Referees/VAR in the Premier League

[Harry]

3 minutes ago, llabtooF said:

I checked on the rules of the game as to why the offside rule was introduced in football in the first place? The answer given is: The offside rule exists to stop goal hanging, where a player stands next to the opposing teams goal keeper in the hope that someone can get the ball to him (probably using a long ball), so he can get it past the goal keeper. It begs me to ask as to the number of goals being disallowed since the introduction of the VAR by an arm pit or even less. Surely common sense has to prevail to this recently created problem and start giving advantage to the attacking team in such close calls, after all the attacking players are not hanging around goalkeepers waiting for a mate to boot the ball long to them. Personally I yearn for the days of pre VAR.

Basically agree. The offside rule was written before video replays could pretend to give millimetre perfect determinations so it never went into specifics. It needs to be reviewed and better qualified.

[ScoRoss]

 

[Burning Gold]

26 minutes ago, ScoRoss said:

 

He's right that there's a margin of error which needs to be acknowledged. Either by investing in better cameras, or by having it so you have to be on- or offside in both frames for the decision to be overturned. But then we have two frames to analyse. Two lots of lines to draw. Ultimately I think the answer is just better cameras and better 3D imaging to reduce the margin of error and make it quicker to do the lines. Maybe a chip in the ball so you know when it's kicked.

I can't get behind this luddite nonsense that you should only look at two replays with the naked eye. There have been countless examples of players being offside but they look comfortably on because of the camera angle. Maybe vice-versa, but I can't actually think of one. Whichever way you look at it, you need the lines, otherwise you're just deliberately making bad decisions.

4 hours ago, Harry said:

Basically agree. The offside rule was written before video replays could pretend to give millimetre perfect determinations so it never went into specifics. It needs to be reviewed and better qualified.

This just isn't true. It's always gone into specifics. The current wording, regarding parts of the body with which you can't play the ball, has been around for years before VAR. If anything, the problem is the exact opposite. It's so specific that we can go into fine margins and milimetre perfect determinations, so there's (in theory) no room for umpire's call. Now we can't really go back and change the rule to make it less specific, so here we are.

[Burning Gold]

4 hours ago, llabtooF said:

I checked on the rules of the game as to why the offside rule was introduced in football in the first place? The answer given is: The offside rule exists to stop goal hanging, where a player stands next to the opposing teams goal keeper in the hope that someone can get the ball to him (probably using a long ball), so he can get it past the goal keeper. It begs me to ask as to the number of goals being disallowed since the introduction of the VAR by an arm pit or even less. Surely common sense has to prevail to this recently created problem and start giving advantage to the attacking team in such close calls, after all the attacking players are not hanging around goalkeepers waiting for a mate to boot the ball long to them. Personally I yearn for the days of pre VAR.

This is a bit simplistic, isn't it? If they wanted to outlaw goalhanging, they could've written a rule in any number of different ways, but they didn't. They created the offside rule, which has always outlawed 'being offside' as we know it for all of its 150 year existence. It's been tweaked here and there, but it's always outlawed being between x number of opponents and their goal, never just goalhanging.

People are worried that VAR is changing the game too much and yet now we're sat here questioning the wisdom of the bloody offside rule. Probably the one law that's shaped the game the most, other than maybe the one that says you can't use your hands.

Welcome to the forum, by the way!

[True Blue]

Didn't mind VAR until they started with the edgy offside goals. If they are in line there is no offside. Why always adding lines makes it look stupid and fans can't even celebrate goals any more.

[Stan]

This needs to change. 

Would clear up several decisions I think. Or at least allow less confusion to be had when a decision is made. 

[Burning Gold]

1 hour ago, Stan said:

This needs to change. 

Would clear up several decisions I think. Or at least allow less confusion to be had when a decision is made. 

They have this sort of thing in rugby and cricket here as well. I do think it would be good to have, but it still doesn't really help the fans in attendance.

[Dr. Gonzo]

General secretary of Ifab says that the league is using VAR wrong for offside decisions: https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/premier-league-var-wrong-offside-review-ifab-goals-replays-a9264306.html?utm_source=reddit.com

[Burning Gold]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

General secretary of Ifab says that the league is using VAR wrong for offside decisions: https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/premier-league-var-wrong-offside-review-ifab-goals-replays-a9264306.html?utm_source=reddit.com

He doesn't mention offside once

[Dr. Gonzo]

1 minute ago, Burning Gold said:

He doesn't mention offside once

He says it's meant for checking of a clear and obvious error was made, rather than wasting time spending time looking at different angles to decide something marginal... which is literally what we're regularly seeing with these offside decisions.

[Burning Gold]

4 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

He says it's meant for checking of a clear and obvious error was made, rather than wasting time spending time looking at different angles to decide something marginal... which is literally what we're regularly seeing with these offside decisions.

Checking different angles? It most certainly is not what we're seeing with offsides. Pretty clear he's talking about something else, imo

Edited December 30, 2019 by Burning Gold

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 minutes ago, Burning Gold said:

Checking different angles? It most certainly is not what we're seeing with offsides

They did yesterday? In any case, I think the VAR application with offsides has been a bit shite to say the least. People being offside by a pixel or their armpit hair isn't "clear and obvious." Even for our goal after they checked to make sure Lallana didn't handball, they then checked a few different angles to see if Mane was still onside (even though it was pretty... clear and obvious... that he was, given that he made his run from fairly deep).

I'm not surprised people are hating VAR for these close offside rules where you've got someone offside by a pixel, like that Wolves player. The technology isn't good enough (or precise enough) to be used in it's current application. And it's not meant to be used to make sure that everything was inch perfect for an offside, it's meant to make sure the officials didn't make a clear or obvious error.

6 years ago Sterling was found to be offside against Manchester City with this:

Instances like that are where VAR could be used to reasonably overturn a pretty clearly incorrect decision. He's miles onside and an idiot linesman flagged him off and took a goal away.

These really tight decisions where you can't tell what frame the ball leaves a players foot and have to zoom the fuck in to look at the pixels on lines that sometimes seem arbitrarily drawn by idiots like Martin Atkinson... they're causing a lot of controversy because we're relying on technology that isn't good enough to decide things by fine margins. And other leagues aren't having anywhere near the same amount of controversy with VAR.

VAR is here to stay. And I'm sure the technology will get better to where you can tell exactly by the frame when someone is offside or not more clearly - considering cameras keep making huge leaps forward, sooner or later we'll get better resolution in our VAR images that'll allow for more precision. But there's a lot wrong with it's implementation in our league - particularly in these decisions with the fine margins that the technology quite frankly is not suited for.

[Burning Gold]

15 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

They did yesterday? In any case, I think the VAR application with offsides has been a bit shite to say the least. People being offside by a pixel or their armpit hair isn't "clear and obvious." Even for our goal after they checked to make sure Lallana didn't handball, they then checked a few different angles to see if Mane was still onside (even though it was pretty... clear and obvious... that he was, given that he made his run from fairly deep).

I'm not surprised people are hating VAR for these close offside rules where you've got someone offside by a pixel, like that Wolves player. The technology isn't good enough (or precise enough) to be used in it's current application. And it's not meant to be used to make sure that everything was inch perfect for an offside, it's meant to make sure the officials didn't make a clear or obvious error.

6 years ago Sterling was found to be offside against Manchester City with this:

Instances like that are where VAR could be used to reasonably overturn a pretty clearly incorrect decision. He's miles onside and an idiot linesman flagged him off and took a goal away.

These really tight decisions where you can't tell what frame the ball leaves a players foot and have to zoom the fuck in to look at the pixels on lines that sometimes seem arbitrarily drawn by idiots like Martin Atkinson... they're causing a lot of controversy because we're relying on technology that isn't good enough to decide things by fine margins. And other leagues aren't having anywhere near the same amount of controversy with VAR.

VAR is here to stay. And I'm sure the technology will get better to where you can tell exactly by the frame when someone is offside or not more clearly - considering cameras keep making huge leaps forward, sooner or later we'll get better resolution in our VAR images that'll allow for more precision. But there's a lot wrong with it's implementation in our league - particularly in these decisions with the fine margins that the technology quite frankly is not suited for.

They didn't check multiple angles for the offside yesterday, they never do. It's one angle and then you draw the lines. Always. They also didn't check Mane for offside multiple times; they checked the handball, then checked if the whistle had gone before he scored. It took one glance to see Mane was on.

Ironically, the reason we have more controversy is because our system is more accurate than elsewhere, so we're more confident in tight decisions and overturn more that look wrong to idiots who don't understand perspective. Is the solution to use the less accurate system and get more wrong? Not for me. If you're stopping the game to have a look, you may as well get it right (for something like offside, that is, where there's no grey area). None of this is to say it's perfect - it's quite clear the technology needs to improve - but willfully getting more wrong so people don't kick off isn't the answer. It can't be

[Dan+]

Stance hasn't changed one bit since the first weekend. The over-scrutinising of every single goal near enough just doesn't wash with me and it's clearly done absolutely nothing to erase controversy either when you look at this weekend.

[LFCMadLad]

3 hours ago, Dan said:

Stance hasn't changed one bit since the first weekend. The over-scrutinising of every single goal near enough just doesn't wash with me and it's clearly done absolutely nothing to erase controversy either when you look at this weekend.

As I said before, all it's done is take the excitement out of goals. 

[Honey Honey]

6 hours ago, LFCMadLad said:

As I said before, all it's done is take the excitement out of goals. 

When you score as infrequently as we do VAR doesn't take away excitement, instead it makes you celebrate every goal twice! Great invention 

[Smiley Culture]

Talk of a “daylight rule” being brought in. That’s complete bollocks, if it happens. If you’re offside, you’re offside, much like if the ball is 1mm over the line, it’s a goal. 

[Burning Gold]

1 hour ago, Smiley Culture said:

Talk of a “daylight rule” being brought in. That’s complete bollocks, if it happens. If you’re offside, you’re offside, much like if the ball is 1mm over the line, it’s a goal. 

It was 'daylight' about 10-15 years ago wasn't it? Not sure why they changed it if so, maybe to stop teams defending so deep

I don't think there's anything wrong with tweaking the rule in itself, it's just that it doesn't actually solve any of our problems. You'll still have marginal decisions, you'll still have to stop play and do the lines. The narrative will be better because people won't be able to say "offside by a toe" or whatever, but the actual impact on VAR decisions will be minimal.

[LFCMike]

VAR 'should not be too forensic' - football law-makers set to issue guidance - http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50944416

Football's law-makers say the video assistant referee system should not be "too forensic" when it comes to offsides - and should only be used to reverse "clear and obvious" errors.

Five goals in the Premier League were ruled out at the weekend for marginal offsides, leading some managers and players to criticise VAR.

Lukas Brud, general secretary of the International Football Association Board, said: "With VAR we see some things that are going in a direction that we may need to re-adjust."

He said the body would reissue guidance on VAR's use after its annual general meeting in February.

"If you spend multiple minutes trying to identify whether it is offside or not, then it's not clear and obvious and the original decision should stand," he said.

He added: "What we really need to stress is that 'clear and obvious' applies to every single situation that is being reviewed by the VAR or the referee.

"In theory, 1mm offside is offside, but if a decision is taken that a player is not offside and the VAR is trying to identify through looking at five, six, seven, 10, 12 cameras whether or not it was offside, then the original decision should stand.

"This is the problem. People are trying to be too forensic. We are not looking to make a better decision, we are trying to get rid of the clear and obvious mistakes.

"If video evidence shows that a player was in an offside position, he was offside full stop. If it's not obvious, then the decision cannot be changed, you stay with the original decision.

"We will be communicating to all competitions that are using VAR some updates in the coming weeks, because we are observing some developments that are not particularly the way they should be."

 

[Rick]

I’d love the offside rule to be feet only, and also only clear and obvious. The Wolves disallowed goal against us was FAR from clear and obvious. 

[Stan]

2 hours ago, Rick said:

I’d love the offside rule to be feet only, and also only clear and obvious. The Wolves disallowed goal against us was FAR from clear and obvious. 

Why should it only be feet though?

You can score with other parts of your body and may score with them - so why allow that but not feet?

[Rick]

3 hours ago, Stan said:

Why should it only be feet though?

You can score with other parts of your body and may score with them - so why allow that but not feet?

Fair point. But...what are the chances of somebody scoring with their armpit? Next to zero. 

[LFCMike]

Do any of the other leagues with VAR have this issue with offside? Was listening to something earlier and the point was made that it's all very English this 'let's change the rules because we can't get it right'.

[Stan]

20 minutes ago, Rick said:

Fair point. But...what are the chances of somebody scoring with their armpit? Next to zero. 

Agree. I think the armpit decisions so far have been ridiculous.

[Inverted]

It's like in many real life laws - it's not really ideal for them to be applied 100%. Very few rules can actually work in such a scenario.

Imagine a world where everyone who illegally downloaded a film or a song could be charged with theft, where every driver a fraction of a mph over the limit got charged with speeding, and every person who's ever tried a drug got caught and jailed. 

There's a reason police have their enforcement guidelines. It's much easier just to enforce a seemingly black and white rule sensibly, than it is to write-in a bunch of exceptions.