F*CK VAR

[BoroMart]

I agree with what you have said - yes it was technically offside and therefore the correct decision - but when someone is offside by literally a toenail it seems utterly ridiculous to be calling it an offside - before VAR that would have been called level and the goal allowed to stand.

some would have called it off, and some on, then everyone would complain.

I'm not sure why it's ludicrous to be offside by a toenail, this was about 3 inches of, big toe nails.....but where does this 'zone of doubt' end? is it 1 inch, 6 inches, 18 inches? This idea of a zone of doubt, doesn't resolve anything, it just moves the argument to another area. If we change to anything within 4 inches is too close to call, then people will argue if a single call is 2.8inches or 4.2 inches, is it a toe nail further than the zone of doubt.

Bottom line is, you need a law, you need a law that is measurable and unambiguous, and sometimes it will feel harsh, but it's easily applicable. That's what we have. The alternative is moving the decision point, and having a different argument, I'm not even sure how you can create an unambiguous law of the game that linesmen and refs can understand and enforce, that states that anything tight enough to be within 3 inches should not be flagged offside, how is a lino to make that judgement call?

I create policies and process and procedures as part of my job, you can't create something that isn't measurable and enforceable, but is down to personal interpretation without creating chaos.

 

[Marvanelli]

I agree with what you have said - yes it was technically offside and therefore the correct decision - but when someone is offside by literally a toenail it seems utterly ridiculous to be calling it an offside - before VAR that would have been called level and the goal allowed to stand. With no VAR most neutral supporters would say they were level and being a toenail ahead of the play doesn't give the attacker any advantage at all. When we are talking about centimetres between being on or offside then VAR is just spoiling the game.

So where would you draw the line? Give the attacker a yard?

There will always be a line. And there will always be a 'call' that is a fraction over that 'line'. It is what it is.

Yesterday, Coventry's 4th goal was offside.

The laws of the game were correctly applied.

 

[NYboro]

So where would you draw the line? Give the attacker a yard?

There will always be a line. And there will always be a 'call' that is a fraction over that 'line'. It is what it is.

Yesterday, Coventry's 4th goal was offside.

The laws of the game were correctly applied.

I didn't see the game, but it seems like, as usual, VAR is causing more controversy than we ever got without it.

 

[Nano]

I didn't see the game, but it seems like, as usual, VAR is causing more controversy than we ever got without it.

It isn't though. It correctly gave an offside that was offside and disallowed the goal. Controversy would be a subjective decision that people disagreed with. Nobody thinks the goal was onside, at best they think he could have gotten away with it.

The controversy is because people wanted to see Man Utd lose a big match they were 3 goals ahead in against a lower league team and they thought they did and it was snatched away.

 

[NYboro]

It isn't though. It correctly gave an offside that was offside and disallowed the goal. Controversy would be a subjective decision that people disagreed with. Nobody thinks the goal was onside, at best they think he could have gotten away with it.

The controversy is because people wanted to see Man Utd lose a big match they were 3 goals ahead in against a lower league team and they thought they did and it was snatched away.

I'm not really bothered about the result, but I do want to see VAR binned.

 

[Marvanelli]

VAR is causing more controversy than we ever got without it.

Incorrect.

VAR actually benefitted the game yesterday during the FA Cup Semi-final.

VAR correctly proved that the 4th Coventry goal was offside.

VAR was not controversal yesterday in that FA Cup Semi-Final.

 

[B_G]

The controversy is because people wanted to see Man Utd lose a big match they were 3 goals ahead in against a lower league team and they thought they did and it was snatched away.

It's not. It's because people don't like the system. Not everybody's opinion is the same as yours

 

[Muttley]

The controversy is because people wanted to see Man Utd lose a big match they were 3 goals ahead in against a lower league team and they thought they did and it was snatched away.

It really isn't.

But you know that.

 

[viv_andersons_nana]

It isn't though. It correctly gave an offside that was offside and disallowed the goal. Controversy would be a subjective decision that people disagreed with. Nobody thinks the goal was onside, at best they think he could have gotten away with it.

The controversy is because people wanted to see Man Utd lose a big match they were 3 goals ahead in against a lower league team and they thought they did and it was snatched away.

I think the goal was onside. I think the two players are level. And you can talk about people being biased against Manchester United, and I am, I absolutely hate them, but that doesn’t impact my view of this offside call. You’re talking about centimetres or even millimetres to judge someone offside. Personally I don’t think that’s offside. Is Haji Wright really gaining an advantage there? Come on. Why can’t we see the actual lines they used to make this call? Why is there such a lack of transparency around the use of it, the process, the conversations.

And I also don’t think Wan Bissaka should’ve had a penalty given against him. Which actually just highlights how stupid and flawed VAR actually is because there was an absolutely identical incident involving Ashley Young yesterday and no penalty was given. So what’s the point of all this, really.

It’s just more football decided off the pitch. The controversy around decisions is much worse now than it ever was imo.

 

[Nano]

It really isn't.

But you know that.

It is. The decision wasn't controversial. Using VAR might be controversial and I completely accept that some people will not want it but the decision it made wasn't really controversial.

(unless you are @viv_andersons_nana haha)

 

[viv_andersons_nana]

It is. The decision wasn't controversial. Using VAR might be controversial and I completely accept that some people will not want it but the decision it made wasn't really controversial.

(unless you are @viv_andersons_nana haha)

I doubt we will agree here tbh but I would’ve allowed that goal to stand. To me they were level. I’d be heartbroken if that had been Boro yesterday.

 

[Scrote]

VAR was not controversal yesterday in that FA Cup Semi-Final.

It didn't overturn a very dubious penalty award. It WAS controversial.

Controversy would be a subjective decision that people disagreed with.

See above...

The laws of the game were correctly applied.

See above. The laws aren't being applied consistently and that is the problem. Compare and contrast the Forest handball shout and the Coventry penalty. If we're playing to 'umpires call' then we need to be told that.

I create policies and process and procedures as part of my job, you can't create something that isn't measurable and enforceable, but is down to personal interpretation without creating chaos.

So you agree that VAR shouldn't be used for subjective decisions?

It is part of the problem but only if people continually criticise VAR if it gives the ‘wrong’ decision in terms of how they wanted the outcome to be.

Personally I would prefer the match to be fairly decided rather than emotionally decided but everybody thinks differently don’t they?

Again, the offside might have been correct, but the handball was never a penalty. However, if, by the interpretation of the laws that VAR is using, it was - then the handball against Everton should have been
given to Forest. One of them was clearly and obviously either a pen or not a pen based on the call in the other game. The threshold for changing the refs decision MUST lead to consistency otherwise we're just shifting the point of controversy.

There are multiple studies world wide about var showing its reduced ref errors. If you dislike the impact on the entertainment, that’s fine, that your right to have that opinion, but it quantifiable has reduced the number of officiating errors. Not to zero, but it’s had a significant improvement. There are zero studies to show that var adds more error or even has a net zero improvement in decision making.

Fact is the Lino got this decision wrong, and without var an incorrect result would have occurred

No there aren't. We've been over this before.

There isn't (unless you have something new) a study which shows improvements in the professional men's game. Stats from PGMOL and the Premier League will include e.g. all the penalty calls from the Everton v Forest game yesterday as 'correct' (unless/until PGMOL come out and apologise).

There is no direct comparison (that I'm aware of) between pre and post VAR. Until someone undertakes that there's no way to prove or disprove that VAR has reduced errors. By it's nature, it's assumed to be correct when implemented and should only ever show a positive relationship with error correction - the fact that it doesn't is the closest to any proof that it doesn't work.

 

[Ironops]

So where would you draw the line? Give the attacker a yard?

There will always be a line. And there will always be a 'call' that is a fraction over that 'line'. It is what it is.

Yesterday, Coventry's 4th goal was offside.

The laws of the game were correctly applied.

I think id leave it to the referee and linesman to make the call and unless there was a clear and obvious error - like the guy being a yard offside - then the on pitch decision stands. I dont think this was a clear and obvious error, the two players were effectively level with one having a toe in front of the other, but not gaining any advantage by doing so.

 

[changingman]

I think id leave it to the referee and linesman to make the call and unless there was a clear and obvious error - like the guy being a yard offside - then the on pitch decision stands. I dont think this was a clear an obvious error, the two players were effectively level with one having a toe in front of the other, but not gaining any advantage by doing so.

So a yard then?

 

[Marvanelli]

I think id leave it to the referee and linesman to make the call and unless there was a clear and obvious error - like the guy being a yard offside - then the on pitch decision stands. I dont think this was a clear an obvious error, the two players were effectively level with one having a toe in front of the other, but not gaining any advantage by doing so.

So if he was a toe from being a full yard offside, that is ok?

 

[Marvanelli]

See above. The laws aren't being applied consistently and that is the problem. Compare and contrast the Forest handball shout and the Coventry penalty. If we're playing to 'umpires call' then we need to be told that.

Yes. That is the VAR official. Not the laws.

The offside call yesterday was due to the laws being correctly applied.

If you have a problem with that decision, then that has nothing to do with VAR, but the laws of the game.

I agree consistency is an issue with VAR.

 

[Ironops]

So if he was a toe from being a full yard offside, that is ok?

I think its worth having a level of subjectivity to have a more free flowing game and that supporters are not having goal celebration spoiled or terminated due to a bloke being 3 microns over a line!

 

[Archiestephens_elbow]

Too many people worship at the altar of technology

 

[BoroMart]

So you agree that VAR shouldn't be used for subjective decisions?

I think it’s more controversial to do that. For offsides it works, doesn’t really take too long and ultimately can be automated

 

[NYboro]

Too many people worship at the altar of technology

And we all know technology can never be wrong. Try telling that to the subpostmasters wronged by Horizon.