Opposition fans back from the game - 24/25 page 225 onwards

[Snowflake Royal]

Doesn't the offside rule contains something on the lines
of "with intent to gain an unfair advantage"?

Wasn't it originally brought in to stop goal-hanging.

IMO it shouldn't be "inches, but "immediately obvious"

as in a whole leg in front, or space between.


Thinking of this. Won't it mean a lot less goals from players "timing their run perfectly"?

If it's 99% "perfect" but the leading "running" hand is past the defender, then that's offside?

That is dumb!

We all know instinctively what is a reasonable offside call. We already have the ridiculous
sight of defenders blocking with (unnaturally) their hands behind their back.

Next we'll have players dreaming down the wing with their hands in their pockets

No it's not offside because you can't play the ball with your hand.

[Jagermesiter1871]

The thing I've never understood is the offside grid lines. Isn't VAR only supposed to be used to overrule clear and obvious wrong decisions? If you're having to draw grid lines I fail to see how thats clear and obvious. Am I missing something?

Tbf, I think this is a common misconception by fans and media.

I believe clear and obvious is supposed to relate to matters which have an element of subjectivity, like fouls.

In matters of fact, like offside, balls in touch, is the foul in the area and possibly even handball these days ( ) It's there to check the validity of goals etc and be the objective deciding factor, rather than just correct obvious mistakes.

Which is what leads to a mm of someone's armpit ruling out a goal.

I thought it must be something like that as it wasn't being spoken about much in the media. In that case, I think it needs to be amended to be it only corrects clear and obvious errors, whether matter of fact or not. i.e you have 3 replays and 10 seconds to make decision or something to that affect.

I don't think anyone really cared about mm offsides. It was the painfully obvious offsides or handballs etc that were missed that was the issue and what VAR is ideal for.

[Snowflake Royal]

The thing I've never understood is the offside grid lines. Isn't VAR only supposed to be used to overrule clear and obvious wrong decisions? If you're having to draw grid lines I fail to see how thats clear and obvious. Am I missing something?

Tbf, I think this is a common misconception by fans and media.

I believe clear and obvious is supposed to relate to matters which have an element of subjectivity, like fouls.

In matters of fact, like offside, balls in touch, is the foul in the area and possibly even handball these days ( ) It's there to check the validity of goals etc and be the objective deciding factor, rather than just correct obvious mistakes.

Which is what leads to a mm of someone's armpit ruling out a goal.

I thought it must be something like that as it wasn't being spoken about much in the media. In that case, I think it needs to be amended to be it only corrects clear and obvious errors, whether matter of fact or not. i.e you have 3 replays and 10 seconds to make decision or something to that affect.

I don't think anyone really cared about mm offsides. It was the painfully obvious offsides or handballs etc that were missed that was the issue and what VAR is ideal for.

Agree.

I'd go with my previous suggestion of sacking off lines and grids, Lino's doing what they've always done and just having a quick glance at some stills to see if it's obvious.

Similar with fouls. If you need 3 angles and super slow mo, it wasn't obvious.

[bcubed]

Tbf, I think this is a common misconception by fans and media.

I believe clear and obvious is supposed to relate to matters which have an element of subjectivity, like fouls.

In matters of fact, like offside, balls in touch, is the foul in the area and possibly even handball these days ( ) It's there to check the validity of goals etc and be the objective deciding factor, rather than just correct obvious mistakes.

Which is what leads to a mm of someone's armpit ruling out a goal.

I thought it must be something like that as it wasn't being spoken about much in the media. In that case, I think it needs to be amended to be it only corrects clear and obvious errors, whether matter of fact or not. i.e you have 3 replays and 10 seconds to make decision or something to that affect.

I don't think anyone really cared about mm offsides. It was the painfully obvious offsides or handballs etc that were missed that was the issue and what VAR is ideal for.

Agree.

I'd go with my previous suggestion of sacking off lines and grids, Lino's doing what they've always done and just having a quick glance at some stills to see if it's obvious.

Similar with fouls. If you need 3 angles and super slow mo, it wasn't obvious.

But what is the quick glance looking for? What’s obvious?
Are you happy if two players’ bodies are in line but the forward happens to have his hand in front of the defender? Does that give him an advantage? Isn’t that what offside was brought in for?

I think you do need clear definitions, whatever they are. And that shouldn’t be it’s offside if you are mms ahead. NFL has very clear (not perfect) rules and on review of plays most experts agree because the rules are clear.

[Snowflake Royal]

I thought it must be something like that as it wasn't being spoken about much in the media. In that case, I think it needs to be amended to be it only corrects clear and obvious errors, whether matter of fact or not. i.e you have 3 replays and 10 seconds to make decision or something to that affect.

I don't think anyone really cared about mm offsides. It was the painfully obvious offsides or handballs etc that were missed that was the issue and what VAR is ideal for.

Agree.

I'd go with my previous suggestion of sacking off lines and grids, Lino's doing what they've always done and just having a quick glance at some stills to see if it's obvious.

Similar with fouls. If you need 3 angles and super slow mo, it wasn't obvious.

But what is the quick glance looking for? What’s obvious?
Are you happy if two players’ bodies are in line but the forward happens to have his hand in front of the defender? Does that give him an advantage? Isn’t that what offside was brought in for?

I think you do need clear definitions, whatever they are. And that shouldn’t be it’s offside if you are mms ahead. NFL has very clear (not perfect) rules and on review of plays most experts agree because the rules are clear.

I think the rules are fine. If any part of a player that they can use to score with is offside, it's offside. Hand has never and doesn't count.

What I'm talking about is going with the pitchside officials decision unless it is clearly wrong. Can you, at a relative glance, see with certainty a relevant part of the player was offside without the benefit of computer generated lines? Yes? Cool, offside. Marginal? No, not offside.

[bcubed]

Agree.

I'd go with my previous suggestion of sacking off lines and grids, Lino's doing what they've always done and just having a quick glance at some stills to see if it's obvious.

Similar with fouls. If you need 3 angles and super slow mo, it wasn't obvious.

But what is the quick glance looking for? What’s obvious?
Are you happy if two players’ bodies are in line but the forward happens to have his hand in front of the defender? Does that give him an advantage? Isn’t that what offside was brought in for?

I think you do need clear definitions, whatever they are. And that shouldn’t be it’s offside if you are mms ahead. NFL has very clear (not perfect) rules and on review of plays most experts agree because the rules are clear.

I think the rules are fine. If any part of a player that they can use to score with is offside, it's offside. Hand has never and doesn't count.

What I'm talking about is going with the pitchside officials decision unless it is clearly wrong. Can you, at a relative glance, see with certainty a relevant part of the player was offside without the benefit of computer generated lines? Yes? Cool, offside. Marginal? No, not offside.

My use of the word hand was unfortunate, but substitute knee or toe and my point is that same. Is it advantageous? I don’t think the rules are fine and if they were I don’t think there be would be so much difficulty interpreting them.

Agree to disagree on that one

[Snowflake Royal]

But what is the quick glance looking for? What’s obvious?
Are you happy if two players’ bodies are in line but the forward happens to have his hand in front of the defender? Does that give him an advantage? Isn’t that what offside was brought in for?

I think you do need clear definitions, whatever they are. And that shouldn’t be it’s offside if you are mms ahead. NFL has very clear (not perfect) rules and on review of plays most experts agree because the rules are clear.

I think the rules are fine. If any part of a player that they can use to score with is offside, it's offside. Hand has never and doesn't count.

What I'm talking about is going with the pitchside officials decision unless it is clearly wrong. Can you, at a relative glance, see with certainty a relevant part of the player was offside without the benefit of computer generated lines? Yes? Cool, offside. Marginal? No, not offside.

My use of the word hand was unfortunate, but substitute knee or toe and my point is that same. Is it advantageous? I don’t think the rules are fine and if they were I don’t think there be would be so much difficulty interpreting them.

Agree to disagree on that one

Rules were fine for decades bar blind lines so I don't see why they need to be changed.

[bcubed]

I think the rules are fine. If any part of a player that they can use to score with is offside, it's offside. Hand has never and doesn't count.

What I'm talking about is going with the pitchside officials decision unless it is clearly wrong. Can you, at a relative glance, see with certainty a relevant part of the player was offside without the benefit of computer generated lines? Yes? Cool, offside. Marginal? No, not offside.

My use of the word hand was unfortunate, but substitute knee or toe and my point is that same. Is it advantageous? I don’t think the rules are fine and if they were I don’t think there be would be so much difficulty interpreting them.

Agree to disagree on that one

Rules were fine for decades bar blind lines so I don't see why they need to be changed.

I think there were always some poor decisions and presumably this is why it was felt necessary to include offside decisions in VAR as well?

Anyway don’t think we will agree on this

[NewCorkSeth]

Agree.

I'd go with my previous suggestion of sacking off lines and grids, Lino's doing what they've always done and just having a quick glance at some stills to see if it's obvious.

Similar with fouls. If you need 3 angles and super slow mo, it wasn't obvious.

But what is the quick glance looking for? What’s obvious?
Are you happy if two players’ bodies are in line but the forward happens to have his hand in front of the defender? Does that give him an advantage? Isn’t that what offside was brought in for?

I think you do need clear definitions, whatever they are. And that shouldn’t be it’s offside if you are mms ahead. NFL has very clear (not perfect) rules and on review of plays most experts agree because the rules are clear.

I think the rules are fine. If any part of a player that they can use to score with is offside, it's offside. Hand has never and doesn't count.

What I'm talking about is going with the pitchside officials decision unless it is clearly wrong. Can you, at a relative glance, see with certainty a relevant part of the player was offside without the benefit of computer generated lines? Yes? Cool, offside. Marginal? No, not offside.

The rules are not fine though are they? Because the technology isn't perfect and the rule only works if it is. You still get ridiculous offside calls that, based on the angle of the camera, could go either way. They dont have a 360 view of each infraction so have to make a call on what they think is the closest body part.

Its happened a few times already. The defenders line has been drawn at his foot when his shoulder turned out to actually be closer and that would have left a player onside.

And Villa had a goal ruled offside because a players upper arm was offside despite the fact it was only offside because he was being wrestled by a player. The fact they can rule out a goal for being 1mm offside but not use the same footage they just watched to give a penalty for the foul that led to said player being offside is dumb.

I understand you are saying the rule is the rule, if you are a fraction offside you are still offside. I get it. Thats undeniably true. Which is why I think they need to change the rule. Its no longer in the spirit of the game. There should be a buffer zone of some sort so that games aren't being ruined due to 1mm of a shoulder or a toe being closer to the goal.

[bcubed]

But what is the quick glance looking for? What’s obvious?
Are you happy if two players’ bodies are in line but the forward happens to have his hand in front of the defender? Does that give him an advantage? Isn’t that what offside was brought in for?

I think you do need clear definitions, whatever they are. And that shouldn’t be it’s offside if you are mms ahead. NFL has very clear (not perfect) rules and on review of plays most experts agree because the rules are clear.

I think the rules are fine. If any part of a player that they can use to score with is offside, it's offside. Hand has never and doesn't count.

What I'm talking about is going with the pitchside officials decision unless it is clearly wrong. Can you, at a relative glance, see with certainty a relevant part of the player was offside without the benefit of computer generated lines? Yes? Cool, offside. Marginal? No, not offside.

The rules are not fine though are they? Because the technology isn't perfect and the rule only works if it is. You still get ridiculous offside calls that, based on the angle of the camera, could go either way. They dont have a 360 view of each infraction so have to make a call on what they think is the closest body part.

Its happened a few times already. The defenders line has been drawn at his foot when his shoulder turned out to actually be closer and that would have left a player onside.

And Villa had a goal ruled offside because a players upper arm was offside despite the fact it was only offside because he was being wrestled by a player. The fact they can rule out a goal for being 1mm offside but not use the same footage they just watched to give a penalty for the foul that led to said player being offside is dumb.

I understand you are saying the rule is the rule, if you are a fraction offside you are still offside. I get it. Thats undeniably true. Which is why I think they need to change the rule. Its no longer in the spirit of the game. There should be a buffer zone of some sort so that games aren't being ruined due to 1mm of a shoulder or a toe being closer to the goal.

Well quite
What I said on previous page
The rule doesn’t do what it set out to

[Snowflake Royal]

My use of the word hand was unfortunate, but substitute knee or toe and my point is that same. Is it advantageous? I don’t think the rules are fine and if they were I don’t think there be would be so much difficulty interpreting them.

Agree to disagree on that one

Rules were fine for decades bar blind lines so I don't see why they need to be changed.

I think there were always some poor decisions and presumably this is why it was felt necessary to include offside decisions in VAR as well?

Anyway don’t think we will agree on this

The poor decisions were always about the Lino's ability to tell if someone was offside in real time, not the rule itself. So it was the lino getting it wrong, not the rules getting it wrong.

Currently there's not really any mistakes with whether a player is offside or not by the rules, it's how the technology is making marginal calls, which are technically correct, but disrupt the game.

[Snowflake Royal]

I think the rules are fine. If any part of a player that they can use to score with is offside, it's offside. Hand has never and doesn't count.

What I'm talking about is going with the pitchside officials decision unless it is clearly wrong. Can you, at a relative glance, see with certainty a relevant part of the player was offside without the benefit of computer generated lines? Yes? Cool, offside. Marginal? No, not offside.

The rules are not fine though are they? Because the technology isn't perfect and the rule only works if it is. You still get ridiculous offside calls that, based on the angle of the camera, could go either way. They dont have a 360 view of each infraction so have to make a call on what they think is the closest body part.

Its happened a few times already. The defenders line has been drawn at his foot when his shoulder turned out to actually be closer and that would have left a player onside.

And Villa had a goal ruled offside because a players upper arm was offside despite the fact it was only offside because he was being wrestled by a player. The fact they can rule out a goal for being 1mm offside but not use the same footage they just watched to give a penalty for the foul that led to said player being offside is dumb.

I understand you are saying the rule is the rule, if you are a fraction offside you are still offside. I get it. Thats undeniably true. Which is why I think they need to change the rule. Its no longer in the spirit of the game. There should be a buffer zone of some sort so that games aren't being ruined due to 1mm of a shoulder or a toe being closer to the goal.

Well quite
What I said on previous page
The rule doesn’t do what it set out to

My point is, if you change the rule, you have the same problem. The tech will still involve drawing lines and making millimetre decisions

Has to be at least two inches offside? Still done to the mm, with fans and officials unable to really see the difference between one and the other. You just move the dispute from level to 2 inches.

Torsos only? Still get your ridiculous mm decisions but with torsos.

My suggestion solves the actual problem, the (mis)use of the tech, by using an 'official's call' element and making it based purely on a human look at a picture, is it clear and obvious? Yes / No.

This is specifically about offside. Complaints about whether being pushed offside or a foul should be given are a completely different question that needs to be addressed differently.

It's about problem statements.

1)
Problem: Linesman are making mistakes and missing too many clear offside
Solution: Introduce technology assistance. Not change rule, it doesn't make linesman more accurate.

2)
Problem: Technology is making marginal decisions that is ruining the game.
Solution: Change implementation of technology. Changing the rule doesn't change the issue, which is the implementation of the technology

[SCIAG]

The answer should be to say "In order to award a penalty you must feel CERTAIN it was a penalty.

Same with handball

If in doubt, don't award

I would rather it was harder to win a penalty
and there were less of them

Do you think referees currently are just guessing? They give fouls because they think they're fouls.

Frankly not enough penalties are awarded at present. Defenders get away with far too much cheating. I can see the case for making the penalty area smaller, which would both stop goalkeepers having such a disproportionate influence and stop penalties being awarded for fouls that are really quite far from goal, but the rules shouldn't favour defenders cheating. Football has come a long way in recent years to stamp out the ugly brutality we used to see, but there's still work to be done.

Why not have the penalty taken from the spot the foul is committed rather than having a penalty spot in the middle of goal 12 yds out? Or move the penalty spot back 3 or 6 yds?

My biggest bug bear is all the wrestling at corners and set pieces. You can be assaulted and nothing is given whereas a forward running towards goal gets minimal contact and it’s a penalty.

Good ideas. Issue is that if the foul is sufficiently close or at a tight enough angle then it becomes too hard to score. A foul one metre out, you can just put the goalkeeper right in front and make it hard.

The need to change the offside and handball laws before I will ever be in favour of VAR.

What pisses me off about VAR - apart from the complete incompetence and time it takes - is that in the 'olden days' one was offside if one's feet were in advance of the last but one defender ... when did all this new fangled 'elbow/knee/fingertip' nonsense creep into the rules? And then waiting for an eternity for the GPS blue line to work it out - assuming the editor stops the frame the exact moment the ball has any forward momentum?

Utter shite and killing the game. Let refs ref - even if they do get it wrong, the vast majority will give it as they see it and footy would be far better for it.

You have always been given offside if any part of the body which can play the ball has been offside. You cannot play the ball with your elbow or fingertip so this does not lead to you being given offside. Some of the decisions involving chests or armpits have been a bit silly and I don't think a real assistant would give them, but knees and heads, yes.

[Notts Royal]

Not wanting VAR because sometimes bad decisions are made is like not wanting a police service because some of them are dicks.

It is genuinely mind boggling to me how anyone can think there isn’t a reduction in poor decisions with VAR.

The only argument I do get is how it can slow the game down.

It might have led to a reduction in poor decisions, but it’s led to the increase in bizarre decisions such as offsides that no one would have batted an eyelid on previously, like he Watkins offside the other week. VAR was meant to be used for clear and obvious errors...what it has highlighted is that there’s so many subjective decisions to be made.

It was subjective before, it’s subjective now. It’s a subjective sport. Therefore, just let referees ref the games. And let us all celebrate a goal properly, as the enjoyment is what it’s all about at the end of the day

[Millsy]

Not wanting VAR because sometimes bad decisions are made is like not wanting a police service because some of them are dicks.

It is genuinely mind boggling to me how anyone can think there isn’t a reduction in poor decisions with VAR.

The only argument I do get is how it can slow the game down.

It might have led to a reduction in poor decisions, but it’s led to the increase in bizarre decisions such as offsides that no one would have batted an eyelid on previously, like he Watkins offside the other week. VAR was meant to be used for clear and obvious errors...what it has highlighted is that there’s so many subjective decisions to be made.

It was subjective before, it’s subjective now. It’s a subjective sport. Therefore, just let referees ref the games. And let us all celebrate a goal properly, as the enjoyment is what it’s all about at the end of the day

Playing with words. Overall there will be a reduction in bad decisions: wrong, bizarre, harsh or whatever.

On top of that, not factored into the number of bad decisions will be the reduction in the actual number of fouls/dives/play acting committed knowing there are cameras on you all the time. Just can't get away with stuff anymore, so the game is played more cleanly. Certainly doesn't suit the Portuguese et al. A similar thing was observed in rugby when playing dirty was punished and my South African mates still complain about their inability to cheat to this day.

You rightly touch on the enjoyment of the game though I give you that. The ONLY half-reasonable argument as far as I'm concerned, is how it slows down the game but it's not enough to stop it in my opinion. Improve it, yes, but go back to medieval dinosaur referee lottery that we see week in week out in the champ. No thanks.

[bcubed]

Not wanting VAR because sometimes bad decisions are made is like not wanting a police service because some of them are dicks.

It is genuinely mind boggling to me how anyone can think there isn’t a reduction in poor decisions with VAR.

The only argument I do get is how it can slow the game down.

It might have led to a reduction in poor decisions, but it’s led to the increase in bizarre decisions such as offsides that no one would have batted an eyelid on previously, like he Watkins offside the other week. VAR was meant to be used for clear and obvious errors...what it has highlighted is that there’s so many subjective decisions to be made.

It was subjective before, it’s subjective now. It’s a subjective sport. Therefore, just let referees ref the games. And let us all celebrate a goal properly, as the enjoyment is what it’s all about at the end of the day

Playing with words. Overall there will be a reduction in bad decisions: wrong, bizarre, harsh or whatever.

On top of that, not factored into the number of bad decisions will be the reduction in the actual number of fouls/dives/play acting committed knowing there are cameras on you all the time. Just can't get away with stuff anymore, so the game is played more cleanly. Certainly doesn't suit the Portuguese et al. A similar thing was observed in rugby when playing dirty was punished and my South African mates still complain about their inability to cheat to this day.

You rightly touch on the enjoyment of the game though I give you that. The ONLY half-reasonable argument as far as I'm concerned, is how it slows down the game but it's not enough to stop it in my opinion. Improve it, yes, but go back to medieval dinosaur referee lottery that we see week in week out in the champ. No thanks.

But is there any evidence that there has been a reduction in fouls dives and play acting as a result of VAR?

[Snowflake Royal]

Probably a bit early for that, it's halfway through its second season only.

And it'd be helped if it was actually used well for that time.

[bcubed]

Probably a bit early for that, it's halfway through its second season only.

And it'd be helped if it was actually used well for that time.

Agree but it’s what Millsy was suggesting was happening, if I was reading it right

[Zip]

Not wanting VAR because sometimes bad decisions are made is like not wanting a police service because some of them are dicks.

It is genuinely mind boggling to me how anyone can think there isn’t a reduction in poor decisions with VAR.

The only argument I do get is how it can slow the game down.

It might have led to a reduction in poor decisions, but it’s led to the increase in bizarre decisions such as offsides that no one would have batted an eyelid on previously, like he Watkins offside the other week. VAR was meant to be used for clear and obvious errors...what it has highlighted is that there’s so many subjective decisions to be made.

It was subjective before, it’s subjective now. It’s a subjective sport. Therefore, just let referees ref the games. And let us all celebrate a goal properly, as the enjoyment is what it’s all about at the end of the day

Playing with words. Overall there will be a reduction in bad decisions: wrong, bizarre, harsh or whatever.

On top of that, not factored into the number of bad decisions will be the reduction in the actual number of fouls/dives/play acting committed knowing there are cameras on you all the time. Just can't get away with stuff anymore, so the game is played more cleanly. Certainly doesn't suit the Portuguese et al. A similar thing was observed in rugby when playing dirty was punished and my South African mates still complain about their inability to cheat to this day.

You rightly touch on the enjoyment of the game though I give you that. The ONLY half-reasonable argument as far as I'm concerned, is how it slows down the game but it's not enough to stop it in my opinion. Improve it, yes, but go back to medieval dinosaur referee lottery that we see week in week out in the champ. No thanks.

A big +1 to this

[Lower West]

It might have led to a reduction in poor decisions, but it’s led to the increase in bizarre decisions such as offsides that no one would have batted an eyelid on previously, like he Watkins offside the other week. VAR was meant to be used for clear and obvious errors...what it has highlighted is that there’s so many subjective decisions to be made.

It was subjective before, it’s subjective now. It’s a subjective sport. Therefore, just let referees ref the games. And let us all celebrate a goal properly, as the enjoyment is what it’s all about at the end of the day

Playing with words. Overall there will be a reduction in bad decisions: wrong, bizarre, harsh or whatever.

On top of that, not factored into the number of bad decisions will be the reduction in the actual number of fouls/dives/play acting committed knowing there are cameras on you all the time. Just can't get away with stuff anymore, so the game is played more cleanly. Certainly doesn't suit the Portuguese et al. A similar thing was observed in rugby when playing dirty was punished and my South African mates still complain about their inability to cheat to this day.

You rightly touch on the enjoyment of the game though I give you that. The ONLY half-reasonable argument as far as I'm concerned, is how it slows down the game but it's not enough to stop it in my opinion. Improve it, yes, but go back to medieval dinosaur referee lottery that we see week in week out in the champ. No thanks.

But is there any evidence that there has been a reduction in fouls dives and play acting as a result of VAR?

Soon be like American Football where it takes hours to actually play 60 minutes. Every time the ball goes dead, they'll need to be a review of that period of action.