VAR

Status
Not open for further replies.
callum said:
Whether the decision was right or wrong, I’d rather have the odd error thrown in than have to pander around waiting for VAR which is still much of the time subjective anyway.
Click to expand...

Don't worry. There going to slowly faze subjective laws out of the game so that fans, managers and the media stop crying about 'inconsistency'. Won't be long before there is a simple contact is a penalty, strict liability hand ball rule applied. We've brought this on ourselves. Gradually laws will be introduced that totally do away with interpretation.
rocky said:
Are you happy for penalties to be given for an unintentional hand ball?
Click to expand...

No. A goal being scored is a significant consequence. The ball flicking a defenders arm does not have the same game changing consequence. The only caveat is when the ball is stopped from crossing the line inadvertently. In that instance it should be a pen at the very least!
 
Last edited by a moderator:


samaistonsrightfoot said:
I've not seen anything to say when it is applied. Especially since freeze frames at 1/25th of a second are being used.

However the offside rule on the FA website reads:

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:...

*The first point of contact of the 'play' or 'touch' of the ball should be used

So if they are doing it by the frame the ball leaves the players foot they are contravening offside rules altogether.
Click to expand...
I could not agree more, I always thought it was when the ball leaves the passers foot, not as soon as contact is made, and there is a split second difference there, they are going to use var and they have to perfect it ASAP so people like me can stop hating it
 
sambantam82 said:
Don't worry. There going to slowly faze subjective laws out of the game so that fans, managers and the media stop crying about 'inconsistency'. Won't be long before there is a simple contact is a penalty, strict liability hand ball rule applied. We've brought this on ourselves. Gradually laws will be introduced that totally do away with interpretation.


No. A goal being scored is a significant consequence. The ball flicking a defenders arm does not have the same game changing consequence. The only caveat is when the ball is stopped from crossing the line inadvertently. In that instance it should be a pen at the very least!
Click to expand...
Being given a penalty is a significant consequence. If an unintentional hand ball is deemed foul play in the build up to a goal then it has to be a foul everywhere on the pitch. It's a ridiculous law change
 
gipetto said:
I didn't really understand your point mate.
Click to expand...

When a player kicks the ball it stays touching their foot for more than one frame of video (video is recorded at 24 frames per second as standard) so when the ball was played to Sterling the ball was touching the players foot for 5/6 frames or about a quarter of a second.

The first 4 frames of the touch was when Sterling was onside! As he's moving as well as the players foot/ball) but by the 5th frame the ball is still touching the players foot but Sterling has moved into an offside position.

The rules on offside are that the first touch of the ball is definitive. The first touch was the first frame of contact. There were another 3 frames of contact before the frame VAR decided to use. The one VAR used showed Sterling offside.

They used the last frame (the end of the touch) instead of the first frame (the first touch). If they had used the correct frame it would have showed him on side.

It was the same for the other disallowed one as well iirc.

Edit: Of course the offside rule was never written to factor in a decision based on video, or specifically the number of frames in a second, but if they are going to bother to use video technology then then need to get their fingers out their arses as it seems that its never actually crossed their minds.
 
Last edited:
samaistonsrightfoot said:
When a player kicks the ball it stays touching their foot for more than one frame of video (video is recorded at 24 frames per second as standard) so when the ball was played to Sterling the ball was touching the players foot for 5/6 frames or about a quarter of a second.

The first 4 frames of the touch was when Sterling was onside! As he's moving as well as the players foot/ball) but by the 5th frame the ball is still touching the players foot but Sterling has moved into an offside position.

The rules on offside are that the first touch of the ball is definitive. The first touch was the first frame of contact. There were another 3 frames of contact before the frame VAR decided to use. The one VAR used showed Sterling offside.

They used the last frame (the end of the touch) instead of the first frame (the first touch). If they had used the correct frame it would have showed him on side.

It was the same for the other disallowed one as well iirc.

Edit: Of course the offside rule was never written to factor in a decision based on video, or specifically the number of frames in a second, but if they are going to bother to use video technology then then need to get their fingers out their arses as it seems that its never actually crossed their minds.
Click to expand...
I have been saying this for weeks in previous var threads but you put it so much better
 
rocky said:
Being given a penalty is a significant consequence. If an unintentional hand ball is deemed foul play in the build up to a goal then it has to be a foul everywhere on the pitch. It's a ridiculous law change
Click to expand...


rocky said:
Being given a penalty is a significant consequence. If an unintentional hand ball is deemed foul play in the build up to a goal then it has to be a foul everywhere on the pitch. It's a ridiculous law change
Click to expand...

I know a penalty is a significant consequence. I'm talking about when a penalty is not given. If anything I think a penalty is far too punitive for most infringements in the box. I don't get why a hand ball should mean the same thing wherever it is on the pitch. An inadvertent handball that stops a goal or creates a goal for me should carry a different level of liability.
happy feet said:
The game is becoming to sanitised for me, where you can only celebrate a goal 5 mins later. I know it's cleaning up mistakes but it's sucking the fun out of the game imo
Click to expand...

This is the issue for me. Danny Kelly was saying its what happened before anyway. No it f***ing isn't! All you needed to do before is glance at the linesman and then carry on going mental. Now you simply can't celebrate because VAR will make you look daft a minute later.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sambantam82 said:
I know a penalty is a significant consequence. I'm talking about when a penalty is not given. If anything I think a penalty is far too punitive for most infringements in the box. I don't get why a hand ball should mean the same thing wherever it is on the pitch. An inadvertent handball that stops a goal or creates a goal for me should carry a different level of liability.


This is the issue for me. Danny Kelly was saying its what happened before anyway. No it f***ing isn't! All you needed to do before is glance at the linesman and then carry on going mental. Now you simply can't celebrate because VAR will make you look daft a minute later.
Click to expand...
Handball is handball. The same law has to apply wherever it happens on the pitch.
 
happy feet said:
The game is becoming to sanitised for me, where you can only celebrate a goal 5 mins later. I know it's cleaning up mistakes but it's sucking the fun out of the game imo
Click to expand...

This.. its f***ing rubbish.

Never thought I'd see the day I had to sit waiting for a computer nerd in Stockley Park or wherever to make a decision before I could celebrate a goal..
 
What I can’t get over is how you can have a different rule in different areas of the pitch. Surely the rule should be applied consistently and to every situation (keepers not withstanding). A defender for instance could prevent a goal being scored doing the exact same thing and it isn’t a penalty.
happy feet said:
The game is becoming to sanitised for me, where you can only celebrate a goal 5 mins later. I know it's cleaning up mistakes but it's sucking the fun out of the game imo
Click to expand...

I’m not even convinced it’s getting rid of the errors, just changing what the errors are. This weekend alone, the sterling offside goal is given offside because he can play the ball with his shoulder but the wolves lad hits the ball with his shoulder and it’s given handball as you can’t play the ball with the same area of the body. Sterling’s second goal, Aguero was clearly offside and interfering and there were three Man City players infringing on the penalty that was scored which was allowed somehow despite the save being disallowed due to infringement. And that’s just one game...
 
Last edited:
johnny69 said:
I wish someone neutral would get on sky sports. It’s basically a VAR love in - no reason why other than it gives them the opportunity to create an industry out of it. Honestly man this will ruin the game on the way to commercialising it to the endth degree. Wait for the VAR sponsor to be announced......
Click to expand...

They may be neutral but just disagree with you, when we discussed this last time you were quoting Rio, as a pundit becuase he agreed with you, which is fair enough.

But there will also be people who disagree with you as VAR has really spilt opinion, that does not mean there not netrual just that they disagree with you which is also fair enough.
 
TravellingMackem said:
What I can’t get over is how you can have a different rule in different areas of the pitch. Surely the rule should be applied consistently and to every situation (keepers not withstanding). A defender for instance could prevent a goal being scored doing the exact same thing and it isn’t a penalty.
Click to expand...

I'm fairly sure if a defender handles the ball on the line it is also strict liability ie. it's a penalty regardless.
 
Leeds Mackem Reborn said:
I really don't like VAR. We'd lasted more than 100 years without it and in that time part of the great joy of the game, even if it went against you, was the controversy of the debatable, frustration inducing decisions. It's one of the things that makes football 'real' and loved. Yes, Sterling's shoulder was a few cms offside on Saturday so those supporting VAR will defend it (like that clown Sutton on Five Live) and say it was right. It was right, I know that but I don't want to get those ones right. They aren't clear mistakes and if we are going to have VAR that's what it should be for, it should be for the clear handball on the line that the ref has somehow missed not the infinitesimally tight decisions which spoil the game and mean every goal has a question mark on it because we're waiting for something we had very little chance of noticing. I want the game to be the game we love with all the imperfections.
Click to expand...

I think that’s a good post, as long as you accept without it, refs will make loads of mistakes and accept them mistakes, as what is certain is that the game is too fast for the human eye and without VAR we asking them to use the same tools they have had over 100 years ago just their eyes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top