VAR

[Abbeyfealeavfc]

On behalf of Watkins, f-ck var!

[OCD]

They seem to have forgotten that the offside rule is there to stop forwards from gaining an unfair advantage. You can't tell me players are trying to do that in these instances where it's hairline. It's an aspect that needs to be reviewed and the sooner the better.

[aj2k77]

Rubbish again, continual goals over turned for arms. They'll ignore it and look to fuck around with another rule like they did with the handball problem they've engineered this season.

[Brend'Watkins]

I've mentioned this before, the bit in bold appears to have been binned with no explanation.

 A player is not in an offside position if:

he is in his own half of the field of play
he is level with the second last opponent
he is level with the last two opponents

Nothing constitutes as level anymore. The pseudo science has taken over. Imaginary lines to what accuracy?  Precise moment ball is kicked, to what accuracy?  Var officials competency, to what standard...is there a standard?

[Hookeysmith]

I would like to know who agreed that the media doing the commentary are listening to the conversation between shed and ref and seemingly get the result before anyone else.

Everyone else, players, managers, fans (remember them days) just stand around bemused by WTF is going on - surely TV companies cannot hold that sort of power over the game

[tomd2103]

They seem to have forgotten that the offside rule is there to stop forwards from gaining an unfair advantage. You can't tell me players are trying to do that in these instances where it's hairline. It's an aspect that needs to be reviewed and the sooner the better.

Part of the problem is that in many attacking situations, the striker's body is going towards the goal and the defender's away from it.  This means that the attacker's arms etc. are probably going to be in front of the defender's in most cases.

For me, it just needs to be simplified.  Draw a line with a built in margin for error at the last defender's back foot and if part of the attacker's foot is over that line then it is offside.

[Pat Mustard]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it needs to go.  It is absolutely changing the nature of how people watch games - every time there is a goal, foul, penalty or any decision our first reaction is becoming 'what about VAR?'.  Football isn't like Rugby, Cricket or American Football where there are natural breaks in play every few seconds that allow decisions to be reviewed, and where the scoring of points, runs or touchdowns are so rare as to be celebrated in the same way that goals are.  In the quest for perfection in decisions (which, as we are seeing, isn't realistically achievable when humans are still running the system) we are throwing away the best parts of the game and it is destroying the spectacle.

[Nev]

There's a bloke employed to judge certain things. He's given a flag to wave to indicate an infringement, he didn't wave it so no infringement.

It used to be so simple....

[Drummond]

To be fair, Watkins just needs to drop 30cm or start his run a nano-second later, he's in an offside position.

I can't stand the system and the judgement that's used as it's not a clear and obvious error; that would only be the case, in my view, if there was daylight between the two players.

[Hookeysmith]

To be fair, Watkins just needs to drop 30cm or start his run a nano-second later, he's in an offside position.

I can't stand the system and the judgement that's used as it's not a clear and obvious error; that would only be the case, in my view, if there was daylight between the two players.

Just so we are on the same page - do you mean in reverse to now in as much as if there is any body part in line with the defender then you are on side?

I think that would be a better measure - i always though the advantage or benefit was to be with the attacker to make the game even more exciting

Also could you imagine the pantomime we would have if that Red Faced united fucker was still around, it feels like he is sitting in the VAR shed now with the amount of benefit them wankers get on a regular basis

[Drummond]

To be fair, Watkins just needs to drop 30cm or start his run a nano-second later, he's in an offside position.

I can't stand the system and the judgement that's used as it's not a clear and obvious error; that would only be the case, in my view, if there was daylight between the two players.

Just so we are on the same page - do you mean in reverse to now in as much as if there is any body part in line with the defender then you are on side?

I think that would be a better measure - i always though the advantage or benefit was to be with the attacker to make the game even more exciting

Also could you imagine the pantomime we would have if that Red Faced united fucker was still around, it feels like he is sitting in the VAR shed now with the amount of benefit them wankers get on a regular basis

Yep, any part in line you're onside. That makes the game more interesting and gives the attacker the benefot of the doubt. Plus it's the only way it can be argued to be a clear error, as they should perhaps have seen daylight... Whereas there's no way under the current set-up that a lino could see the moment the ball is kicked that there is an inch of fabric on a sleeve ahead of the opponents bit of fabric.

[West Derby Villan]

To be fair, Watkins just needs to drop 30cm or start his run a nano-second later, he's in an offside position.

I can't stand the system and the judgement that's used as it's not a clear and obvious error; that would only be the case, in my view, if there was daylight between the two players.

Just so we are on the same page - do you mean in reverse to now in as much as if there is any body part in line with the defender then you are on side?

I think that would be a better measure - i always though the advantage or benefit was to be with the attacker to make the game even more exciting

Also could you imagine the pantomime we would have if that Red Faced united fucker was still around, it feels like he is sitting in the VAR shed now with the amount of benefit them wankers get on a regular basis

Yep, any part in line you're onside. That makes the game more interesting and gives the attacker the benefot of the doubt. Plus it's the only way it can be argued to be a clear error, as they should perhaps have seen daylight... Whereas there's no way under the current set-up that a lino could see the moment the ball is kicked that there is an inch of fabric on a sleeve ahead of the opponents bit of fabric.

Never catch on, too much like common sense for my liking

[Pat Mustard]

To be fair, Watkins just needs to drop 30cm or start his run a nano-second later, he's in an offside position.

I can't stand the system and the judgement that's used as it's not a clear and obvious error; that would only be the case, in my view, if there was daylight between the two players.

Just so we are on the same page - do you mean in reverse to now in as much as if there is any body part in line with the defender then you are on side?

I think that would be a better measure - i always though the advantage or benefit was to be with the attacker to make the game even more exciting

Also could you imagine the pantomime we would have if that Red Faced united fucker was still around, it feels like he is sitting in the VAR shed now with the amount of benefit them wankers get on a regular basis

Yep, any part in line you're onside. That makes the game more interesting and gives the attacker the benefot of the doubt. Plus it's the only way it can be argued to be a clear error, as they should perhaps have seen daylight... Whereas there's no way under the current set-up that a lino could see the moment the ball is kicked that there is an inch of fabric on a sleeve ahead of the opponents bit of fabric.

This is the most baffling thing about it when it comes to offsides.  When it comes to goals the law is that if any part of the ball doesn't cross the line then it's not a goal, corner etc.  So why is it that the offisde law is enforced in contradiction to this i.e. if any part of the player is offside then it is offside - surely it should all be about if a player has a part of the body onside then they are still legitimately in play.

The only issue with this is then you will end up in exactly the same situation we are in now, just looking a a part of the defenders body rather than the attacker and still ending up with these stupid f**king lines being drawn without any recourse to someone being able to accurately say when the ball was played.  Just get rid of the whole thing! 

[paul_e]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it needs to go.  It is absolutely changing the nature of how people watch games - every time there is a goal, foul, penalty or any decision our first reaction is becoming 'what about VAR?'.  Football isn't like Rugby, Cricket or American Football where there are natural breaks in play every few seconds that allow decisions to be reviewed, and where the scoring of points, runs or touchdowns are so rare as to be celebrated in the same way that goals are.  In the quest for perfection in decisions (which, as we are seeing, isn't realistically achievable when humans are still running the system) we are throwing away the best parts of the game and it is destroying the spectacle.

I assume you don't watch a whole lot of rugby. The days of the game stopping every 30seconds are long gone, it's no more stop start than football now. How it's managed and run in rugby is spot on and is exactly the model football should've followed. There's 4 main points and I don't think football has any of them right:

If play stops (for a booking, set piece or score) then, if needed, a review happens before the restart of play, if it's not clear the refs original decision stands. - football mostly gets the first bit right but the 2nd bit is a mess.
If the game carries on then it can only be called back if the ref has missed serious foul play. - I haven't seen this happen often in football, not sure what the rules are around it.
If the ref is unsure they can ask for a review. - This never happens and is a big part of the problem.
The ref is mic'ed up and explains his reasoning for decisions that are reviewed. - This makes it hard for people to understand the decisions and creates as many problems as VAR is meant to fix.

Of those the only one where 'natural breaks in play' would make a difference is in the 2nd case but think about the sort of incidents that covers. Someone getting kicked or elbowed off the ball and it not being seen by any of the officials for example. Surely something that allows those players to be punished during the game rather than just a post match review/ban is better.

[Pat Mustard]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it needs to go.  It is absolutely changing the nature of how people watch games - every time there is a goal, foul, penalty or any decision our first reaction is becoming 'what about VAR?'.  Football isn't like Rugby, Cricket or American Football where there are natural breaks in play every few seconds that allow decisions to be reviewed, and where the scoring of points, runs or touchdowns are so rare as to be celebrated in the same way that goals are.  In the quest for perfection in decisions (which, as we are seeing, isn't realistically achievable when humans are still running the system) we are throwing away the best parts of the game and it is destroying the spectacle.

I assume you don't watch a whole lot of rugby. The days of the game stopping every 30seconds are long gone, it's no more stop start than football now. How it's managed and run in rugby is spot on and is exactly the model football should've followed. There's 4 main points and I don't think football has any of them right:

If play stops (for a booking, set piece or score) then, if needed, a review happens before the restart of play, if it's not clear the refs original decision stands. - football mostly gets the first bit right but the 2nd bit is a mess.
If the game carries on then it can only be called back if the ref has missed serious foul play. - I haven't seen this happen often in football, not sure what the rules are around it.
If the ref is unsure they can ask for a review. - This never happens and is a big part of the problem.
The ref is mic'ed up and explains his reasoning for decisions that are reviewed. - This makes it hard for people to understand the decisions and creates as many problems as VAR is meant to fix.

Of those the only one where 'natural breaks in play' would make a difference is in the 2nd case but think about the sort of incidents that covers. Someone getting kicked or elbowed off the ball and it not being seen by any of the officials for example. Surely something that allows those players to be punished during the game rather than just a post match review/ban is better.

I’ve played Rugby for over 30 years, and while the game may have sped up it is nothing like football even now. Every scrum, line-out, penalty and free-kick takes at least 30 seconds to set up and eats up huge amounts of game time. That is before you get to periods of play where little is happening due to back and forth kicking, or tied up slowly going through phases of possession.

I love Rugby, but it is nowhere near as free-flowing as football and does allow for reviews as it is rare you will get more than a couple of minutes of play before there is a significant stoppage for a set-piece. You would also never get a situation in Rugby like one in the Burnley-Bournemouth game last season where a goal was disallowed and a penalty awarded at the other end because one team broke and the first opportunity to review the decision came after the ball had gone into the net of the team who got the penalty. Finally, Rugby also stops the clock for injuries, reviews etc in a way football doesn’t, so if we have VAR decisions that take 3-4 minutes then we are going to see games that last nearly 2 hours before long.

If we have VAR then I absolutely accept that football can learn a lot from the way the assistance is used in Rugby. My problem with it is that it fundamentally changes the nature of the game and our relationship with it as spectators. If it was just used to review serious foul play that the ref might have missed then I could just about accept it, but it will never stop at that and so I don’t think that’s a price worth paying.