VAR in the championship

[dsr-burnley]

It does happen though. I've seen it a dozen times or more - usually around the half-way line and rarely discussed.

There is also the problem of other incidents/injuries occurring while the linesman is waiting to raise his flag when he thinks it might be offside. I just don't think we get enough positives from VAR to offset the negatives at the moment.

If the technology improves to guarantee 94% of decisions are made correctly across the full game (foul throws, ffs!) then we could revisit it...

The reason linesmen have to delay is because there is no way on God's earth that a linesman can judge offside under the new rules. If it takes a man with a freeze-frame camera and computers and lines drawn on screen, over a minute to decide whether he was an inch onside or an inch offside, no linesman can make that judgement except by guesswork. So they have to make no decision at all, and then when the ball has gone dead or is out of danger to avoid the controversy of stopping play for an onside goal, then they can have their guess.

Presumably the VAR people think that this delay in giving a decision, and the way non-goal decisions are now no more than guesswork, is a cost worth paying if it helps them disallow some more goals. It really beggars belief what they are trying to achieve. If you were told in advance that there is a new system that can be put in place, and it will help to disallow goals that would otherwise be legal, it will slow down goal celebrations so fans don't know whether a goal was scored or not, and it will encourage "dead" passages of play where the linesman knows they are wasting their time but can't say so - would we say this is good for the game?

I said it before. Keep the old offside rule, don't draw lines on the pitch, and level is onside. I had forgotton how much more fun it is to score and celebrate after a glance at the ref, than it is to score and wait for two minutes with no signal until the opposition kick off. Watching the opposition kick off is nothing like the excitement of watching the ball hit the net, but it's the opposition kicking off that signals a goal in the PL. I despise that rule. At the very least, they need another signal to say "VAR check over, goal given".

 

[Liamo]

This gets said a lot. It’s complete rubbish. The word “level” is nowhere in Law 11 and never has been. Nor has it appeared in a IFAB guideline. Law 11 creates a binary state. Nearer or not nearer.

Try reading Law 11 again. It states quite unequivocally:

 

[Nano]

The reason linesmen have to delay is because there is no way on God's earth that a linesman can judge offside under the new rules. If it takes a man with a freeze-frame camera and computers and lines drawn on screen, over a minute to decide whether he was an inch onside or an inch offside, no linesman can make that judgement except by guesswork. So they have to make no decision at all, and then when the ball has gone dead or is out of danger to avoid the controversy of stopping play for an onside goal, then they can have their guess.

Presumably the VAR people think that this delay in giving a decision, and the way non-goal decisions are now no more than guesswork, is a cost worth paying if it helps them disallow some more goals. It really beggars belief what they are trying to achieve. If you were told in advance that there is a new system that can be put in place, and it will help to disallow goals that would otherwise be legal, it will slow down goal celebrations so fans don't know whether a goal was scored or not, and it will encourage "dead" passages of play where the linesman knows they are wasting their time but can't say so - would we say this is good for the game?

I said it before. Keep the old offside rule, don't draw lines on the pitch, and level is onside. I had forgotton how much more fun it is to score and celebrate after a glance at the ref, than it is to score and wait for two minutes with no signal until the opposition kick off. Watching the opposition kick off is nothing like the excitement of watching the ball hit the net, but it's the opposition kicking off that signals a goal in the PL. I despise that rule. At the very least, they need another signal to say "VAR check over, goal given".

This is just a misunderstanding of what VAR solves for offsides. As I've already explained in my previous post, you are seeing more disallowed goals and thinking we're getting fewer goals but because we play on it means more goals are scored because we're not incorrectly flagging goals that are actually onside. There are more total goals scored, more allowed and more disallowed.

 

[FishofContemplation]

I said it before. Keep the old offside rule, don't draw lines on the pitch, and level is onside.

You can say it as often as you want. It still won’t be true. It will still be something you, or whoever told you it, has just imagined. There is no such “old offside law”.

The last major change to the position element of the law was in the 1990s when the requirement to have two opponents “between” you and the goal line was relaxed to requiring the attacker to be “nearer”. The exact current wording, saying the bit that is nearer should exclude the hand or arm (“part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents' goal line”) was first used in 2005. Both changes predate VAR and both changes make players onside who would previously have been off. The often repeated suggestion that the law was changed for VAR to make more things offside is false. In both respects.

If you think any overlap with the second last defender should be onside, even if part of the attacker is nearer, argue for that. But you will be the one arguing for a change in the law.

 

[Ayresome_park]

Not read through this whole thread and for me before opened it VAR is a BIG NO.

never wanted it , don’t like it and think the whole system is a joke. For multitude of reasons won’t go in to now.

Halfway through tonight’s recording of MOTD and Spuds game got 4 that ave been so bad after eat review and another 2/3 in Geordie game makes the whole thing worse than I imagined it would be before it was implemented.

So a big big no from me..

If I was a Brighton fan, I'd be very annoyed this morning mind!!

 

[Abel Tasman]

Was Burnleys first goal offside? I didn't think the arm counted?

 

[Druss_The_Legend]

building manned by experts refs

Expert refs seems like an oxymoron in this league

 

[Pak_Doo_Ik]

Trouble with VAR is it gives the ref a get out of jail free card. The Brighton game yesterday is a case in point. The ref doesn’t give the penalty because in the back of his mind he knows if he is wrong VAR will overrule and make the decision. I’d love to know the stats of how many penalty decisions VAR makes whereby the ref has given a penalty and it gets overturned vs how many times VAR gives a penalty when the ref hasn’t. I’m confident the latter happens more than the former.

 

[Jedi boro]

People need to accept the reality VAR is here to stay and wether we like it or not it’s not going anywhere. The only question now is how can we improve it and how can we best implement it.

 

[Scrote]

Trouble with VAR is it gives the ref a get out of jail free card. The Brighton game yesterday is a case in point. The ref doesn’t give the penalty because in the back of his mind he knows if he is wrong VAR will overrule and make the decision. I’d love to know the stats of how many penalty decisions VAR makes whereby the ref has given a penalty and it gets overturned vs how many times VAR gives a penalty when the ref hasn’t. I’m confident the latter happens more than the former.

It highlights the problem with "clear and obvious" not actually having a clear and obvious definition.

Alan Shearer, on MOTD, asked how it could be clear and obvious if it took 20 views and 3 minutes. Refs need to ref matches, not some unaccountable bloke in a shed.

 

[Jedi boro]

It highlights the problem with "clear and obvious" not actually having a clear and obvious definition.

Alan Shearer, on MOTD, asked how it could be clear and obvious if it took 20 views and 3 minutes. Refs need to ref matches, not some unaccountable bloke in a shed.

I disagree and that for me is the issue the ref knows the rules he doesn’t need another ref overseeing the game he needs a person who can analyse the data and check the image.

VAR is about analysis not about re refereeing that’s where we are going wrong.

 

[Scrote]

I disagree and that for me is the issue the ref knows the rules he doesn’t need another ref overseeing the game he needs a person who can analyse the data and check the image.

VAR is about analysis not about re refereeing that’s where we are going wrong.

I don't understand where you think the difference is.

The man in the shed said there was a penalty after concluding that the ref made a clear and obvious error.

That's a judgement call not data analysis.

Are you saying we should get rid of VAR for anything that isn't black and white (on that I'd agree (as a first step towards sanity)).

 

[Pak_Doo_Ik]

I disagree and that for me is the issue the ref knows the rules he doesn’t need another ref overseeing the game he needs a person who can analyse the data and check the image.

VAR is about analysis not about re refereeing that’s where we are going wrong.

Yep I agree but my point is because they have somebody watching over them they have forgotten how to ref. I mean that Brighton penalty is ridiculous decision, firstly how has the ref not spotted it, I can only assume he’s given Spurs the benefit of the doubt knowing that if he’s wrong Brighton will get the penalty. Worse than that is, he did miss it and believed the Brighton player either dived or tripped himself up.

Our penalty on Friday night probably isn’t given in the PL on the field cos the ref will err on the side of caution like the ref at spurs yesterday and then VAR gets involved.

I don’t what the solution is because VAR is here to stay and I know Howard Webb is being applauded because they say VAR gets involved less and turns over fewer decisions but it does seem that there are more incorrect decisions being made now.

 

[Jedi boro]

I don't understand where you think the difference is.

The man in the shed said there was a penalty after concluding that the ref made a clear and obvious error.

That's a judgement call not data analysis.

Are you saying we should get rid of VAR for anything that isn't black and white (on that I'd agree (as a first step towards sanity)).

The difference is that the ref on the field will be instructing the VAR not the other way around.

Take the Burnley goal the ref think it’s might be offside he asks the var was he offside the var checks the image ( nothing else) and on that and that alone say what he sees.

Not another ref but a person trained to interpret images.

 

[FishofContemplation]

The whole “clear and obvious” thing is badly thought out, badly understood and badly applied. Not sure what purpose it serves other than to avoid bruising the referees ego too much. If the second check is believed more accurate it should be the one that decides the issue. If the second check isn’t believed more accurate it shouldn’t be used at all.

 

[Scrote]

The difference is that the ref on the field will be instructing the VAR not the other way around.

Take the Burnley goal the ref think it’s might be offside he asks the var was he offside the var checks the image ( nothing else) and on that and that alone say what he sees.

Not another ref but a person trained to interpret images.

So you'd do away with automatic checks for every goal?

What would your solution to the Brighton penalty shouts be?

One was a clear trip. The other was a clear shirt pull. If the ref has already made a decision he isn't then going to ask VAR to clarify it.

 

[Sheriff_John_Bunnell_ret]

No kill it. Set it's corpse on fire and throw it in the sea. Then throw the whiney cry babys who call for VAR every time a decision goes against them in afterwards. Then throw in a monkey.

 

[Cat’s Lives]

VAR is folley. The people that wanted it and lobbied to get it in still moan about how it works. It will never end.
Get back to footballing roots and accept there is no perfect. And the sacrifice to the game of VAR doesn’t get you far enough away from ‘good’ to make it worthwhile.
We concentrate far too much on officials. You’ve got 90 minutes to win a game with officials being another variable. It’s frustrating but that’s football.

 

[dsr-burnley]

You can say it as often as you want. It still won’t be true. It will still be something you, or whoever told you it, has just imagined. There is no such “old offside law”.

The last major change to the position element of the law was in the 1990s when the requirement to have two opponents “between” you and the goal line was relaxed to requiring the attacker to be “nearer”. The exact current wording, saying the bit that is nearer should exclude the hand or arm (“part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents' goal line”) was first used in 2005. Both changes predate VAR and both changes make players onside who would previously have been off. The often repeated suggestion that the law was changed for VAR to make more things offside is false. In both respects.

If you think any overlap with the second last defender should be onside, even if part of the attacker is nearer, argue for that. But you will be the one arguing for a change in the law.

The point about the new offside law is that the law hasn't been rewritten but its interpretation has changed. It was explicity stated in 1990 that "level" was changed from offside to onside to encurage more goals. And in Lancashire at least, the guidance to local referees was explicit that "level" was judged by the human eye, not by the thickness of a kneecap, and the more-or-less exact wordig was if a player looks level, then he is level". It was not meant to be judged to the inch.

It is widely believed now that when the law was changed to encourage more goals, the lawmakers at the time thought that a half an inch change would make a big difference. That's a false memory. Genuinely, at that time, the law was (and was refereed as such) that 2level" meant a sizeable margin, probably about the thickness of a man's torso. Over that range, players would be level and any goal would stand. Under the interpretation of the law now, under VAR, any goal scored where the players can't be split except by drawing lines on a screen, is not level, one player must be in front. (VAR isn't accurate enough to tell which, so they give a best estimate.)

In any case, I have known a copule of local league linesman, and I promise you that they have not been (and still aren't) applying the law to disregard the possibility of being level. For them, level still has a real meaning. Which means, de facto even if not specifically in writing, that non-VAR games have a different application of offside than VAR games.

 

[tripleheader]

I thought he was inconsistent, blowing for soft 'fouls' with minimal contact and letting much stronger challenges go, then reversing that randomly during the game. I thought it meant the players didn't know what they could and couldn't get away with. If you know the ref is either being assertive or letting the game flow you can react accordingly but I thought he was so inconsistent (for both sides) the players didn't know how to play it.

I also agree with @dsr-burnley, first goal was offside but it's not the type of goal you want to see chalked off as it was marginal (although I would have gladly have seen it not given at the time).

Having watched the game in real time, then in a less emotion fueled TV replay I thought the ref did o.k. However one thing that does still ranker is the amount of time players waste in rolling around and who appeared to have been shot, time to sort this out by allowing play to continue whilst allowing the medical team on the pitch and allow play to continue. The ref makes the decision to halt play.
As for 'allowing' offside goals to count, that is just ridiculous. The technology is there to enable a correct decision to be made. For me change the offside rule and measure from the feet. Level or behind is acceptable.