Phantom of mobs
Striker
The amount of added time is an issue anarl. 7 mins in the first half in one game the other day.
-
The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
Please read this thread for more details.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
VARguments
- Thread starter bernardbresslaw
- Start date
It's what people wanted. If you are going to go down the VAR route if you are 1cm offside you are offside simple as that
10 Gary Rowells
Striker
The only thing VAR will do is reduce the amount of goals scored per game. It is not improving football at all.
You will just get the same arguments as to what constitutes clear daylight
hank williams
Striker
The clear daylight was a load of tosh brought up by the media never officially recognised
Fi Lo Beddow
Central Defender
This might be what turns the tide against it. Athletics and Cricket have struggled with not having a definite finish time. If the matches start lasting 15 minutes longer than expected TV may start to struggle to show as many games as they once did.
10 Gary Rowells
Striker
Which people - I certainly didn't. There will be fouls missed all through a game but every goal is looked at to see if it can be disallowed.
FatDrummer
Striker
‘People’ didn’t want that though. They wanted obvious offsides and penalties given correctly....not an extension of a secondary school geometry class.
hank williams
Striker
The daylight thing was never a rule. It was just a suggestion to linesmen (I'm not calling them anything else ) that because they were tending to make their decisions based on where the players where half a second after the pass, they should only give offside if there is daylight between the attacker and defender, because if there wasn't daylight the attacker was probably onside at the time of the pass. Being just a limb ahead at the moment of the pass was always offside.
myleftfoot1978
Striker
But it’s not what the people wanted, I have never wanted var, but even the people that were wanting it they wanted it based on clear and obvious errors not a nats pube offside decision, people keep saying it’s what we wanted to justify it, but this is never what people wanted
Alright what constitutes a obvious offside? 1cm, 1ft. 1 meter etc etc? Like a few of us said it was a huge pandoras box and once it was opened there was no putting it back in
viccarlton
Striker
It’s what some people wanted, I would suggest that many of those that advocated it’s introduction would now gladly see the back of it, the way they are determining offside is laughable, the essence of being offside is in gaining an unfair advantage not whether you have shaved your armpits or not.
hank williams
Striker
I thought they were ganna change it for next year for decisions such as that disallowed goal
Again what constitutes a obvious offside? If we got a gold disallowed because it was a 1ft offside but one given against us because it was only 6 inches offside would you say that's fair?
What to though that’s the problem? They’ve committed to a ‘right or wrong’ system when deciding offsides, no arguments it either is or isn’t. So if they change it to allowing human error, one side is benefiting from an incorrect decision and one is suffering.
FatDrummer
Striker
I would like to think common sense would constitute an offside....as in not disallowing it for an armpit. That is a joke and if that is how the game moving ‘forward’ (sic) then I’m done.
hank williams
Striker
myleftfoot1978
Striker
I am not the law, but to me a clear and ov error on the offside would be when a player is clearly offside, it’s not measured by distance as the timing of runs can make you look miles offside when you were actually on, if var have to look at it I would say it’s not clear and ov, but if the ref gets one wrong say yards offside I have no problem with var ruling it out
You must be logged on to see media items
That’s clear and ov and was to everyone watching
Last edited:
