The Video Assistant Referee (VAR)

[Chindie]

58 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

The problem with offsides is it's always going to go down to mm.

If you change the law for it to be just feet that can be offside, which I've heard mentioned, then it's still going to be mm based on players' feet. If you change it to "daylight" then it's still going to be mm in it.

Even if you say well you've got to be at least half a metre offside to be offside then you'll still get cases when it's 0.4999m

If we've got the technology to measure these things to that margin then we'll always have that problem.

 

The main problem with offside is the speed. Like I said before, I think the next advancement could be real time offside decisions using technology.

The problem with offside and VAR for me is that the added accuracy of VAR takes away from 'the spirit' of the rule, making the point of the role secondary to the rule itself.

Offside was created to combat goal hanging and in all its iterations and changes it's done that. It has never been perfect hence the changes of rules (active and inactive for instance) and changes in how the rule is officiated, and ultimately mistakes still got made by the officials. But those mistakes are mostly accepted, apart from in the rare cases where someone is obviously offside and the officials have dropped a clanger. People aren't going mad over someone being a toenails' depth offside, but VAR with the current rules and approach is looking for that and it feels daft. 

Nobody is going to complain about VAR catching a striker who is evidently offside that the assistant has missed, but where the margin is so small as to be unnoticeable, in a way that isn't ultimately going to make a difference, having VAR rule goals out just seems to be a step too far away from the point of the rule.

I feel similarly about the keeper on the line ruling. Evidently there has to be a rule to prevent a keeper standing a foot in front of the ball before the ball is stuck but a keeper having his leg marginally ahead of the line isn't going to make much difference and it should remain in the purview of the referee team to decide it, with VAR there to intervene if the officials really do mess up somehow.

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, Chindie said:

The problem with offside and VAR for me is that the added accuracy of VAR takes away from 'the spirit' of the rule, making the point of the role secondary to the rule itself.

Offside was created to combat goal hanging and in all its iterations and changes it's done that. It has never been perfect hence the changes of rules (active and inactive for instance) and changes in how the rule is officiated, and ultimately mistakes still got made by the officials. But those mistakes are mostly accepted, apart from in the rare cases where someone is obviously offside and the officials have dropped a clanger. People aren't going mad over someone being a toenails' depth offside, but VAR with the current rules and approach is looking for that and it feels daft. 

Nobody is going to complain about VAR catching a striker who is evidently offside that the assistant has missed, but where the margin is so small as to be unnoticeable, in a way that isn't ultimately going to make a difference, having VAR rule goals out just seems to be a step too far away from the point of the rule.

I feel similarly about the keeper on the line ruling. Evidently there has to be a rule to prevent a keeper standing a foot in front of the ball before the ball is stuck but a keeper having his leg marginally ahead of the line isn't going to make much difference and it should remain in the purview of the referee team to decide it, with VAR there to intervene if the officials really do mess up somehow.

But with offside where do you draw the line? When does it become noticeable and not noticeable? How do you quantify that?

I kind of agree about the keeper on the line thing. I'm pretty sure the rule has always been there (just less specific) but refs just don't enforce it. It's one of those stupid rules that they have but are scared to enforce because they'll have to retake a few penalties.

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

But with offside where do you draw the line? When does it become noticeable and not noticeable? How do you quantify that?

I kind of agree about the keeper on the line thing. I'm pretty sure the rule has always been there (just less specific) but refs just don't enforce it. It's one of those stupid rules that they have but are scared to enforce because they'll have to retake a few penalties.

The same way it was done before, but with the VAR reviewing the situation and instructed to rule on the basis of whether they would have flagged in the stadium had they been there with the benefit of the time and angle to review it, rather than looking for absolutes in the extreme. This would hopefully keep the spirit of the law in place - we aren't looking to sanitise the game and be absolutely accurate with things like offside, we're looking to eradicate evidently bad decisions. We aren't bothered that for a fraction of a second the strikers nipple is offside, we are bothered that a goal was scored by someone who is unarguably offside that the official has missed somehow (being unsighted, caught off guard etc).

Offside basically needs a small degree of error to remain. Going to the absolute with it just becomes daft, where you get the stupid decisions where the linesman couldn't possibly see the attacker has a microsecond where his toe is ahead of the line but the VAR can do a frame by frame dissection and rule out a goal for what is ultimately such a minor infraction as to be immaterial.

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, Chindie said:

The same way it was done before, but with the VAR reviewing the situation and instructed to rule on the basis of whether they would have flagged in the stadium had they been there with the benefit of the time and angle to review it, rather than looking for absolutes in the extreme. This would hopefully keep the spirit of the law in place - we aren't looking to sanitise the game and be absolutely accurate with things like offside, we're looking to eradicate evidently bad decisions. We aren't bothered that for a fraction of a second the strikers nipple is offside, we are bothered that a goal was scored by someone who is unarguably offside that the official has missed somehow (being unsighted, caught off guard etc).

Offside basically needs a small degree of error to remain. Going to the absolute with it just becomes daft, where you get the stupid decisions where the linesman couldn't possibly see the attacker has a microsecond where his toe is ahead of the line but the VAR can do a frame by frame dissection and rule out a goal for what is ultimately such a minor infraction as to be immaterial.

I still don't see how you would define that though. Where would you draw the line with whether they would have flagged or not?

Wherever you draw the line it's always going to come down to minute margins.

I think with offside the debate is either use VAR or don't. If the answer is to use VAR then it has to be down tot his detail

[terrytini]

Of all the issue with VAR I have least problem with offside.

Its a matter of fact.

I can’t see any problem with it being a question of millimetres. It is, or it isn’t.

Id equate it to cricket Ball Tracking. Or goal line technology.

If you are offside you are offside.

Equally, there will be times when those same precise decisions mean you are onside.

[Chindie]

16 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I still don't see how you would define that though. Where would you draw the line with whether they would have flagged or not?

Wherever you draw the line it's always going to come down to minute margins.

I think with offside the debate is either use VAR or don't. If the answer is to use VAR then it has to be down tot his detail

I don't think the definition would necessarily need to change. Just the protocol of how VAR is used. I don't think for offside VAR should be used to get absolute accuracy, I think it should be a second opinion that defers to the officials unless there's a clear error. I wouldn't allow the use of comparative 'photo finish' style lines or frame by frame, and the VAR is instructed only to make a decision as if they were in the ground but with the benefit of a better view. If the VAR can see something that they would have flagged on on the ground, an evident error, they can overrule, but otherwise the assistants decision stands. 

That would hopefully keep the spirit of the rule, and not reduce decisions to clinical but ultimately arbitrary calls.

I don't think you can remove VAR from the offside debate, and probably shouldn't - if there's a way of removing clear errors then it should be used, especially now the tech taboo has been broken. But I equally don't think using clinical accuracy for it is a good thing. You're changing the nature of the game a little too much, the founding role of the linesman is basically completely undermined, the degree of human judgement that makes the game interesting gets devolved into irrelevant margins.

[Pelle]

I was actually quite impressed by how VAR worked in the game against spuds. Apart from the decision not giving the penalty as I think it really was a penalty, but that's another question. What I was impressed with was that it went fast. It took a few seconds before both decisions were made. No penalty, no red card for McGinn. It didn't halt the game very much, unlike during the World Cup this summer where it took ages. I'm fine with this.

When it comes to VAR-check for offsides it really only works 100% in one way. Guess that's better than nothing. What I mean is if the AR waves the flag and the ref blows the whistle it's quite meaningless to check with VAR after that. But then again, I guess it's only meant to decide if it was or not when it comes to goals scored.

But for their 2nd goal we had a discussion if VAR is meant to be checked if there's a probable offense before the goal, or if it's to check just what happens during the scoring moment. Should the ref had checked what Lamela did to get the ball from Jack or was that another situation? And if not, how long back can/shall they check?

[Stevo985]

6 hours ago, Pelle said:

I was actually quite impressed by how VAR worked in the game against spuds. Apart from the decision not giving the penalty as I think it really was a penalty, but that's another question. What I was impressed with was that it went fast. It took a few seconds before both decisions were made. No penalty, no red card for McGinn. It didn't halt the game very much, unlike during the World Cup this summer where it took ages. I'm fine with this.

When it comes to VAR-check for offsides it really only works 100% in one way. Guess that's better than nothing. What I mean is if the AR waves the flag and the ref blows the whistle it's quite meaningless to check with VAR after that. But then again, I guess it's only meant to decide if it was or not when it comes to goals scored.

But for their 2nd goal we had a discussion if VAR is meant to be checked if there's a probable offense before the goal, or if it's to check just what happens during the scoring moment. Should the ref had checked what Lamela did to get the ball from Jack or was that another situation? And if not, how long back can/shall they check?

I think they'd only check something like that if it was potentially a penalty

[MikeAVFC]

This handball rule is bloody ridiculous. The wolves goal should have stood, games going if you're giving handball for that imo. They're trying to maker the game black and white unfortunately, there's no middle ground. I'd be raging if that went against us. It's going to cause problems unfortunately we as fans will have to get used to it 

[kurtsimonw]

On 12/08/2019 at 08:52, Shropshire Lad said:

I would guess we’ve all been to matches where a goal has been scored, the supporters celebrate, the referee has a chat to the linesman/assistant, the goal is disallowed and the opposing supporters celebrate that decision.

Untrue.

There was no such thing as penalties, offsides, disallowed goals or "incorrect" decisions before VAR.

[Genie]

2 hours ago, MikeAVFC said:

This handball rule is bloody ridiculous. The wolves goal should have stood, games going if you're giving handball for that imo. They're trying to maker the game black and white unfortunately, there's no middle ground. I'd be raging if that went against us. It's going to cause problems unfortunately we as fans will have to get used to it 

I've said it a few times, and its something really hard to get across. A big part of the game is the way it flows, and a big part of that is due to common sense officiating. I prefer the referee and other officials making split second decisions knowing they will sometimes be wrong. I think for the good of the game it is overall better that way.

I'd rather have the mistakes than the checking, the referals, the not knowing if a goal or penalty save is going to stand. I want to know immediately its a goal because the flag is down and the ref is pointing to the centre spot. I want to know if a player is given offside because the flag is up, not that it is down because it was marginal and it'll get checked later.

I appreciate some other people place a higher value on being correct at any cost.

[Stevo985]

Speed is definitely something that needs to be improved. Certain situations are definitely too slow.

 

I also don't think we need to keep being told that VAR checks are being done. If something's being checked in the background then just let it get checked. We only need to know if it's being actioned.

Although this is one of the things I think will stop once people get used to it.

[villa4europe]

I think that's better / easier too

don't tell the crowd something is being checked, work on the assumption that everything is being checked, end the "why wasn't that looked at" debate and it results in when VAR is referred to you know something is up

Edited August 13, 2019 by villa4europe

[Genie]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

Speed is definitely something that needs to be improved. Certain situations are definitely too slow.

I also don't think we need to keep being told that VAR checks are being done. If something's being checked in the background then just let it get checked. We only need to know if it's being actioned.

Although this is one of the things I think will stop once people get used to it.

How would the not telling people thing work? If its a goal or penalty situation then the game will have to wait for the outcome. The fans need to be kept in the loop. The early feedback from the trial games were that the supporters especially in the stadium didn't know what was going on and should be kept aware.

I have seen a couple of reviews where the game has carried on, for a potential red card. Its better to know something is happening in the background than not isn't it? If say there was a stamp but the game was allowed to carry on, you'd like to know VAR was checking it than it appearing to have been ignored.

I think even if they speed the goal checks right up, there will still be this period where its a "provisional goal awaiting ratification" that just doesn't sit well with me.

[Stevo985]

1 minute ago, Genie said:

How would the not telling people thing work? If its a goal or penalty situation then the game will have to wait for the outcome. The fans need to be kept in the loop. The early feedback from the trial games were that the supporters especially in the stadium didn't know what was going on and should be kept aware.

I have seen a couple of reviews where the game has carried on, for a potential red card. Its better to know something is happening in the background than not isn't it? If say there was a stamp but the game was allowed to carry on, you'd like to know VAR was checking it than it appearing to have been ignored.

I think even if they speed the goal checks right up, there will still be this period where its a "provisional goal awaiting ratification" that just doesn't sit well with me.

Yeah in a situation where they have to wait for the review then obviously we'd have to be told why we're waiting.

I mean more when there's a penalty appeal, or a red card check, and the ref plays on. The game continues, we don't need to know if anything is happening. We just assume the decision stands unless told otherwise.

I think the assumption should be that everything was checked, which essentially it is.

It should just work away in the background unless there's a reason to stop the game or change a decision.

[Genie]

3 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Yeah in a situation where they have to wait for the review then obviously we'd have to be told why we're waiting.

I mean more when there's a penalty appeal, or a red card check, and the ref plays on. The game continues, we don't need to know if anything is happening. We just assume the decision stands unless told otherwise.

I think the assumption should be that everything was checked, which essentially it is.

It should just work away in the background unless there's a reason to stop the game or change a decision.

I kinda agree, but I think in the society we live in people need to know. Like managers losing their shit on the touchline. They'll be calmer knowing there is a review of the dropkick to the face their player just got. If the play goes on without a sign its being looked at they'll be screaming at the ref, and he'll need to tell them that its being looked at anyway.

 

[Stevo985]

7 minutes ago, Genie said:

I kinda agree, but I think in the society we live in people need to know. Like managers losing their shit on the touchline. They'll be calmer knowing there is a review of the dropkick to the face their player just got. If the play goes on without a sign its being looked at they'll be screaming at the ref, and he'll need to tell them that its being looked at anyway.

 

 I think that's the kind of stuff that will disappear when people realise everything gets looked at.

[tomav84]

i agree with carragher (i think) who said it's something that initially will be very easy to find fault in but we need to get on board with. for a first weekend in the premiership i think it probably worked much better than most were expecting. aside from the goals there were 2 other VAR checks in the spurs game and i was really impressed with how quickly they were done. i left the game comfortable in the knowledge that we weren't denied a pen by some corrupt ref that favoured the big team

there will be the odd incident that takes longer than it should. and everyone unfortunately will jump all over those when they occur rather than focus on all that were resolved quickly and seamlessly

so far, it's a thumbs up from me

[villa89]

Tammy abraham with a blatant dive tonight, penalty given but decision not overturned by VAR? I wonder was it because the officials were all women and they didnt want to over rule them. FwIw it was the lineswoman that gave it, not the ref. 

Edited August 14, 2019 by villa89

[bannedfromHandV]

On 12/08/2019 at 16:55, terrytini said:

Of all the issue with VAR I have least problem with offside.

Its a matter of fact.

I can’t see any problem with it being a question of millimetres. It is, or it isn’t.

Id equate it to cricket Ball Tracking. Or goal line technology.

If you are offside you are offside.

Equally, there will be times when those same precise decisions mean you are onside.

Maybe so but the offside rule is in place so as to not offer an advantage to an attacker, you have to question how much of an advantage you have being stood a handful of centimetres in front of the defender.

Footballs never really been black and white, it’s always had elements open to interpretation and perception, that’s still going to be the case even with VAR.