lines.
The use of the technology and interpretation of rules by faceless wonders is spoiling the game.

Fuck Liverpool. VAR fucked us enough last season. Things are just evening out

[RamboandBruno]

How is it possible to prove that? Technology as it is with its lines is measurable, a distance figure of possible infringement is attained. “He looks level to me” Linesman, spectator or tv analyst is just an opinion based on varying eyesight with no figure of measurement. Therefore impossible to prove.

https://www.givemesport.com/1498162-there-are-flaws-in-var-that-mean-not-every-offside-decision-will-be-correct

An analysis is not proof. The issue is not with the technology as it is but the var officials interpretation for some highlighted incidents. Var decisions for offsides are not totally accurate yet but they are far more accurate overall than what went before. Glaring incorrect linesman decisions have all been but eliminated. 

As the tech improves we will be able to be exact with the moment the ball is touched and the distance a player is offside by millimetres which will put an end to human error.  We might not agree with the human aspect being removed from the game but if we’re to use technology then have it the best it can possibly be to take human error out of it.

That’s missing one of the main points though isn’t it. Even if the tech was flawless and it was proved beyond doubt that the moment the ball was touched, Mane was 2 millimetres offside, is that within the spirit of the game, is that the route we really want to be going, sanitising the game to that extent. I dislike Liverpool probably more than any other club (bar the noses) and if we had been playing them yesterday, and Henderson’s goal was given and it was proved afterwards that Mane was 2 millimetres, I would have absolutely no problem with it.
I for one don’t want my football computer generated to that extent. I think Paul e said earlier in the thread about clear and obvious errors, and that is spot on. They are getting it so wrong, Pickford virtually decapitates Van Dyke, nothing, Mane a couple of millimetres offside! There has to be some common sense. With the offside, I don’t know whether the answer has to be both interfering with play and at least half a metre offside, or something along those lines.
The use of the technology and interpretation of rules by faceless wonders is spoiling the game.

As soon as we embraced technology the sanitisation of the game started. As has often been stated the Genie is out of the bottle. Now, we just need to make that Genie a good Genie.  That will be further sanitisation of the game to some but that is the way it will go.  We’ll get used to it in the same way that supporters got used to the introduction of the offside rule many years ago.

True, the genies out of the bag, but that doesn’t mean it’s a straightforward trajectory. If enough people in the game continue to be disenfranchised something will have to give and if not a u turn, var will have to be used in a different way. Ultimately money talks and if those running the game Start thinking their finances are being impacted by var things will move in a different direction.
Maybe it’s just my memory, but I can’t remember Liverpool being denied a win last season because of var. If it starts to impact on league titles, champions league places, especially for those clubs with a sense of entitlement, it will be reviewed.

[Brend'Watkins]

I‘’ll nip the quotathon now.  The “bigger” teams being denied victories in the last minute because of var is exactly what’s good about it. The amount of penalties given and not given against them over the years is scandalous. It would be a bit rich of them to use technology as an excuse for them not being in the top four. One very good outcome of Var is that it has levelled things up. Even the bigger teams are suffering it’s impact.

[The Edge]

How is it possible to prove that? Technology as it is with its lines is measurable, a distance figure of possible infringement is attained. “He looks level to me” Linesman, spectator or tv analyst is just an opinion based on varying eyesight with no figure of measurement. Therefore impossible to prove.

https://www.givemesport.com/1498162-there-are-flaws-in-var-that-mean-not-every-offside-decision-will-be-correct

An analysis is not proof. The issue is not with the technology as it is but the var officials interpretation for some highlighted incidents. Var decisions for offsides are not totally accurate yet but they are far more accurate overall than what went before. Glaring incorrect linesman decisions have all been but eliminated. 

As the tech improves we will be able to be exact with the moment the ball is touched and the distance a player is offside by millimetres which will put an end to human error.  We might not agree with the human aspect being removed from the game but if we’re to use technology then have it the best it can possibly be to take human error out of it.

That’s missing one of the main points though isn’t it. Even if the tech was flawless and it was proved beyond doubt that the moment the ball was touched, Mane was 2 millimetres offside, is that within the spirit of the game, is that the route we really want to be going, sanitising the game to that extent. I dislike Liverpool probably more than any other club (bar the noses) and if we had been playing them yesterday, and Henderson’s goal was given and it was proved afterwards that Mane was 2 millimetres, I would have absolutely no problem with it.
I for one don’t want my football computer generated to that extent. I think Paul e said earlier in the thread about clear and obvious errors, and that is spot on. They are getting it so wrong, Pickford virtually decapitates Van Dyke, nothing, Mane a couple of millimetres offside! There has to be some common sense. With the offside, I don’t know whether the answer has to be both interfering with play and at least half a metre offside, or something along those lines.
The use of the technology and interpretation of rules by faceless wonders is spoiling the game.

As soon as we embraced technology the sanitisation of the game started. As has often been stated the Genie is out of the bottle. Now, we just need to make that Genie a good Genie.  That will be further sanitisation of the game to some but that is the way it will go.  We’ll get used to it in the same way that supporters got used to the introduction of the offside rule many years ago.

True, the genies out of the bag, but that doesn’t mean it’s a straightforward trajectory. If enough people in the game continue to be disenfranchised something will have to give and if not a u turn, var will have to be used in a different way. Ultimately money talks and if those running the game Start thinking their finances are being impacted by var things will move in a different direction.
Maybe it’s just my memory, but I can’t remember Liverpool being denied a win last season because of var. If it starts to impact on league titles, champions league places, especially for those clubs with a sense of entitlement, it will be reviewed.

Liverpool have formally asked the PL to explain the thought process of the var official who gave the decision.

[Lastfootstamper]

Whatever happens, it's not sanitisation of the game, it's sanitisation of the games in one division. Every week, hundreds of thousands of people blessed with varying degrees of talent take to football pitches the length and breadth of this country for tens of thousands of games all played under the same rules, and a mere ten are affected by this. Here's a big shout out to Sunday morning referees who must be bursting to get back out there so they can let 'Toothless Tony' and his hungover posse know what is and isn't offside or handball these days.

[Brend'Watkins]

Liverpool have formally asked the PL to explain the thought process of the var official who gave the decision.

Ha ha.  I'll answer it for them. Your man was offside, now f**k off!

[Clive W]

“Clear and obvious error” are the key words. We should take a leaf out of cricket’s book. If the umpire gives a not out decision for an lbw appeal, if the technology shows that the ball may have just clipped the outside of off stump then the umpire’s decision is allowed to stand; even though it may have been incorrect. It was not a clear and obvious error

[Brend'Watkins]

“Clear and obvious error” are the key words. We should take a leaf out of cricket’s book. If the umpire gives a not out decision for an lbw appeal, if the technology shows that the ball may have just clipped the outside of off stump then the umpire’s decision is allowed to stand; even though it may have been incorrect. It was not a clear and obvious error

That's different as the decision to stand with the umpire is already in place.  For offsides, you are either off or you are not off. The decision is taken away from the officials on the pitch.