The Emirates FA Cup Final Chelsea v Leicester City ** Spoilers ** [15th May 2021]

There should have To be daylight for an offside decision none of this his elbow was offside nonsense it is killing the game.

Great result for Leicester, a lovely moment for Wes Morgan and a goal fit to win any game!
 
StevieP said:
You mean like the perfectly enjoyable entire history of football until VAR came in? Unfair how - as long as both teams are subject to the same rules, how can it be unfair?

All I'm saying is that I preferred the days when the attacking player was given the benefit of the doubt.
Click to expand...

Well it's unfair as the Chelsea goal would likely have stood. I mean it's pretty obvious...

Why is there such uproar? He's offside. It isn't even close.
 
a1ex2001 said:
There should have To be daylight for an offside decision none of this his elbow was offside nonsense it is killing the game.

Great result for Leicester, a lovely moment for Wes Morgan and a goal fit to win any game!
Click to expand...
Not only would this not fix anything re var, it would end up making football worse. The moment you give forwards a bigger advantage, defensive lines will drop deeper, making the game more defensive and dull.
 
BaZ87 said:
Not only would this not fix anything re var, it would end up making football worse. The moment you give forwards a bigger advantage, defensive lines will drop deeper, making the game more defensive and dull.
Click to expand...
I disagree with regards to VAR it would make the decision much clearer and more understandable the idea that a forward is getting an unfair advantage when his elbow is offside is bonkers the debate is much more palatable with daylight.
 
a1ex2001 said:
I disagree with regards to VAR it would make the decision much clearer and more understandable the idea that a forward is getting an unfair advantage when his elbow is offside is bonkers the debate is much more palatable with daylight.
Click to expand...
How does it make it any clearer? It's still a fixed line you're just moving the line.
 
a1ex2001 said:
I disagree with regards to VAR it would make the decision much clearer and more understandable the idea that a forward I’d getting an unfair advantage when his elbow is offside is bonkers the debate is much more palatable with daylight.
Click to expand...
Nobody complained about elbows being offside before VAR though. The only reason we're seeing so many complaints is because of the delays and uncertainty. The delays and uncertainty would still happen with your daylight idea. And to top things off we'll see a far more defensive & boring match.
 
Shamikebab said:
Why do we have linesmen then? If we don't have them it's equally (un)fair to both teams. I love how you seem to think the 'perfectly enjoyable entire history of football' didn't have games ruined by decisions.
Click to expand...

A ref and 2 linesmen - something wrong with that? And yes, I remember watching football before VAR and I remember enjoying it just fine thanks! If you re-read my post you will see that I didn't mean the games were 'perfect', I said they were 'perfectly enjoyable' - ie. more watchable than having a 2mm "offside" being called where no clear advantage has been attained.

Just my opinion mate, clearly yours is different and I'm fine with that! :D
 
planty said:
The wording of the law for offsides makes no mention of clear and obvious. It's either offside or he isn't. In this case he was offside. The drawing of lines, while necessary, wasn't even needed in this case, on the freeze frame it was clear to the naked eye.
Stop harping on about rugby, it's completely different.
Click to expand...

You're right it's different....it's a sport that has come to a sensible set of rules regarding video replays over years of iteratio that everyone, fans and players alike is pretty much happy with and rarely gets in the way of a good sporting event.

Clear and obvious is in the laws of rugby, because it went through this stage of using VAR to make sure decisions were 100% technically correct and everyone agreed it was awful and killed off the enjoyment of the game...so the rules evolved to strike the right balance between catching every minor transgression, and actually having an entertaining sport to watch.

Football will get there eventually. In the meantime we'll just have the put up with the 'drama' of VAR :rolleyes:
 
mid_gen said:
You're right it's different....it's a sport that has come to a sensible set of rules regarding video replays over years of iteratio that everyone, fans and players alike is pretty much happy with and rarely gets in the way of a good sporting event.

Clear and obvious is in the laws of rugby, because it went through this stage of using VAR to make sure decisions were 100% technically correct and everyone agreed it was awful and killed off the enjoyment of the game...so the rules evolved to strike the right balance between catching every minor transgression, and actually having an entertaining sport to watch.

Football will get there eventually. In the meantime we'll just have the put up with the 'drama' of VAR :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Still waiting for your definition of what clear and obvious means in the context of offside.
 
I expect that if they could get all the cameras in all the rugby grounds like in football they would use it for offsides and forward passes. I enjoy watching rugby matches and have no issue with the way rugby matches are refereed.

Comparing two sports with two totally different rules is meaningless though, it's like me going in to a rugby thread and complaining that the referees don't get as many correct decisions as in cricket.

The thing I'd like to change is just take the offside measurement from the feet only. It's much clearer that way, and doesn't penalise the attackers leaning towards goal.
 
Shamikebab said:
Still waiting for your definition of what clear and obvious means in the context of offside.
Click to expand...

More than someone's armpit being 2mm closer to the goal.

That aside though, you seem to be missing my point - as a spectator sport I am finding it worse with VAR than it was without (as are the vast majority of people I know) - yes it may be 'rose-tinted glasses' and I'm sure there have been decisions that referee's have missed that had annoyed the hell out of me in the past, but the joy of celebrating a goal has suffered dramatically because of VAR! (for players as well as fans!)

Also, there was a handball just before the Leicester goal - why wasn't that looked at by VAR? It's not even consistent!
 
A hyperthetical scenario for those complaining about the VAR decision today. Rewind 5 years, where we had no VAR, the goal is given and Chelsea go on to win in extra time. What do you think the reaction would have been to that goal?

There would have been huge controversy with shouts of Leicester being robbed and calls for.........the introduction of video technology.
mid_gen said:
...
Click to expand...
No, what football will do is end up with 100% correct decisions being made instantly through AI & limb tracking technology. It's being finalised as we speak and is likely to be ready for the 2022 WC.

I'm sure Rugby and other sports will benefit from the huge financial investment football has put into this and will adopt it in future too.
 
Shamikebab said:
Still waiting for your definition of what clear and obvious means in the context of offside.
Click to expand...

That is the definition. Fortunately referees have these things called brains and they understand what the words mean. It is a system that works.

It means that you don't see game-defining moments decided by someone straying a few centimetres into what is technically an illegal position, even though the advantage they gained from accidentally straying a touch offside is utterly inconsequential.

That isn't sport. That's accountancy.
 
StevieP said:
Also, there was a handball just before the Leicester goal - why wasn't that looked at by VAR? It's not even consistent!
Click to expand...
As far as I'm aware for accidental handball to be given it needs to be immediately before scoring, i.e. the assist or the scorer - it also ricocheted off of his leg before hitting his hand which provides some sort of leniency.
 
mid_gen said:
That is the definition. Fortunately referees have these things called brains and they understand what the words mean. It is a system that works.

It means that you don't see game-defining moments decided by someone straying a few centimetres into what is technically an illegal position, even though the advantage they gained from accidentally straying a touch offside is utterly inconsequential.

That isn't sport. That's accountancy.
Click to expand...

But instead you get game-defining moments decided by how the ref feels on the day, that sounds much better...
 
planty said:
As far as I'm aware for accidental handball to be given it needs to be immediately before scoring, i.e. the assist or the scorer - it also ricocheted off of his leg before hitting his hand which provides some sort of leniency.
Click to expand...

Correct, there were 8 seconds between the accidental handball and tielemans screamer, so no need for VAR.
 
Shamikebab said:
But instead you get game-defining moments decided by how the ref feels on the day, that sounds much better...
Click to expand...

Yeah because ref's make calls based on how they feel rather than their professional judgement!

I'm not entirely against the idea of VAR, it's the implementation that I feel leaves a lot to be desired! I'd like to see all but 'clear and obvious' errors left up to the referee and the two assistants - again, in my opinion, the decision today was too close to call it 'clear and obvious' (supported by the fact that neither the referee or the referee's assistant saw anything wrong!)
 
StevieP said:
Yeah because ref's make calls based on how they feel rather than their professional judgement!

I'm not entirely against the idea of VAR, it's the implementation that I feel leaves a lot to be desired! I'd like to see all but 'clear and obvious' errors left up to the referee and the two assistants - again, in my opinion, the decision today was too close to call it 'clear and obvious' (supported by the fact that neither the referee or the referee's assistant saw anything wrong!)
Click to expand...

If your argument for 'clear and obvious' is that the officials didn't see anything wrong then there is no point having VAR to start with as you would never overturn anything?!

And once again, the 'clear and obvious error' is not applied to offside decisions as they are not subjective.
 
StevieP said:
Yeah because ref's make calls based on how they feel rather than their professional judgement!

I'm not entirely against the idea of VAR, it's the implementation that I feel leaves a lot to be desired! I'd like to see all but 'clear and obvious' errors left up to the referee and the two assistants - again, in my opinion, the decision today was too close to call it 'clear and obvious' (supported by the fact that neither the referee or the referee's assistant saw anything wrong!)
Click to expand...
If they can make VAR real time so refs are no longer calling offsides or handballs then I might not dislike it quite so much but for me what was supposed to fix the game and stop the debates has just made the whole situation worse. We should be talking football and a great win for Leicester but the technology is the taking point. Maybe we need an umpires call like in cricket!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom