VAR friend or foe.

Listening to all the complaints about VAR, (which we all thought would be a saviour) I have an interesting thought on the offside judgement. As a linesman can't see plus or minus one millimetre, then why should VAR. The line projected across the pitch should be, say, representative of 4 inches (line widths) and if the offender is forward of that band then they are clearly offside. It is a mockery to judge football by the thickness of a boot lace. Comments on this and other VAR vagueries


  • edited December 2019
    The thickness of the line is irrelevant. It can be 2 mm, 4 inches or a foot. It will still have a leading edge ... and as you say, if the player is forward of that leading edge they are offside.

    And the complaints about being a mm offside will continue.

    My own view is that VAR is doing its job - enforcing the offside rule as it is currently worded. Most of the complaints I read are actually related to the wording off the offside rule, and blaming VAR is misguided.
  • edited December 2019
    Makes me laugh when anti-VAR pundits etc say 'well, by the letter of the law, it IS offside...' but implying that reffing the game by the rules isn't really what we want to see.

    Would they say, equally disparagingly 'well, by the letter of the law yes, the ball came off the post so it's not a goal, but .... ' suggesting the rules should be treated as guidelines and it's a mean old ref who won't give a goal just because it didn't go in the net.
    #killing the game :biggrin:
  • I think those decisions when a hand or a knee are so marginally in front of the defender are wrong.Maybe it should be ruled by where both players feet are? Presumably this would mean a change in the offside rule though.
  • I meant the centre of the thicker line to go through the leading edge of the attacking player to allow for natural error. The judgement by only one millimetre is ridiculous
  • They are looking to change it next season to make use of VAR to take away the current forensic use of things such as offside.

  • I absolutely hate it when a decision goes against us, but am always pleased when it goes our way. What I really dislike is the awful disruption to the game, and the standing around waiting for some bloke in a van 30 miles away to finish his coffee and decide whether somebody’s nose was offside or not.
  • I don't think anyone cares much about the literal interpretation of the laws being implemented but most do have an idea of what the spirit of the laws are and what their stated purposes are. The exact definitions of the laws change and people usually don't keep up with them - they know what they're basically supposed to do. With offside, it is to prevent the attacking player having an unfair advantage over the defence. VAR catching that is good. VAR catching an armpit hair being offside (and it's not even immediately obvious that it was offside) is what people are concerned about. Not only is it hard to tell whether they're correct at all but it's not really giving any material advantage. It's a drastic swing away from the concept of giving the attacker the benefit of the doubt. This is causing exactly the problem people were concerned about - VAR disrupting the game and sucking joy out of it. At the same time, you have them not awarding quite clear fouls.
  • From my perspective offside is simple, you are either offside or onside. What you don’t see from the broadcaster are the higher frame rate images used at Stockly Park, so the ‘missing frame’ to pundits may not be ‘missing’ to the official reviewing the action.

    The issues with offside are the ridiculous change so that you can be yards offside but as not immediately in play deemed onside and can then receive a pass for a ‘tap-in’. Clearly you had an unfair advantage - this is not VAR’s fault!!

    Where VAR is misused is the re-reffing of referees decisions, like when Marez ‘won’ the penalty at the weekend. Whilst the rugby tackle on Antonio against Palace was missed by ref and Lino, but should/could have been awarded through VAR.

    One area Rugby does very well is continues play whilst the TV Ref checks for a ‘serious’ infringement (ie not referee’s opinion) rather than stopping the game. They have the benefit of the ‘advantage’ law, but football could adapt to this within their current laws.
  • When we played Crystal Palace recently Antonio cleary had his shirt pulled in the area, no Var referral, was a penalty all day long...
    In the Chelsea game, Antonio was clattered to the ground in the 6 yard box, no penalty, looked like a stonewall penalty...nothing given, a few moments later he was pushed over again, not so severly and by the halfway line..result Chelsea player booked and Hammers awarded a free kick.....doh
    First goal at St Marys, Snoddy given offside, was not interfering with play...rubbish decision. To be fair Ings goal should have counted..
    So as you probably surmise I am a non content...been too many rubbish calls, and it ruins the game. I dont jump up with elatiion anymore, just in case goal ruled out....I dont expect it to be perfect, but come on....
  • Dodger, for me it’s not such a clear cut issue of you are or aren’t offside. If we have to have a better resolution than an eye could normally view, even when slowed, than what’s the point? Why the rule is there matters more to me than what the written one is.
  • Outcast my point on offside is that it is a factual decision so technology can show it definitely was or wasn’t (for the goal scorer anyway - ignoring the ‘interfering with play’ idiocy), whereas most other decisions are subjective. The issue is that VAR is seen to be overturning subjective decisions.

    What football is ignoring are those fouls (as with Antonio) which the ref and Lino have actually missed completely - these should be addressed by VAR with the TV official bringing them to the attention of the ref. Once this starts happening, you will start to see these type of cynical fouls disappear ... or a lot of penalties!!
  • I also think the rules should change slightly. It should be players feet that are compared. If the player is leaning forward, anticipating a ball then good for them for being alert. Trying to determine if ones knee, elbow, head is the place where the line should be taken from is too time consuming and usually goes against the attacking player.
  • Stats show that without VAR Liverpool’s lead at the top would be 6 points.
  • thorn

    Assuming the VAR decisions were correct, then I think that clearly justifies VAR. Off the top of my head, the recent VAR decision over-ruling the ref who judged Lallana handled in the build up to his goal is precisely what I hoped VAR would deliver.
  • Var was intended to prevent" clear and obvious errors" . In other leagues the ref goes to the pitch side monitor rather than waiting for someone in an office to do it. I think if the prcoess was sped up fans would feel alot better no more 2-3 mins wait for a decision if you can't tell in 30 secs then the ref's original decision should stand.
  • Scrap the offside rule and bring back goal hanging :wahoo:
  • And rush goalie mind you roberto been doing that all season :lol:
  • Hamstew said:

    Scrap the offside rule and bring back goal hanging :wahoo:

    Tbh, hockey used to have an almost identical offside rule to football which was completely scrapped with very little if any detrimental effect to the game.
  • It would actually be interesting to see what would happen.
  • Hamstew said:

    Scrap the offside rule and bring back goal hanging :wahoo:

    Tbh, hockey used to have an almost identical offside rule to football which was completely scrapped with very little if any detrimental effect to the game.
    In fairness, the officials at the time were just as bad as the current crop of Premier League refs, in one game after the rule was scrapped I was still blown for being offside, you can imagine it happening to West Ham, and VAR would still refuse to overturn it :lol:
  • I still think that VAR can be used to catch those obvious offsides that the officials miss,

    I strongly do not think it should be used to decide upon those occasions that are so marginal that it would be considered impossible for the officials to grant it and thus the players can be deemed to be level or the benefit of the doubt be granted to the attacking player.

    In other words, dispense with the precision and consider VAR as another set of naked eyes.
  • VAR has proved it's worth with Cresswell's red card

    The clip of Oliver checking the pitchside monitor before awarding a red card.

    Two things - 1. At last, this is exactly what I hoped VAR would do. 2. The fans are a bit off-putting round the monitor. Might need to relocate it or have a bit better stewarding.
  • How did that Spurs player not get a VAR red for the foul on Azpilicueta?
  • That was a blatant RED , no question IMO, but it's top ref Oliver reffing, so they don't want to overrule him, horrific challenge & horrific decision. Oliver should have checked monitor himself...Terrible refereeing IMO
  • VAR needs to be ended

    Complete waste of time

    The only possible way of it ever working long term is if the panel who review are former players/managers

    Having textbook officials watch it back just offers nothing
  • They’ve had a shocker at Stamford Bridge.

    Foul on Azpilicueta (stamp on his leg)
    Throw in given by Lino.
    Not seen by Oliver.
    Checked by VAR for about 3 minutes.
    Red not given.
    Stockily Park then admit it should have been a red.

  • edited February 2020
    What is the point of this rubbish
  • Still shaking my head at that one ,crazy just crazy :puzzled:
Sign In or Register to comment.