Get VAR in the fucking bin (1 Viewer)

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Sisu batter people in court.

They couldn’t batter a cod, much to my chagrin

 

---

[Sky Blue Pete]

Pete, thinking about this, the definition is played or touched, with touched being defined as first point of contact.
There has to be a difference between playing the ball and touching the ball.

For example, a striker is alone in the opposition’s half when his goalkeeper catches the ball from an opponents cross. That is first contact.

The GK holds the ball, only for 6 seconds obviously, during which time the aforementioned striker moves in to his own half. The GK kicks the ball and the striker heads it on to a fellow player who runs through and scores a goal. No one would be saying the striker was offside, would they, but if first contact by the GK was the rule, the striker would have been.

The reality is that, in general, it is when the ball is played. The “touched” element comes in to force when a ball played by player 1 hits (touches, first contacts) player 2 and rebounds to player 3 who is in an offside position.

So, in this case, the offside should have been measured when the ball leaves O’Hare’s foot, which it does in a very unconventional way. The ball hasn’t left his foot when it’s still on or very near the ground. The frame is, therefore, the wrong one. Haji is holding his run and pointing where he wants the ball whilst AWB continues his wrong. Haji is more likely to be onside than not at the point the ball is played to him.

Exactly my point but you could argue the asterix is for played and touched as people have on Twitter (they are wrong) and maybe the var official got it wrong too. I think you summarise what I think perfectly
And if it’s not clear it should be made clear it’s cost us £2m

 

[shmmeee]

Last one on this then I’m going to start getting over it lol

People keep saying “the Lino doesn’t flag in case it gets reviewed” genuine question: what’s the point of having Lino’s at all during a VAR game then?

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

Yeah, won't happen and pointless to even try going up that blind alley. Calling for more transparency is probably more realistic, I would love an explanation for yesterday.

Yep sometimes pushing for one thing gets another

 

[MalcSB]

Exactly my point but you could argue the asterix is for played and touched as people have on Twitter (they are wrong) and maybe the var official got it wrong too. I think you summarise what I think perfectly
And if it’s not clear it should be made clear it’s cost us £2m

If the asterix was intended for both, both should have an asterix. Some clarity from an official source would be really useful.

The example I gave isn’t that far from reality. It would mean there is no point a GK holding the ball whilst his ST ambles back in to position - the ST will remain offside until another player has touched the ball.

 

[shmmeee]

The touch thing makes no sense. If O’Hare had stood balancing the ball on his foot waiting for Haji to be onside then flicked it are we saying it is offside cos the “touch” started when he’s offside.

 

[MalcSB]

Last one on this then I’m going to start getting over it lol

People keep saying “the Lino doesn’t flag in case it gets reviewed” genuine question: what’s the point of having Lino’s at all during a VAR game then?

I think you meant, what is the point of having Linos at all.

Or a fourth official for that matter.

 

[shmmeee]

I think you meant, what is the point of having Linos at all.

What is the point? Refs call all the throw ins/corners etc anyway and VAR calls offside. Are they just there to get their steps in?

 

[MalcSB]

The touch thing makes no sense. If O’Hare had stood balancing the ball on his foot waiting for Haji to be onside then flicked it are we saying it is offside cos the “touch” started when he’s offside.

Pete and I aren’t, others are - ridiculous.

 

[Frostie]

Agreed but it’s not how offsides have been implemented in English footie with var
They are all checked in this way
I’d love to get @Adge
Or @Frostie or someone who’s maybe seen var etiquette to confirm my thoughts
The ifab law says played so why is it when it’s at the foot and not when it leaves his foot
Even one frame after it’s different and more than that he’s clearly onside

I've not really seen it any more than anyone else I don't think but I probably do analyse the intricacies of it because, as you well know, I have always been vocal in my disdain for VAR, even before it became a reality as I knew this would happen.

The relevant part from IFAB about when the ball is played says...
"At the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate.."
*The first point of contact of the ‘play’ or ‘touch’ of the ball should be used."

As others have said in this thread & I have been saying for years though, is it is IMPOSSIBLE to define exactly when that is because of the poor quality 50fps cameras they use so it's literally guesswork to the nearest frame. When you have players moving at speed in opposite directions this can make an enormous difference ; 15-20cm, possibly even more.
The authorities know this but still pedal the "offside is offside " bollocks & claim it is factual when it absolutely is not.

The IFAB VAR Protocol also tells us that offside is not exempt from the "clear & obvious" mantra but that is also ignored as they pretend that the tech is infallible.

 

[SBT]

It’s absolutely mad to spend this much energy on trying to Zapruder pictures of O’Hare’s boot based on amateur pictures from the United end, or going full Karen mode and demanding to see the EFL manager.

(Which is why I think VAR is shit btw - can’t we just go back to getting angry with the ref?)

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

It’s absolutely mad to spend this much energy on trying to Zapruder pictures of O’Hare’s boot based on amateur pictures from the United end, or going full Karen mode and demanding to see the EFL manager.

(Which is why I think VAR is shit btw - can’t we just go back to getting angry with the ref?)

Aside from failing to dismiss Onana the ref actually had a pretty good game

 

[Calista]

On every freeze frame I've ever seen for offside decisions on TV, it's always the initial moment the player's foot strikes the ball. It's never the point of release (i.e. when daylight appears between ball and foot).
The latter is more logical in some ways but if you changed it to that, it would disadvantage the attacker 9 times out of 10. The forward is usually the one running through and becoming more likely to be offside by the second.
Yesterday was unusual because Wan Bissaka (in a criminally poor bit of defending) was racing to play Haji onside!

 

[Otis]

To have that moment taken away because of a toe nail is why var will always be shit.

VAR will always be shit for as long as they keep using a toenail as a metric .

 

[Grendel]

VAR will always be shit for as long as they keep using a toenail as a metric .

What’s the alternative

 

[MalcSB]

What’s the alternative

A system using the GPS trackers they all wear.

 

[Adge]

Aside from failing to dismiss Onana the ref actually had a pretty good game

People again getting confused. He was cautioned (quite rightly) for time wasting (delaying the restart of play) during the 90 minutes. As soon as penalty kicks are in play the original caution ( given during the 90 minutes) does not carry over into penalty kicks. So a player would have to be cautioned twice during the penalty kicks to then be shown a red and be dismissed. If that player is then dismissed from the field of play (his team then only has 10 players eligible to take a penalty kick) the other team must also choose a player who would not take part in the penalty kicks (ie 10 v 10). A strange part of the Laws.

 

[Otis]

What’s the alternative

VAR looks at an incident and if it looks too close to call to the naked eye, you go back to the on-field officials original ruling.

Anything that needs a slide rule and minutes of analysis, should be dumped.

It would be much fairer than having no VAR at all and wouldn't pee people off as much as VAR does right now.

Yesterday just happens to be the perfect example.

The ref said it was a goal, the linesman said it was a goal, the Man U players thought it was a goal, the City players and fans thought it was a goal and the Man U fans thought it was a goal too

Given that freeze frame, the VAR should immediately say "it's too close to call", stick with the on-field decision.

Ditch anything with miniscule interrogation (the technology is not good enough anyway). No drawing lines, unless it is to show someone was well offside. Not by a toenail. Clear on instant viewing. Something you can see in an instant.

There is still a decision to be made as to where you apply the ruling from in terms of distance etc,.but no one could look at that footage yesterday and say an obvious mistake had been made. No-one.

That's what VAR should be there for. Clear errors on the parts of the officials.

 

[clint van damme]

People again getting confused. He was cautioned (quite rightly) for time wasting (delaying the restart of play) during the 90 minutes. As soon as penalty kicks are in play the original caution ( given during the 90 minutes) does not carry over into penalty kicks. So a player would have to be cautioned twice during the penalty kicks to then be shown a red and be dismissed. If that player is then dismissed from the field of play (his team then only has 10 players eligible to take a penalty kick) the other team must also choose a player who would not take part in the penalty kicks (ie 10 v 10). A strange part of the Laws.

He carried on wasting time immediately after being booked for time wasting!
Weak refereeing, he should have gone.

 

[Gynnsthetonic]

VAR looks at an incident and if it looks too close to call to the naked eye, you go back to the on-field officials original ruling.

Anything that needs a slide rule and minutes of analysis, should be dumped.

It would be much fairer than having no VAR at all and wouldn't pee people off as much as VAR does right now.

Yesterday just happens to be the perfect example.

The ref said it was a goal, the linesman said it was a goal, the Man U players thought it was a goal, the City players and fans thought it was a goal and the Man U fans thought it was a goal too

Given that freeze frame, the VAR should immediately say "it's too close to call", stick with the on-field decision.

Ditch anything with miniscule interrogation (the technology is not good enough anyway). No drawing lines, unless it is to show someone was well offside. Not by a toenail. Clear on instant viewing. Something you can see in an instant.

There is still a decision to be made as to where you apply the ruling from in terms of distance etc,.but no one could look at that footage yesterday and say an obvious mistake had been made. No-one.

That's what VAR should be there for. Clear errors on the parts of the officials.

Got it in one Otis

 

[Adge]

He carried on wasting time immediately after being booked for time wasting!
Weak refereeing, he should have gone.

Thought Jones had a good game in all fairness.

 

[Ginny74]

Another view

 

[shmmeee]

A system using the GPS trackers they all wear.

Still an improvement

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

People again getting confused. He was cautioned (quite rightly) for time wasting (delaying the restart of play) during the 90 minutes. As soon as penalty kicks are in play the original caution ( given during the 90 minutes) does not carry over into penalty kicks. So a player would have to be cautioned twice during the penalty kicks to then be shown a red and be dismissed. If that player is then dismissed from the field of play (his team then only has 10 players eligible to take a penalty kick) the other team must also choose a player who would not take part in the penalty kicks (ie 10 v 10). A strange part of the Laws.

I'm not talking about the spot kicks, I'm talking about his booking for timewasting being immediately followed by more timewasting that went unpunished

 

[Adge]

I'm not talking about the spot kicks, I'm talking about his booking for timewasting being immediately followed by more timewasting that went unpunished

Oh right-I haven’t watched the game back yet

 

[shmmeee]

As soon as penalty kicks are in play the original caution ( given during the 90 minutes) does not carry over into penalty kicks.

But y tho?

 

[robbiethemole]

Another view

Again, why does the line go through Wan-Bissaka's boot and not from the front of it??

 

[Blind-Faith]

After watching the Forest game against Everton, it’s clear as day the system is corrupt and in favour of the bigger established clubs. What’s the actual point in trying to get far in cup competitions or up to the PL when they clearly don’t want us ( the lesser established teams ) there?

If it’s just for TV money and big bosses getting more £££ in their back pocket , let them all fuck off to the European super league and leave the proper football to us, the fans , the Saturday afternoon 3pm kick offs.

 

[itsabuzzard]

But y tho?

It's nuts. A licence to carry on being an arse.

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

If the asterix was intended for both, both should have an asterix. Some clarity from an official source would be really useful.

The example I gave isn’t that far from reality. It would mean there is no point a GK holding the ball whilst his ST ambles back in to position - the ST will remain offside until another player has touched the ball.

I know I’ve made the point to the chief operating officer

 

[skyblue1991]

My bad I’ll make the next one more innocent.

If you didn't have your profile pic as a sloth then I wouldn't have guessed it was you Boosh

Are you using the gym WiFi for your posts?

Sent from my Pixel 8 using Tapatalk

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

On every freeze frame I've ever seen for offside decisions on TV, it's always the initial moment the player's foot strikes the ball. It's never the point of release (i.e. when daylight appears between ball and foot).
The latter is more logical in some ways but if you changed it to that, it would disadvantage the attacker 9 times out of 10. The forward is usually the one running through and becoming more likely to be offside by the second.
Yesterday was unusual because Wan Bissaka (in a criminally poor bit of defending) was racing to play Haji onside!

Another good point that

 

[Sky Blue Pete]

But y tho?

Just how it goes

 

[shmmeee]

The whole attitude to pens is so weird. Game goes down as a draw. Cards are wiped. Goals scored don’t count in the stats. Just weird.

 

[MalcSB]

View attachment 35282

Still an improvement

LOL
I was assuming that the systems footballers use is more acurate, GPS probably being a misnomer. Thre wouldn’t be much point in producing player heatmaps if they were 3 metres out.