VAR

[luke95]

I think they had issues with the monitor for the McGinn 'goal' - pretty sure he was looking at a blank screen, and was going solely off the advice of the VAR officials

Yes they did , they confirmed it wasnt working at the time on MOTD lastnight.

[ExclDawg]

VAR should be used to overturn the egregious oversights. Missed an obvious handball on a goal? Overturn.  A guy dove to get awarded a penalty? Overturn, and yellow card.  Someone was 5 meters offsides on the initial pass? Overturn.

What they shouldn't be doing is taking out the ruler and estimating offsides based on the location of an elbow and taking 5 minutes to verify it with a micrometer. If they can't overturn something within one or two replays of something, then leave the play stand as is. It should be used to correct the really blown calls, not used as a cop handing out tickets for people going 51 in a 50 zone.

[PeterWithesShin]

I'd imagine the fact the keeper wouldn't have saved it is pretty irrelevant in whether he was offside or not.

[Brend'Watkins]

I'd imagine the fact the keeper wouldn't have saved it is pretty irrelevant in whether he was offside or not.

So why does the ref need to look at the monitor then? Mission control does its measuring and that should be it. Atkinson’s part in all this is just theatre. Look like you are doing something important when actually you’re doing nothing.

[London Villan]

I can’t think of an occasion when a goal like that has been disallowed...

[Lastfootstamper]

VAR should be used to overturn the egregious oversights. Missed an obvious handball on a goal? Overturn.  A guy dove to get awarded a penalty? Overturn, and yellow card.  Someone was 5 meters offsides on the initial pass? Overturn.

What they shouldn't be doing is taking out the ruler and estimating offsides based on the location of an elbow and taking 5 minutes to verify it with a micrometer. If they can't overturn something within one or two replays of something, then leave the play stand as is. It should be used to correct the really blown calls, not used as a cop handing out tickets for people going 51 in a 50 zone.

But you'd then still need a human being to decide whether or not something is 'clear and obvious', egregious, however you want to describe it, which is in itself a subjective decision, and so needs reviewing by referencing yet another set of rules to decide if the decision falls within the 'allowable error' parameters. And if it's close to the limit of those parameters, out come the lines and rulers and slo-mo replays, and we all climb back on that shitting fucking merry-go-round.

[PeterWithesShin]

I'd imagine the fact the keeper wouldn't have saved it is pretty irrelevant in whether he was offside or not.

So why does the ref need to look at the monitor then? Mission control does its measuring and that should be it. Atkinson’s part in all this is just theatre. Look like you are doing something important when actually you’re doing nothing.

Because that's what they do. He went to see if he was offside and blocking the keeper's view. That the keeper wouldn't have saved it because the shot was hit so well is a total irrelevance in the decision.

[Lastfootstamper]

I'd imagine the fact the keeper wouldn't have saved it is pretty irrelevant in whether he was offside or not.

So why does the ref need to look at the monitor then? Mission control does its measuring and that should be it. Atkinson’s part in all this is just theatre. Look like you are doing something important when actually you’re doing nothing.

Because that's what they do. He went to see if he was offside and blocking the keeper's view. That the keeper wouldn't have saved it because the shot was hit so well is a total irrelevance in the decision.

That's right, it's kind of what would have happened in the olden days*. McGinn would've blasted his shot in, the linesman would've flagged, the ref would've gone over to him for a chat, and between them they'd have decided if the goal stands. And most, almost all, would have disallowed it.

*not the olden olden days, when you risked being ruled offside if you'd taken a corner.

[Des Little]

https://twitter.com/talksport/status/1325466382964809734?s=21

Nail on head, for me at least.

[ExclDawg]

VAR should be used to overturn the egregious oversights. Missed an obvious handball on a goal? Overturn.  A guy dove to get awarded a penalty? Overturn, and yellow card.  Someone was 5 meters offsides on the initial pass? Overturn.

What they shouldn't be doing is taking out the ruler and estimating offsides based on the location of an elbow and taking 5 minutes to verify it with a micrometer. If they can't overturn something within one or two replays of something, then leave the play stand as is. It should be used to correct the really blown calls, not used as a cop handing out tickets for people going 51 in a 50 zone.

But you'd then still need a human being to decide whether or not something is 'clear and obvious', egregious, however you want to describe it, which is in itself a subjective decision, and so needs reviewing by referencing yet another set of rules to decide if the decision falls within the 'allowable error' parameters. And if it's close to the limit of those parameters, out come the lines and rulers and slo-mo replays, and we all climb back on that shitting fucking merry-go-round.

Agreed, which is why I say it needs to be a 30 second limit, or a two viewing limit.  If they can't make a decision that quickly, then it's decided for them.  The video Des showed above is saying exactly what I'm saying.

[Toronto Villa]

For me we need to employ the NFL rule. That the on field decision is the decision and that video replay needs to conclusively contradict that. So any number of offsides would stand because like Bamford or last night if VAR didn’t exist the assistant and ref have both ruled those as good goals. And I would also introduce a challenge system from coaches. They would get 2 a game. In the NFL if you challenge a play and win you get the second one. If you lose the first challenge you don’t get a second.

VAR as it currently stands has ruined the game. It has to stop.

[Ben.H]

I'd imagine the fact the keeper wouldn't have saved it is pretty irrelevant in whether he was offside or not.

So why does the ref need to look at the monitor then? Mission control does its measuring and that should be it. Atkinson’s part in all this is just theatre. Look like you are doing something important when actually you’re doing nothing.

Because that's what they do. He went to see if he was offside and blocking the keeper's view. That the keeper wouldn't have saved it because the shot was hit so well is a total irrelevance in the decision.

It isn't irrelevant at all: the law says that Barkley would only be committing an offence if he was preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision.  There was no way he preventing Leno from being able to play the ball because he'd never have got near it.

[Des Little]

And another thing. Miking the officials up so that everyone hears their conversations would significantly increase the buy in to the verdict if we (the paying customer) were informed of the reasons for their often absurd decisions.

[London Villan]

100% agree about the refs being mic’d up. It would diffuse a lot of the issues.

[Andy_Lochhead_in_the_air]

VAR CAN F**K RIGHT OFF !