Naarich v Spurs (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ccfc92
- Start date
Terry Gibson's perm
Well-Known Member
Var is killing the game this offside because you wear a size 11 boot instead of a 10 is ridiculous. I thought it was to sort out shockers not ones like that
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
I never wanted VAR personally but isn't it achieving what people wanted?
Off side by a bollock hair is still offside, isn't that what people were after?
Off side by a bollock hair is still offside, isn't that what people were after?
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
It's meant to sort out clear and obvious errors, not this shambles.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
I don't get the argument, are you saying they should say he's off by a few millimetres so let it go?
As I said, if I had my way I'd fuck it off completely but I haven't been banging on about introducing it for years like some people though I did think it worked well in the World cup.
NorthernWisdom
Well-Known Member
Aye. Football's all about the we woz robbed conversations and it's played (and reffed) by humans.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Cricket where there’s an area of doubt goes with the referee original call it just doesn’t work in football
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
The ref missing Kane getting pulled to the ground by players is a clear and obvious error.
A players eyelash offside isn't a clear and obvious error.
Personally, I'd scrap it. l thought goalline technology was enough.
clint van damme
Well-Known Member
on the few occasions I've sen them play I've been impressed. Surprises me they are where they are.
Really like that young lad they've got, Cantwell is it? He isn't playing this evening.
ccfc92
Well-Known Member
Got him in my fantasy team, always seems to play well.
Agreed about Norwich, didn't realise they were 20th before today's game. Deserve to be higher imo
Otis
Well-Known Member
That was ridiculous.
The bottom line is, if you had a strong enough microscope you could disallow a lot more goals. No-one is ever going to be exactly level you would have thought. There would always be micro millimeters in it.
The whole point was to identify clear and obvious errors. That was not a clear and obvious error and therefore the goal should stood. And the closer the incident is, the longer it is going to take for VAR to mull over it and make their decision.
I like the idea of VAR, but to my mind this is not what it should be used for.
Clear and obvious errors only.
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
People wanted it for things like Lampards disallowed goal for England against Germany. Things that were so obvious they were ridiculous. Not for trying to check offsides by millimetres.
In any case for them to rule offside to that degree of accuracy they need locked off cameras covering every millimetre of the touchline. You can't look across at an angle and then start drawing lines on the picture, its not accurate. Posted this before but this shows the problem very clearly.
Covstu
Well-Known Member
For me they need to change the offsite to either be full or most of body off side if this is going to work, someone’s left ear offside just isn’t working (unless you were lineker!)
Otis
Well-Known Member
That's definitely what I'm saying, Clint, yes. Because a few millimetres is not a clear and obvious error.
The Pooki one should have been very simple. Quick look on VAR and the conclusion within seconds should have been 'too close to call. Goal stands. '
If you cannot see it is a clear and obvious offside within about 5-10 seconds, let the goal stand.
VAR COULD work, but the way they are implementing it right now is a farce and is disrupting the game and making the viewing experience much worse.
Otis
Well-Known Member
That one is not clear and obvious. Ten second look, goal should have stood.
I bet that took at least two minutes looking at that.
It's very, very simple to my mind. Look at that. In the above incident it is so close, too close. Let the goal stand.
They could even set a time limit on it, how long a look they take at things.
Still not clear after 20-30 seconds, let the goal or offside stand.
Paul Anthony
Well-Known Member
If VAR is going to be used as it currently is for offsides, then something similar to "umpires call" in cricket should probably be considered, especially in these incredibly marginal situations.
MusicDating
Euro 2016 Prediction League Champion!!
My concern is that they spent ages looking at the attackers position but seemingly neglect to do the same analysis of when the ball was played. In the screenshot above, has the ball been played at that point? Maybe a frame back? Or forward? With the uncertainty of an inflatable ball, why focus on millimetres?
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
The VAR is killing the game argument from the PL fanboys ignores the elephant in the room which is the league itself, and that the clubs that all wanted this sort of thing as the financial implications of wrong decisions are so great.
Paul Anthony
Well-Known Member
It's beyond ridiculous now.
Otis
Well-Known Member
The only clear and obvious mistake is VAR itself.
skyblue1991
Well-Known Member
Ways to improve VAR:
1. Let the ref use the monitors FFS
2. Give each team one VAR challenge a half. Use for potential offside goal, foul upcoming to a goal, red cards and penalties
3. Follow Rugby. It works
Sent from my I3113 using Tapatalk
1. Let the ref use the monitors FFS
2. Give each team one VAR challenge a half. Use for potential offside goal, foul upcoming to a goal, red cards and penalties
3. Follow Rugby. It works
Sent from my I3113 using Tapatalk
Problem is as per CVD post earlier is that people have slagged off referees and demanded technology for years.
Now they have their wish and they don’t like it. If you want benefit of doubt to attacker and all that then should have stayed with human beings. You can’t have someone offside by his bell end proven by the technology then complain it’s too severe. Take away the human element and you lose common sense and judgement calls
Now they have their wish and they don’t like it. If you want benefit of doubt to attacker and all that then should have stayed with human beings. You can’t have someone offside by his bell end proven by the technology then complain it’s too severe. Take away the human element and you lose common sense and judgement calls
Otis
Well-Known Member
Have to disagree, to a degree, because I have always wanted the technology, but not to such ridiculous anal lengths as this. This what we have now is just ludicrous.
Make it for clear and obvious and you eliminate nearly all of this nonsense.
As I said before, you could end up getting a microscope if you wanted. There is always going to be the merest fraction in it even if someone is dead level.
Wanting the technology does not automatically equate to having what we have now. So many managers, pundits and players are saying this is a joke.
The Norwich goal should have stood. The other ones too this weekend that were so close it took a number of minutes to come to a decision.
I am all for the technology, but this is not what was first envisaged or wanted.
I just cannot see.how.you can be offside by an armpit hair.
Has to be clear and obvious.
Really tight call, go with the attacking player.
That Pooki goal looked an absolutely perfectly good goal. No-one was shouting offside when it happened and it was a real surprise to see the VAR calling that.
Clear and obvious only.
Frostie
Well-Known Member
chiefdave
Well-Known Member
This sort of thing barely gets a mention and it drives me mad. The technology simply isn't accurate to the level they are trying to apply it. Even if there were no other issues that would need to be addressed.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Clear and obvious only.
I am sure we have all watched a game and called offside and then when we see a replay we say it either was or wasn't, or was very close.
I bet not one single person watched that Norwich game and said that's offside when Pooki scored.
Quick look. It is either clear or it isn't. If it's not clear let the goal stand.
Has to be clear. I have seen so many of these and said it is really hard to tell. We cannot take things to this ludicrous lengths.
It's very simple.
I am sure we have all watched a game and called offside and then when we see a replay we say it either was or wasn't, or was very close.
I bet not one single person watched that Norwich game and said that's offside when Pooki scored.
Quick look. It is either clear or it isn't. If it's not clear let the goal stand.
Has to be clear. I have seen so many of these and said it is really hard to tell. We cannot take things to this ludicrous lengths.
It's very simple.
Paul Anthony
Well-Known Member
I still believe the technology can have a place and be successful, but not in its current form.
Before the season started, I predicted that there would be plenty of discussion about VAR and offside to such an extent that the rules may well need a rework. That's exactly how its working out.
The problem is that even when they show the VAR replays, a lot of the time it's so marginal that it's still hard to work out if it's actually right at all. Camera angles can be very deceptive unless in absolutely the correct spot, and add to that our referees have (for some ludicrous reason) been told they can't actually use those shiny monitors pitch side, and the whole system becomes absurdly inadequate.
If the system is going to remain, it needs an overhaul. The offside rule as it is needs reworking, with a margin of error factored in. We need more clearly defined parameters so that people can clearly see why goals have been ruled out. At present, it just creates more problems than it solves.
Before the season started, I predicted that there would be plenty of discussion about VAR and offside to such an extent that the rules may well need a rework. That's exactly how its working out.
The problem is that even when they show the VAR replays, a lot of the time it's so marginal that it's still hard to work out if it's actually right at all. Camera angles can be very deceptive unless in absolutely the correct spot, and add to that our referees have (for some ludicrous reason) been told they can't actually use those shiny monitors pitch side, and the whole system becomes absurdly inadequate.
If the system is going to remain, it needs an overhaul. The offside rule as it is needs reworking, with a margin of error factored in. We need more clearly defined parameters so that people can clearly see why goals have been ruled out. At present, it just creates more problems than it solves.
Otis
Well-Known Member
Exactly right. They are going to such anal lengths when the technology is clearly not supporting that.
Just apply common sense. There are times when a player is clearly offside, but it is not picked up. VAR is perfect for that.
