VAR

[dcdavecollett]

Not bad for a starting point.

ATM, we have strikers who have goals disallowed because their finger is offside, but when a defender's arm is keeping them onside, the goal is disallowed anyway!!

[The Edge]

Not bad for a starting point.

ATM, we have strikers who have goals disallowed because their finger is offside, but when a defender's arm is keeping them onside, the goal is disallowed anyway!!

Ollie Watkins has been particularly hard done by. Of the two he's had chalked off recently the one at West Ham was ridiculously tight. The one against the Olbiyun was wrong. Plain and simple.

[German James]

The Edge's post has made me think that the best way to solve the current fiasco is to make the referee rule on every bit of pedantic geometry that VAR suggests.
If a referee had to go to the monitor to judge whether one of Traoré's bollock hairs being ahead of the last-but-one defender actually constituted an advantage, they might start showing a bit more common sense.

[frankmosswasmyuncle]

Wot The Edge said.

It's there to help, not take over!

[dcdavecollett]

As has been said on here previously: which foot did he score with? The right one. Was this foot in an offside position as the ball came in? No. Then the goal is given.

What's wrong with that?

[geolex]

As has been said on here previously: which foot did he score with? The right one. Was this foot in an offside position as the ball came in? No. Then the goal is given.

What's wrong with that?

its nothing to do with which foot he scores with  the rule states:-

A player is in an offside position if: any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents' half (excluding the halfway line) and. any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent.

[Toronto Villa]

I still would argue that whether it is offside or handball there needs to be evidence of a clear and obvious advantage being created. So when Ollie score against Albion did he have a clear and obvious advantage that he created by his position played in real time? I would say absolutely not.

And with handball offences, there are too many incidental contacts of the ball hitting an arm where the player is adjudged to have that part of the body in an unnatural position. At full speed, it’s almost impossible to make that adjustment for the defender. So again I would argue, at full speed did the defender create a clear and obvious advantage when the ball hits his arm or hand?

[Ad@m]

The logical argument though is that if the player scored as a result of either being offside or handling the ball he must've got an advantage. If you then say it's whether he had enough of an advantage from doing that you're just adding another element of subjectivity in to it.

It's an easy fix for me - ditch the lines and limit the review to 15 seconds. If you can't tell whether it's offside within those parameters the goal stands. 

As has been said a million times already (but seems to be being ignored by those in charge of implementing it), VAR isn't there to make decisions 100% correct, it's there to stop absolute howlers.

[wittonwarrior]

football is all about opinions.  I am anti VAR but if we must have it then leave it to the referee to check at the touchline.  Another pair of eyes is certainly not helping.

[FatSam]

football is all about opinions.  I am anti VAR but if we must have it then leave it to the referee to check at the touchline.  Another pair of eyes is certainly not helping.

Agreed. I have always been anti VAR, because I don’t like the idea of the game being different at the highest level from lower levels like Sunday league. I like the idea of all football being unified by the same set of rules and interpretations. I was also sceptical that adding another layer of subjectivity would instantly solve the problems that people were trying to solve. The reality though has been worse than I could have anticipated. It seems fundamentally wrong to try to reach categorical conclusions about something so fluid, dynamic and nuanced. Much better I think to accept that a player is offside or onside ‘as far as I can tell with my bare eyes in real time’.

[FatSam]

When events are slowed down they seem to become detached from, or take on a different reality. Football isn’t played in slow motion, and your perception of the causality between actions is often lost when slowed down.

Football is supposed to be a contact sport. It’s more about the rules than VAR, but what seems to have been lost is whether the outcome was materially affected by the infraction. Yes, there might have been contact, but is that the reason why the player lost balance? Or was an advantage gained?

[OCD]

I wonder if VAR would work better if say, instead, managers had the chance to make a maximum of 2 challenges a game.

[London Villan]

As we’ve seen though Stockley Park still get it wrong and are inconsistent.

[Toronto Villa]

I wonder if VAR would work better if say, instead, managers had the chance to make a maximum of 2 challenges a game.

I've said that in the past that all decisions should be by the on field referee. He can call for help to VAR if he and/or the assistant feels it is warranted or simply go to the monitor. But like the NFL the coaches get two challenges per game. Now, if you make the first challenge and you fail then you lose the second, so it is important that you make them for the right reason. But this whole notion of VAR drawing lines for 3 minutes or watching everything in super slow motion multiple times a game would be over almost immediately

[CT]

Interesting that Clattenburg said VAR wouldn’t even check our goal as they’d cleared the cross and so the play was reset.

Just casting my mind back to the goal we had chalked off at Burnley where that was exactly what happened. Hmm....