VAR

[Goldenballs]

I think it definitely should be used for offsides but needs changes. There's loads of pics knocking around, making the lines a bit wider giving the striker a tiny bit more leway to prevent people being offside by a bum hair.

Using something along those lines would mean most of the pathetic decisions this season would be eradicated and it would be used occasionally to rectify the bad ones. There will always be a margin of mm wherever you decide to draw the lines, but I think people would accept it more if they knew the striker already had a slight advantage, margin of error, or whatever you want to call it.

[GordonCowansisthegreatest]

It needs to be a fixed point, front of nearest foot etc and no single mm wide line. if they're too close to tell, it's not offside.

[paul_e]

For what it's worth I thought both decisions were wrong.

Off his knee or not it hit Cash's arm which was sticking out.  It's a pen for me and I'd be fuming if that was against us.

For the offside, it's almost as bad as the Watkins one, except Watkins was being fouled at the same time.  I reckon if the flag hadn't gone up VAR would have called it onside.

I still reckon we're 3 or 4 down on the VAR shit decision metre, so I'm not losing sleep over it.  The VAR Gods still owe us, but yesterday helped.

Bold bit - that means it's working properly.

As for the rest the penalty would've been harsh and was 50/50 at best but again the ref didn't give it and VAR just didn't see enough to say he'd got it wrong. As has happened a number of times this year fans are moaning about VAR when it's worked exactly as intended, the 'mistakes' if you want to call them as such were made by on-field officials and not overturned because VAR couldn't see a reason to do so.

[dave shelley]

Re the penalty decision.  I would suggest that the referee was in a very good position to see the deflection from Cash's thigh thereby bringing it in to the scenario 'ball to hand, no intent', something that has always been part of the laws, i.e.  In the opinion of the referee...

[West Derby Villan]

Re the penalty decision.  I would suggest that the referee was in a very good position to see the deflection from Cash's thigh thereby bringing it in to the scenario 'ball to hand, no intent', something that has always been part of the laws, i.e.  In the opinion of the referee...

Agree Dave, in hindsight, it’s the obvious reason it wasn’t given

[Grande Pablo]

It needs to be a fixed point, front of nearest foot etc and no single mm wide line. if they're too close to tell, it's not offside.

Agree - this sleeve thing is rubbish.  Are all sleeves the same length?  It should either be something fixed on the body - say the middle if you were to cut the players in half from the head down, or daylight in the attackers favour.

[GordonCowansisthegreatest]

It needs to be a fixed point, front of nearest foot etc and no single mm wide line. if they're too close to tell, it's not offside.

Agree - this sleeve thing is rubbish.  Are all sleeves the same length?  It should either be something fixed on the body - say the middle if you were to cut the players in half from the head down, or daylight in the attackers favour.

At least if the foot is planted, it can't be so critical ref the ball actually leaving the passers foot. Then it's the same for all. Ie. nothing contentious and fair for all.

[cdbearsfan]

Well, no. You can score with your head/knee/arse etc. Counting the nearest body part which can legally score a goal seems sensible to me. My issue would be how closely it is scrutinised. Attacking teams are supposed to get the benefit of the doubt. If there is clear daylight, disallow the goal. If there isn't, no drawing lots of supplementary lines. Attacking team gets benefit of doubt, give the goal.

[cdbearsfan]

On the subject of VAR, why didn't they review that alleged foul "by" McGinn when he broke free and was brought down? The Southampton player was last man, so if they hadn't ludicrously given the free kick to them, it should have been a red card offence. Surely any incident that is a potential red card offence should be reviewed?

[olaftab]

Re the penalty decision.  I would suggest that the referee was in a very good position to see the deflection from Cash's thigh thereby bringing it in to the scenario 'ball to hand, no intent', something that has always been part of the laws, i.e.  In the opinion of the referee...

I think Lee Mason was very good as was his assistant in spotting the offside. Problem is VAR is overshadowing ridiculing good officials. Both calls in Cricket would have gone with the on field officials.

[chrisw1]

For what it's worth I thought both decisions were wrong.

Off his knee or not it hit Cash's arm which was sticking out.  It's a pen for me and I'd be fuming if that was against us.

For the offside, it's almost as bad as the Watkins one, except Watkins was being fouled at the same time.  I reckon if the flag hadn't gone up VAR would have called it onside.

I still reckon we're 3 or 4 down on the VAR shit decision metre, so I'm not losing sleep over it.  The VAR Gods still owe us, but yesterday helped.

Bold bit - that means it's working properly.

As for the rest the penalty would've been harsh and was 50/50 at best but again the ref didn't give it and VAR just didn't see enough to say he'd got it wrong. As has happened a number of times this year fans are moaning about VAR when it's worked exactly as intended, the 'mistakes' if you want to call them as such were made by on-field officials and not overturned because VAR couldn't see a reason to do so.

VAR on offsides isn't meant to be about clear and obvious errors, it's meant to be a factual decision.  As per the West Ham decision I think it was wrong in terms of the spirit of the law and the point I was making is I suspect the VAR could have come to a decision either way he wanted by moving a frame or two on the point of impact on the ball or a pixel or two either way on the players arm / backside.

I agree with the point you make about the handball as the ref didn't give it.  However you won't find many football fans who think that wasn't a handball as we know it, but the law is such a mess noby knows anymore. 

[Lastfootstamper]

Re the penalty decision.  I would suggest that the referee was in a very good position to see the deflection from Cash's thigh thereby bringing it in to the scenario 'ball to hand, no intent', something that has always been part of the laws, i.e.  In the opinion of the referee...

The referee was better positioned to see a deflection than any of the cameras, I thought. I was particularly bemused by the angle they kept showing from towards the corner flag where Cash was obscured by so many bodies that you could barely see any of him, let alone the ball!

[frank black]

I see lots of benefit of the doubt type statements about offside. This degree of doubt is exactly what VAR was introduced to help. That’s why we are where we are, the lines however thin or thick need to be drawn somewhere and I have no issues with that being the closest part of the body to goal. VAR has ruined the game for the folks at the games, this is my main issue with it.

[Ad@m]

I see lots of benefit of the doubt type statements about offside. This degree of doubt is exactly what VAR was introduced to help. That’s why we are where we are, the lines however thin or thick need to be drawn somewhere and I have no issues with that being the closest part of the body to goal. VAR has ruined the game for the folks at the games, this is my main issue with it.

They absolutely don't have to be drawn at all.

We don't have the technology to definitively state when the ball was played so authority should be given back to the onfield linesman, let them make the call, send it to VAR if it's close and if they can't tell if an error has been made without drawing silly lines we stick with the original decision.

It's a bit like only changing clear and obvious errors...

[Steve67]

To be fair to the officials last night, and this is not something I often say about officials, they got both decisions spot on, on the field of play last night.  Mason pointed for a goal kick for the penalty, having stated that it was not a penalty and his assistant correctly called that Ings was offside.  Two quite brilliant decisions.  VAR simply backed up their decisions making itself out to be rather superfluous.