Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
More to the point there is a natural break in play after every delivery.
Cricket where there’s an area of doubt goes with the referee original call it just doesn’t work in football
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.More to the point there is a natural break in play after every delivery.
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.
Again, macca, I disagree.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.
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.
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.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
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.
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.
Surely as an absolute minimum you've got to allow for the margin of error in the system. They aren't even doing that.Then you get into debates about what is obvious and what is clear
You can't exactly for sure, but we can't have decisions that take several minutes.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.
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!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 am 99% certain they wouldn't.
Surely as an absolute minimum you've got to allow for the margin of error in the system. They aren't even doing that.
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.they pull every last decision apart
Nope. Not to that degree they don't. Never ever seen them do that before. Not to micromilimetres.they pull every last decision apart
Exactly. It's nothing like the degree VAR is taking it to.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'.
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?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
That is an absolute joke. Was that in one of today's games?
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?
You know they wouldI am 99% certain they wouldn't.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?