Naarich v Spurs (1 Viewer)

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Cricket where there’s an area of doubt goes with the referee original call it just doesn’t work in football

More to the point there is a natural break in play after every delivery.

 

---

[Otis]

More to the point there is a natural break in play after every delivery.

Yup and that is why the decision needs to be quick and why it therefore then also has to be a brief look only. 20 seconds tops.

 

[Macca]

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.

Then 6 smart arse pundits debate whether it was clear and obvious. Problem is clear and obvious are both subjective. Don’t see how technology and subjectivity can live together. It will never work in football because of the mentality of blaming the run of the green and decisions for teams failings. At all levels of the game there is a disrespect for authority and fair play

 

[Otis]

Then 6 smart arse pundits debate whether it was clear and obvious. Problem is clear and obvious are both subjective. Don’t see how technology and subjectivity can live together. It will never work in football because of the mentality of blaming the run of the green and decisions for teams failings. At all levels of the game there is a disrespect for authority and fair play

Again, macca, I disagree.

It is subjective, but if they just had a 10 second look and it wasn't obvious, they should just go with the goal.

You simply cannot go for microscopic lengths to see if someone is offside.by 0.000000001 millimetre.

We have all been watching football long enough and we all pretty much know what an obvious offside is. It's when you can see clear daylight between an attacker and a defender. When you can see.kn the reply almost immediately that a player is indeed offside.

Taking that Pooki one as an example, he seemed inside at first look and on the reply, avian on first look there seemed nothing in it. That should have been the end of it.

When it is that close just go with the goal.

It can of course be subjective, but when it is that close and it takes that much analysis and debate it clearly spoils the game.

Put a time limit on it. Give them say 20 seconds to look at it, if it is still not a clear and obvious error, stick with the goal.

It's fine saying it is subjective, but it is supposed to be for clear and obvious errors.

No-one could ever say that was a clear and obvious error. No-one.

 

[Otis]

Again, using the Pooki example. No-one can say that was a clear and obvious offside and no-one can say it was a clear and obvious error.

That's where we need to draw the line.

 

[Macca]

Again, macca, I disagree.

It is subjective, but if they just had a 10 second look and it wasn't obvious, they should just go with the goal.

You simply cannot go for microscopic lengths to see if someone is offside.by 0.000000001 millimetre.

We have all been watching football long enough and we all pretty much know what an obvious offside is. It's when you can see clear daylight between an attacker and a defender. When you can see.kn the reply almost immediately that a player is indeed offside.

Taking that Pooki one as an example, he seemed inside at first look and on the reply, avian on first look there seemed nothing in it. That should have been the end of it.

When it is that close just go with the goal.

It can of course be subjective, but when it is that close and it takes that much analysis and debate it clearly spoils the game.

Put a time limit on it. Give them say 20 seconds to look at it, if it is still not a clear and obvious error, stick with the goal.

It's fine saying it is subjective, but it is supposed to be for clear and obvious errors.

No-one could ever say that was a clear and obvious error. No-one.

I bet you that without VAR and that goal standing the decision would have been pulled apart in the studio looked at 15 times and decided he was just off. Certainly the opposing manager would have claimed so. Trouble is technology in sport means that mm do count.
Rugby tries ruled out as foot a mm in touch. LBW overturned because it brushed the glove strap by a mm

technology was demanded and it brings problems

 

[Grendel]

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.

It’s not though as the definition of clear and obvious can’t be 10 yards or you’d hopefully see it as an official

Then you get into debates about what is obvious and what is clear

The whole thing is dumb - if the Wolves shoot was saved went for a corner and then they scored there’s no issue

There was a game one week where the guy was miles offside wasn’t given and was fouled on the edge of the area. The review was if a penalty or not as he hadn’t scored - VAR can’t rule against offside unless it’s a goal so if the free kick had gone it or it was a penalty that would have stood

 

[Otis]

It’s not though as the definition of clear and obvious can’t be 10 yards or you’d hopefully see it as an official

Then you get into debates about what is obvious and what is clear

The whole thing is dumb - if the Wolves shoot was saved went for a corner and then they scored there’s no issue

There was a game one week where the guy was miles offside wasn’t given and was fouled on the edge of the area. The review was if a penalty or not as he hadn’t scored - VAR can’t rule against offside unless it’s a goal so if the free kick had gone it or it was a penalty that would have stood

That part of the rule is ridiculous. The VAR team are watching the game aren't they? If they spot a clear offside they should inform the ref through his earpiece.

 

[Otis]

I bet you that without VAR and that goal standing the decision would have been pulled apart in the studio looked at 15 times and decided he was just off.

I am 99% certain they wouldn't.

 

[Otis]

The too close to call has to work both ways.

That was too close to call first viewing and took several minutes to come to a conclusion.

Take away those several minutes and you would have your decision. No micromilimetres.

 

[Grendel]

The too close to call has to work both ways.

That was too close to call first viewing and took several minutes to come to a conclusion.

Take away those several minutes and you would have your decision. No micromilimetres.

You’d have to still draw the line and decide if it’s over the line or not. You can’t just define clear and obvious.

 

[chiefdave]

Then you get into debates about what is obvious and what is clear

Surely as an absolute minimum you've got to allow for the margin of error in the system. They aren't even doing that.

 

[Otis]

You’d have to still draw the line and decide if it’s over the line or not. You can’t just define clear and obvious.

You can't exactly for sure, but we can't have decisions that take several minutes.

Give them 20 seconds to look at it and if they believe it to be too close to come to a decision after those 20 seconds, stick with the goal.

 

[chiefdave]

Dermot Gallagher on Sky Sports News shows exactly why it won't be fixed. Complete refusal to even consider there is an issue and defending every decision made.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Again, macca, I disagree.

It is subjective, but if they just had a 10 second look and it wasn't obvious, they should just go with the goal.

You simply cannot go for microscopic lengths to see if someone is offside.by 0.000000001 millimetre.

We have all been watching football long enough and we all pretty much know what an obvious offside is. It's when you can see clear daylight between an attacker and a defender. When you can see.kn the reply almost immediately that a player is indeed offside.

Taking that Pooki one as an example, he seemed inside at first look and on the reply, avian on first look there seemed nothing in it. That should have been the end of it.

When it is that close just go with the goal.

It can of course be subjective, but when it is that close and it takes that much analysis and debate it clearly spoils the game.

Put a time limit on it. Give them say 20 seconds to look at it, if it is still not a clear and obvious error, stick with the goal.

It's fine saying it is subjective, but it is supposed to be for clear and obvious errors.

No-one could ever say that was a clear and obvious error. No-one.

It’s more that most of the pundits don’t realise what part of the body is taken into account when considering offside. Also they don’t understand the hand ball rule changes and if they do they don’t agree with them. Winds me up!

 

[Macca]

I am 99% certain they wouldn't.

they pull every last decision apart

 

[Macca]

Surely as an absolute minimum you've got to allow for the margin of error in the system. They aren't even doing that.

we have margin for error it’s called a referee. Win some you lose some. Had VAR been available v Notts County we would still be in league 2

 

[Macca]

I’d reserve it for goal line and serious foul play

 

[chiefdave]

they pull every last decision apart

They've never done it to the degree VAR is. When on TV have you seen them zooming in so far the picture looks like an 80s VHS and spend 5 minutes pissing around drawing lines to show someones shoulder is a millimetre offside.

You'd see it all the time, couple of replays and they'd say something like 'it was very tight, maybe off'.

 

[Otis]

they pull every last decision apart

Nope. Not to that degree they don't. Never ever seen them do that before. Not to micromilimetres.

 

[Otis]

They've never done it to the degree VAR is. When on TV have you seen them zooming in so far the picture looks like an 80s VHS and spend 5 minutes pissing around drawing lines to show someones shoulder is a millimetre offside.

You'd see it all the time, couple of replays and they'd say something like 'it was very tight, maybe off'.

Exactly. It's nothing like the degree VAR is taking it to.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

1. VAR refs should be treated the same as linespeople - there as ASSISTANTS to the ref, not overrule them. Only thing they should be allowed to do is refer the incident to the ref who has to make the final decision looking at the monitor.
2. All conversations between ref and VAR should be broadcast, as should the pictures in the stadium.
3. On offside, time limit of say 30s to make a decision, if it hasn't original decision stands as it can't be clear and obvious.

The more I see it used the more I'm certain it's that those in charge intend it to fail. All the bits that work in other sports have been removed but is being used for mm differences when the margin of error is much bigger than this between frames.

It has a future, just not being used like this.

 

[Otis]

Here you go. Well said.

Just don't make it so forensic. Not to such a ridiculous degree as one hair strand.

 

[Macca]

If everyone agrees what a clear and obvious error is then all is well. What will be the wriggle room? Centimetre? Foot? VAR won’t stop controversy imo

 

[Macca]

Tell you what if city concede an equaliser in a club changing fixture and blokes offside by a mm you can shove your clear and obvious

Happy New Year all

 

[chiefdave]

Tell you what if city concede an equaliser in a club changing fixture and blokes offside by a mm you can shove your clear and obvious

And what about if city score an equaliser in a club changing fixture but its ruled offside by a mm using a system that has more than a 10cm margin of error?

 

[chiefdave]

'Clear and obvious'

 

[covmark]

'Clear and obvious'

View attachment 13807

That is an absolute joke. Was that in one of today's games?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

 

[Otis]

Yup. Burnley v Wolves. Goal disallowed for that obvious mistake in not seeing that the Villa player was offside.

Complete joke. And even some Burnley fans were saying so too.

 

[Macca]

And what about if city score an equaliser in a club changing fixture but its ruled offside by a mm using a system that has more than a 10cm margin of error?

Well then clearly if it’s against us the system is shit. Kind of how football reactions work

 

[Frostie]

I can see somebody like Norwich trying to take legal action if they get relegated. It's opened a very dangerous can of worms.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

I am 99% certain they wouldn't.

You know they would