VAR has ruined top level football.

[cornish mackem]

Supposed to be something like 18k for every match or something that its in think I heard.

18k what ?

 

[Mackem DJ]

It needs to be scaled back. They are getting far too many blatant decisions wrong.

 

[lucky]

18k what ?

To have it at a match or something £18,000 per match am sure they said it on some match I was watching mate.

 

[Junior Birdman]

I hate everything about VAR.

However, when I think of how Coventry 'fans' have acted towards us in recent years, I can't help but laugh at how they're all feeling this morning. And Jimmy Hill

 

[Turnip from the Tip]

Say what you want its ruined football. Hopefully it doesn't stay around forever and branch into the championship. What a joke every single match I watch

100% spot on.
Although I’ve felt this for a while, just watching the semi final highlights from yesterday helps hit it home. It’s a complete mess.

I’d challenge anybody, just one person to make a case that football is better for this.

That was the equivalent of us having our Gordon Armstrong moment taken away from a barely existent infringement in the box.

 

[Edinburgh Black Cat]

Sadly VAR isn't going away though match day fans still go mad when goals go in as you see the celebrations in all games with VAR. Looking at this clip just after the Coventry players go mental celebrating, I don't think many Coventry fans have just stood there after that goal went in and said "Oooh, could be offside so best wait before I go mental".

Logon or register to see this image

Have you been to many games involving VAR?

I'm guessing most on here haven't. It's horrible. Yes, you celebrate. But the celebrations come with nervousness, it feels more like being awarded a penalty than scoring a goal.

 

[JackL]

A lot of people attempting to be clever about 'umpires call' but not actually saying how it would work. How can it if there would only ever be one call I.e. not offside. They can't raise their flag on close calls. So umpires call would not work.

Use the naked eye and if lines need to be drawn, it's onside. The decision should be made in a short space of time i.e. clear and obvious

 

[Junior Birdman]

100% spot on.
Although I’ve felt this for a while, just watching the semi final highlights from yesterday helps hit it home. It’s a complete mess.

I’d challenge anybody, just one person to make a case that football is better for this.

That was the equivalent of us having our Gordon Armstrong moment taken away from a barely existent infringement in the box.

Agree wholeheartedly with this.

 

[Edinburgh Black Cat]

This. People going on about it “crushing the spirit of the game” is ridiculous. Those Coventry fans went rightly mad at the ‘goal’. Celebrated as if they had won the cup rather than the game.
Nothing was taken away from that moment, nor will it ever be.
Of course those dreams were crushed…but they were crushed by a correct decision.
It was actually deemed to be closer (from the lines) than I originally thought from the first replay, when it was simply an ‘action replay’……before VAR got involved.

Have you experienced one of those situations personally?

 

[vinegar hill]

Even though the Coventry “winner” was a centimetre offside.With no VAR there would have been no arguments if it had been given as anyone could see that by all accounts and purposes he was level.
I don’t really know what my point is actually!

 

[nowtgoodeverhappens]

There was hell on today at the superclássico (River Boca) where a River goal was chalked off (probably correctly, but it wasn't super clear from VAR without a straight camera angle- they don't have the watch sensor thing).
VAR really didn't add anything at all to it, other than probable doubt- where tbh you are just better off with the linesman/referee call in real time..it's pretty well known that slow motion and certain angles warp our interpretation of events.

Despite being a twat if the highest order- Blatter was right in 2010 after Lampard"s goal wasn't given. That VAR would ruin the game (he said it would make it like a FIFA videogame, so he wasn't right about that)

People were adamant it was needed, but we seem to be getting a still pretty high rate of mistakes/controversies and it's now more a question of competence rather than just basic human error capacity in unassisted refereeing.

Daft thing is goal line technology was needed, and it’s absolute. They should have just left it at that though.

 

[Flea Market Trader]

What size margin is small? What would be your cut off point? And if it was 1cm over the cut off point, what then?

There is and should not be a margin other than looking at it in the sense of who gains the advantage. A bit like when the last defender cleans a player out and there is the chance of a red, which is then not given due to a covering defender. Using that thought pattern you can look at close offsides like this, and by close I meant where they have to draw a second line and then simply place the attacker in line with the defender and ask the question has an advantage been gained. This is of course just my opinion.

 

[DieselBert]

Even though the Coventry “winner” was a centimetre offside.With no VAR there would have been no arguments if it had been given as anyone could see that by all accounts and purposes he was level.
I don’t really know what my point is actually!

He wasnt level though. He was offside, you said so at the start of your post.
Offside is one of the only instances where they is no grey area, its not open to interpretation. Why people want to make something clear and absolute subjective is beyond me.

 

[dangermows]

It needs to be scaled back. They are getting far too many blatant decisions wrong.

Didn't get any wrong yesterday did they?

 

[DieselBert]

Daft thing is goal line technology was needed, and it’s absolute. They should have just left it at that though.

Offsides are absolute as well. You are either onside or offside just as the ball has either crossed or not crossed the line.
The mental thing about this entire thread is that the major fuck up yesterday was how Ashley Youngs handball wasnt a pen but Wan Bissaka's was. Thats where Var has had a mare yet everyone seems focused on the decision it got right

 

[Edinburgh Black Cat]

I explained the thicker line rule in this old post and how it was changed and the effect it had. When it 1st came in they used to use those thin lines like the image I just hoyed up but in 2021 it revised. I've mentioned it a few times on here but the majority still don't know it exists or why.

https://www.readytogo.net/smb/threads/lee-mason-var.1600798/page-7#post-37796125

The idea came from Eredivisie and it's 5cm for each player. If they overlap by 1mm then it's onside so that could still leave 4.99mm either side or a total of 9.8cm advantage. I'm not sure how big the Premier League lines are but all this kerfuffle about mm/toenails is wasted air given there's this slight advantage given with the thicker lines.

Logon or register to see this image

It's when 1st contact with the ball of the pass being attempted, not when it leaves the foot. So in theory a player scooping the ball up and over the defence would be earlier than it leaving his foot.

The 2 images shown today of the initial touch and even the frame after still show a clear offside gap and it's more than just a few mm/toenail. It's simply the fact the Coventry player is way over the other side of the pitch that makes the gap look smaller due to the thicker VAR lines being closer near the players. If it was nearside near the linesman it would look quite different and you only have to look at the image in my last post to get an idea of the gap using the linesman for perspective.

Next season the semi-automated offsides will be using a ball that senses 500 times a second for any touch.


If the benefit of doubt was given to the attacking side then how did linesman often get offside calls wrong when the attacker was way onside? I'm also guessing you don't know about the thicker VAR lines that give an advantage to the attacker as explained in the link above in this post?

First I'd heard this was officially a rule.

Strange though because the images posted earlier in the thread look like the lines were touching in the coventry example.

 

[Flea Market Trader]

It’s cut and dry. Is he in front of the defenders line? Yes by 1cm = offside, no = onside

1cm or 100cm = offside. Should there be an allowance for the attacker, maybe, but that’s a different argument than the one here

I think if both players have a foot on the line drawn or as close as to it then they should ask what advantage is gained by this 1 millimetre and the answer is nine therefore it’s a goal. In my humble opinion.

 

[Mackem00]

He wasnt level though. He was offside, you said so at the start of your post.
Offside is one of the only instances where they is no grey area, its not open to interpretation. Why people want to make something clear and absolute subjective is beyond me.

It is tho. This very example shows that. It's down to when the fella doing VAR that day decides when to pause the play, guess when the fella is passing the ball and where to draw his silly lines. On another day that wouldn't have been given as offside.

 

[vinegar hill]

He wasnt level though. He was offside, you said so at the start of your post.
Offside is one of the only instances where they is no grey area, its not open to interpretation. Why people want to make something clear and absolute subjective is beyond me.

I’m not arguing against VAR what I’m saying is if there were no VAR there would probably be no arguments about that goal because “by all accounts and purposes” he looked level.
Like I said in the post I don’t really know what my point is!

 

[Edinburgh Black Cat]

Didn't get any wrong yesterday did they?

What this thread has established is that for the decision to be 100% correct:

1) the exact frame needs to be selected when the passer first touched the ball for the final time
2) the lines need to be drawn in the right place
3) the lines must not be touching

I've not seen clear evidence to say those 3 things have happened.

If it was a criminal case where the crime (offside) had to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt then you'd be looking at a not guilty verdict.

(And aside from all of that, the rules aren't fit for purpose. But that's a different debate)