By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Someone on RefChat has explained far better than me why those tight offside calls (like yesterday's) are indeed a nonsense/lottery/disgrace/wonderful - depending on whether they go for or against you!
"VAR uses cameras than run at 50 frames per second, with one picture taken every 0.02 seconds.
When an offside decision is being deliberated, VAR must choose the frame which proves with certainty that the ball has been touched. If Frame A shows the boot not touching the ball, then VAR must select the next one in which the ball has definitely been touched.
But the actual first point of contact will be somewhere between the frames. And in that time, a player can move from onside to offside.
This means there is a margin for error, and it varies depending on the speed of the attackers and defenders.
Based on the fastest speed recorded in the Premier League last season - 21.75mph (35kmh) - that margin could be as big as 38.8cm.
So, if a player is found to be offside by less than the margin, the VAR can’t be sure whether they were offside or not at the moment the ball was played.
Reports claim that lawmakers are already considering reviewing VAR’s offside system.
It took me 32 years to explain the offside rules to my wife but now I don't understand them myself.
Try handball!
"Handling the ball For the purposes of determining handball offences, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. It is an offence if a player: - deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, including moving the hand/arm towards the ball - scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper - after the ball has touched their or a team-mate’s hand/arm, even if accidental, immediately: - scores in the opponents’ goal - creates a goal-scoring opportunity - touches the ball with their hand/arm when: - the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger - the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level (unless the player deliberately plays the ball which then touches their hand/arm) The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close. Except for the above offences, it is not an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:
- directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot) - directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close - if the hand/arm is close to the body and does not make the body unnaturally bigger - when a player falls and the hand/arm is between the body and the ground to support the body, but not extended laterally or vertically away from the body The goalkeeper has the same restrictions on handling the ball as any other player outside the penalty area. If the goalkeeper handles the ball inside their penalty area when not permitted to do so, an indirect free kick is awarded but there is no disciplinary sanction. However, if the offence is playing the ball a second time (with or without the hand/arm) after a restart before it touches another player, the goalkeeper must be sanctioned if the offence stops a promising attack or denies an opponent or the opposing team a goal or an obvious goal-scoring opportunity."
PLUS they have modified it AGAIN for next season
New text (…) Not every touch of a player’s hand/arm with the ball is an offence. It is an offence if a player: - deliberately touches the ball with their hand/arm, for example moving the hand/arm towards the ball - touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/ arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised - scores in the opponents’ goal: · directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper · immediately after the ball has touched their hand/arm, even if accidental Explanation - Not every contact between the hand/arm and the ball is a handball offence. - Referees must judge the ‘validity’ of the hand/arm’s position in relation to what the player is doing in that particular situation. - Accidental handball by a team-mate before a goal is scored and accidental handball creating a goal-scoring opportunity have been removed as offences
I think we all did but only because it suited us, it will be a result like this against a "big" club that will get it changed, I was sure they were simply going to allow it yesterday because of who it was tbh.
VAR is the worst thing to happen in terms of the actual game played on the pitch to the game of football in its history. It should be abolished immediately. It's failed dismally. It doesn't work, it doesn't stop arguments, it takes too long, it's too complex and has too many anomalies (if you get a free kick and score directly from it, does the VAT check it should have been a foul? Nope. But if you score they will check for ages in the run up to it to see if it could be disallowed for an infringement). It's dreadful.
They've failed to learn the lesson from cricket, which is that technology is not there to ensure every decision is perfect, because they won't be and the tech has a margin for error just as refs/umpires have human error.
The review is there to eliminate the howler, the decision that the umpire or ref looks at on the TV and thinks "F*ck, how did I get that wrong?" like the infamous England World Cup goal.
Mike Dean yesterday - gave a free kick because he (slightly) got in the way of a Liverpool player.
Shouldn't even be a drop ball unless the ball hits him, most blatant error IN LAW that you will see, but of course, despite Liverpool scoring soon after the phantom free kick, VAR can do nothing, as per 'protocols'.
I agree that VAR should only be used for the big calls such as Lampard's non-goal in the world cup. It's should not be there to decide if a player's big toe is just in front of a defender.
I recall years ago the rules were changed to give the attacking team the benefit of the doubt to encourage more scoring opportunities but VAR seems to have reversed that.
I was all up for seeing if VAR would work but i absolutely hate it. even though that offside goal on Saturday was hilarious and made my weekend it was complete nonsense. Once you get your tape measure out for offsides you have gone too far just stick with whatever the lino gave. If that goal had been given 5 years ago would anyone other than Chris Kamara really have complained it was offside.
Get rid of the whole thing, it was supposed to come in for clear and obvious errors, they are not using it for that it's made a mockery of the game.
VAR is the worst thing to happen in terms of the actual game played on the pitch to the game of football in its history. It should be abolished immediately. It's failed dismally. It doesn't work, it doesn't stop arguments, it takes too long, it's too complex and has too many anomalies (if you get a free kick and score directly from it, does the VAT check it should have been a foul? Nope. But if you score they will check for ages in the run up to it to see if it could be disallowed for an infringement). It's dreadful.
Agreed. But thinking about your cricket example (or tennis), couldn't each team start with 2 appeals (or even just 1 appeal) and you lose one if you appeal wrongly? And VAR isn't used in any other situation.
Agreed. But thinking about your cricket example (or tennis), couldn't each team start with 2 appeals (or even just 1 appeal) and you lose one if you appeal wrongly? And VAR isn't used in any other situation.
[Post edited 17 May 2021 15:51]
Exactly. Rather than VAR looking at everything that happens on a pitch that is potentially suspect allow the two managers to have 2 challenges each. If the challenge is upheld then they get to retain it, if it is not upheld they lose it. Technology in cricket is only used if a challenge happens and it is great that they are now using it to look out for no balls rather than rely on the standing umpire.
But back to VAR, the best thing to do with it is dump the thing. And I suspect that given a poll of the people who count most, the supporters that over 90% would also agree with that. It doesn't even cut out the bias to the top clubs because I have seen some dodgy decisions fall in their favour on quite a few occasions.
Exactly. Rather than VAR looking at everything that happens on a pitch that is potentially suspect allow the two managers to have 2 challenges each. If the challenge is upheld then they get to retain it, if it is not upheld they lose it. Technology in cricket is only used if a challenge happens and it is great that they are now using it to look out for no balls rather than rely on the standing umpire.
But back to VAR, the best thing to do with it is dump the thing. And I suspect that given a poll of the people who count most, the supporters that over 90% would also agree with that. It doesn't even cut out the bias to the top clubs because I have seen some dodgy decisions fall in their favour on quite a few occasions.
I often wonder if the way VAR is used in the Premier League is a deliberate ploy by Mike Riley and the PGMO to get it abolished. I think they see it as undermining the authority of the on-field ref and maybe that's why they don't seem to over-rule the on-field ref very often.
They seem to have missed the point of VAR which was to help the on-field ref make the correct decision.
Extra mature cheddar......a simple cheese for a simple man
They've failed to learn the lesson from cricket, which is that technology is not there to ensure every decision is perfect, because they won't be and the tech has a margin for error just as refs/umpires have human error.
The review is there to eliminate the howler, the decision that the umpire or ref looks at on the TV and thinks "F*ck, how did I get that wrong?" like the infamous England World Cup goal.
I think it is wrongly used in cricket.It shouldn’t be up to the teams to ask whether the umpires had made an error,in my opinion.If an umpire makes an obvious error why shouldn’t the 3rd umpire point it out to him rather than having to ensure that both sides still have a review left?They check things in rugby because they want to reach the right decision,not because one of the teams appeal against it.
In my humble opinion offside should be if the attacking player is in front of the last defender and there is clear daylight between them. If any part of the last defender is level with the attacker then it should be onside. Football would be so much better for it and VAR would be so much easier to manage.
The offside law has definitely made it worse for linesmen,especially volunteers at weekend matches. The ref tells us to wait and see if the player who is offside is going for the ball before putting the flag up.Which is ok when it’s clear and obvious,but when things are happening so fast and it might be 40 yards away,it isn’t always possible to see clearly whether the player is 5 yards away from the ball and going for it or not.
I had one ref a few weeks again that played on even though I’d flagged for offside and the player kicked the ball towards the goal.As it went straight out for a goal kick he came over and said he would only give the free kick for offside if she’d scored.What chance does an amateur stand when the ref can come out with a decision like that?