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.
I think it should be like cricket or american football. A team has one challenge each half. If they think a wrong decision has been made regarding a goal or sending off then they have a time limit in which to challenge the decision. If they are right they retain the challenge. If they are wrong they lose it. They don't have a chance to view the footage before the challenge. It puts all the onus onto the teams rather than the ref or VAR. Once all the challenges are burned we can just get back to a normal game of football.
Did you try that video test? Note that even if you get them right, how the distance either way is probably larger once you see the freeze frame than you thought seeing it play real time
You must be logged on to see external links
Some people think it's easy running the line as they can see it's clearly offside when the freeze frame is shown, when in reality it's not at all. The linesman, will moving himself has to use experience and guesswork sometimes as he can't watch everything, nor know the precise moment in time the ball is touched. Whereas the video can go back frame by frame and pick the moment within 2 milliseconds if at 50fps and this makes it 'easy' to spot.
I've also hoyed this video up in the past and it shows just how hard it is to judge at full speed. This is simple as it's a fixed point also over a short distance with a few players. Whereas the Liverpool one was Diaz's shoulder 20 yards away compared to Romero's extended leg with trailing foot, along with the view to Salah kicking the ball partially blocked from the linesman's view all while he was moving. The linesman will have seen most of Diaz given the way Romero's body isn't blocking Diaz and even a couple of milliseconds later Diaz would have been offside anyway.
It's better if you can hoy the videos on a TV youtube app as watching on a phone may be harder
You must be logged on to see media items
Watch Clip 4 and Clip 5 here to see just how misleading your eyes can be.
Did you call offside for #5 after seeing a close offside for #4? #5 looked like it was offside but there was a trailing foot playing him well onside. Even watching it again it's hard to see it's onside as you're more focused on the body. Even though it's only a few inches apart on a TV, you still can't really focus on all parts of the players and the precise moment the ball is kicked and exactly where players where at that same moment as they're moving too fast
You must be logged on to see media items
If you take the time to watch the videos then maybe you will be a bit more forgiving when a linesman gets a call wrong by a few inches, even a foot.
.
Also bear in mind people are suggesting the daylight rule for offside to give benefit to the attacker. This would make it even harder for the linesman to make his decision. What they need to do is simple make the tolerance larger than the margin of error and even thicker lines would solve this. That way any decision that is given offside is 100% offside and all the doubt is moved towards the onside decision. The huge difference being it means all the advantage to the attacker, less goals being ruled out for 'close' offsides and possibly fans accepting that calling offside is an impossible task but at least it's better for the attacking team
We have the technology, so we should use it. But it should be used sensibly to prevent clear and obvious errors, if a player is 5 yards off side that is an obvious error, if there is only fractions of an inch in it then its not. But then you can never legislate for idiocy , the clowns involved in that farce should never be allowed anywhere near a football ground again. FFS they screwed up, and knew they had screwed up big time, and are now trying to blame the protocol w@nkers.
If it's fraction of an inch then it's given as onside due to the thicker lines and being able to overlap which was brought in at the start of the 2021/22 season.
As for obvious errors at 5 yards then what about one that is 4 yards, 2 foot and 11 inches offside? Where do you draw the line as the line has to be somewhere no matter what the distance and that goes for any offside. As I said just above your quote, given VAR isn't going away, one way it make the lines even thicker again to give full advantage to the attacker and remove the doubt about an offside decision being incorrect.
Though the semi-automated stuff is more precise than the current pick a pixel and draw a line method, there is still some margin of error so again give it to the attacker by having the margin of error in the image and this example on the right would now be onside. This would remove all the doubt that people thinking it may be onside when it's given as offside by a toenail as the only 100% corect decisions would be the offside ones.
Yeah it's a howler, no doubt. The standard isn't great. However, he has to make a decision one way or another. If he thinks it's on, he leaves his flag down. If he thinks it's off, he puts his flag up. What he can do now at least is keep it down until the end of the move.
It blows my mind that the initial VAR communication isn't the onfield referee/linesman saying something along the lines of, "possible offside on Diaz, onfield decision is goal disallowed for offside". Then everyone is clear.
In Rugby you can hear the referee say, "onfield decision is try/no try". In cricket you have the on field soft signal of out / not out.
Yet here we are with no communication at all from the on field officials to VAR and hoping they've noticed the flag (they should have but that's not the point). The whole thing is a mess. Most major leagues now have the automated offside system in place, for some reason we opted against it. Can't see how we can continue without it after this
Technology brought in to deal with human error. Technology is driven/interpreted by humans who are error prone.
Result? Said technology is a complete waste of time, space etc....
In the end the VAR people aren't there to make the decision, just provide help for the ref to make the right decision. Otherwise the ref would never go over to look at a screen for incidents and would just go off whatever the VAR team say.
The human element with the linesman is and always was fine anyway, if not just for fans to have a go at them. Very much part of the game and taking it away for something that doesn’t work is ridiculous.
Goal line tech is good as it’s immediate and decisive but most other VAR is a waste of time. I’d only use it to retrospectively award clubs something on the basis they were most hard done by over the season, like a small financial reward, or entry into some kind of tournament.
We’ve not played with VAR and it’s been completely fine. We didn’t get a pen vs Blackburn last season, but did this season, and so on.
It’s arbitrary in that it is relevant for big decisions, but a game could be equally impacted by a series of smaller decisions that VAR would not have a say on, like a wrongly given yellow card eventually leading to a red, or a freekick that should have been given and so on.
It’s inconsistent, as handball rules seem open to interpretation, as does what constitutes a fowl or interference with play.
In our 3-0 against the mags Papiss Cisse equaliser was onside and Vaughan’s screamer are was offside, but I don’t recall much complaining about those issues specifically.
Agree with points that a challenge system should be introduced if the thing can’t be scraped (it should). Possibly keep it for international tournaments as the break up in play and celebrations don’t seem to matter as much as faster paced league football.
Should be scraped ASAP for league footy. The prevention of celebrations after a goal being the most negative consequence.
I can safely say without fear of contradiction that I was 100% against the introduction of VAR from the start, people didn’t/don’t seem to get the reasoning that all they were doing was/is asking the opinion of someone else
I can safely say without fear of contradiction that I was 100% against the introduction of VAR from the start, people didn’t/don’t seem to get the reasoning that all they were doing was/is asking the opinion of someone else
I can safely say without fear of contradiction that I was 100% against the introduction of VAR from the start, people didn’t/don’t seem to get the reasoning that all they were doing was/is asking the opinion of someone else
Do you remember the threads on here going back five, ten and even 15 years? The voices against extra technology were massively drowned out by those in favour.
It was like banging your head against the wall explaining what it would be like.
