Poll: VAR or No VAR?
- Thread starter BaZ87
- Start date
What's 'clearly' offside? 10cm? 20cm? 50cm? There has to be a set margin or else you'll be getting inconsistent decisions so lets just say it's 20cm for arguments sake. We're still going to spend 5 minutes and need a maths degree to see whether somebody's armpit hair is 19.9cm on/offside or whether they're 20.1cm on/offside. So we're still going to have the exact same delays as before, just that we're going to move the line to a different position. The only difference to now would be we'd be getting fewer decisions correct.
I voted no var.
So you want to go through all the same delays as now and then make the wrong decision? That's bonkers Rob.
It wouldn't be like DRS in cricket though. They use a margin of error when predicting the path of the ball. Whether somebody is on or offside isn't a prediction, it's a fact. If we're going to start delaying the game to measure whether somebody is 19cm offside or 21cm offside and still end up making the wrong decision then scrap var. You would be getting all the pain of VAR with no benefit at all. It makes no sense whatsoever.
So there will be no set margin of error, it will just be off the cuff, that's on and that's off? So you're going to still have delays, albeit not quite as long, you'll still be making wrong decisions but they will just be hugely inconsistent as one officials 'clear' will be different to anothers (without a set margin of error) and as a result it will become even more controversial. At least as it stands, it's even for everybody. Sorry but this would be the absolute worst outcome imo. I can't see how we can use VAR like this successfully, it's either all or nothing.
As I asked earlier, what is clear and obvious with offsides? One week the VAR official will look at something and say it was a clear mistake and the next, a near identical decision will decide it wasn't a clear mistake. The whole point of using technology will be lost. The only reason for using it is to get more correct decisions so it's a more consistent and fairer game. Also due to the camera angles, without the use of the hawkeye technology, a TV replay could make something look clearly on/off when in fact it's clearly off/on.
They don't pick and choose what gets reviewed. They check every goal for an offside or foul in the build-up, all penalty appeals and possible red cards.
The fact that he didn't handle the ball is one very big reason. The 2nd reason is that this crazy handball rule doesn't apply if the ball travels a long distance and or multiple passes before the goal.
As I said in the matchday thread yesterday, this isn't an issue with VAR. The issue is with the offside rule. It's very possible that the issues that have been highlighted because of VAR will lead to a change in the offside rule. I don't think you'll find anybody that thinks these armpit decisions should be offside however under the current rules they are and VAR has no choice but to uphold them.
I agree they weren't clear and obvious but I 100% disagree with the idea that we should only use VAR for clear and obvious errors in regards to offsides. My view is you either don't use it at all or you use it to get as close to all decisions correct as possible. Whether it's using a margin of error or your suggestion of the ref going and looking at the replay, it won't improve anything.
There's 2 reasons why we shouldn't use VAR, it takes too long to make decisions and it kills the emotion of celebrating a goal, not knowing if it will stand or not. That's countered by 1 big reason for using VAR, we get as many major decisions correct as humanly possible. The current VAR system for offsides is resulting in as many correct decisions as possible but the delays and uncertainty are making it terrible for supporters. What you're suggesting or others wanting a set margin of error would still result in delays and uncertainty for supporters but to make things worse, we'd not be getting many more correct decisions than not using VAR at all.
Re your next post and motd pundits. This is one of the biggest issues with VAR, most pundits are morons and have no idea about the rules and VAR.
edit: When you actually look at what most people are annoyed with re var and offsides, it's that it's highlighted an issue with the offside rule. The issue is the offside rule, not VAR and that may and hopefully will be addressed at some point in the future.
They have to mark the furthest point of the attacker and defender.
The only issue with the technology is the frame rate but this is still massively more accurate than any linesman's ability to make a correct call. Sky done something with Carragher and Neville on officials and linesmen basically admitted that they have to guess whether a player is on or off for close decisions because they physically can't look at the player playing the pass and the furthest forward attacker at the same time.
I'm not up with the latest tech to know whether a computer can judge the exact point your arm joins your shoulder. Is their potential for the VAR official to plot the points incorrectly? Yes but possibility of that is no where near as great as the possibility that a linesman makes a mistake.
Until somebody can come up with an alternative system or implementation of the current system that doesn't involve delays and uncertainty or produces more accurate decisions then imo our choices are this or nothing.
Until somebody can come up with an alternative system or implementation of the current system that doesn't involve delays and uncertainty or produces more accurate decisions then imo our choices are this or nothing.
If you can find it, watch the Carragher/Neville thing they done with the PL's officials. As I mentioned above, they pretty much admitted that they are having to make educated guesses on decisions. For example, by the time they've seen the pass played and look back to the last defender, if the attacker looks only slightly offside they will assume that at the point the pass was actually played they were most likely level.
There are obviously the odd decision that's massively on or offside but the vast majority of wrong decisions that they make are extremely tight calls. If we're not going to use the technology for these tight calls then there's practically no point in using it at all. VAR will still have to check every decisions, even if it just sticks with the linesman's call, but we'll only be getting 1% more decisions correct.
This would be the worst thing imaginable for me! We'd spend just as long determining whether somebody's armpit is 10cm on or offside as we do now, supporters will still be left not knowing whether they can celebrate or not and then end up making the wrong decision.
Using the daylight idea or what Souness suggested last night, where they flip the rule so that as long as one small part of the attacker is onside then he's onside, has other consequences too.
At the start of the season everybody noticed how Liverpool were playing an even higher defensive line and one journo wrote about it, stating that it was something we've done because of VAR. The club were confident that tight offsides would now 100% be given so were confident enough to play higher up the pitch. What do you think teams will start doing if the rules where changed to allow attacker to basically have a 1 yard head start on defenders before being offside? It would be near impossible to defend balls in behind so teams will just drop to the edge of the box and we'll see far less attacking football as we do now.
At the start of the season everybody noticed how Liverpool were playing an even higher defensive line and one journo wrote about it, stating that it was something we've done because of VAR. The club were confident that tight offsides would now 100% be given so were confident enough to play higher up the pitch. What do you think teams will start doing if the rules where changed to allow attacker to basically have a 1 yard head start on defenders before being offside? It would be near impossible to defend balls in behind so teams will just drop to the edge of the box and we'll see far less attacking football as we do now.
No, it is true. The fact is that Liverpool have gone on to win games/pick up points at times when VAR has gone against them so those VAR decisions haven't influenced that make believe table.
Brighton have had the most net VAR decisions go in their favour and Utd the 2nd most
I used Liverpool as an example of one of the flaws in these tables. How many other sides have won games despite a VAR decision going against them? You can't say a side has benefitted more from VAR simply because they've still gone on to win a game despite a decision going against them. Also as HangTime points out, you cannot assume that nothing else would have changed if these decisions weren't made.
The only measure that has any meaning is the net number of VAR decisions that have gone in favour or against a side and as I said, Brighton have had the most with Utd joint 2nd. Brighton and Utd, along with Palace and Watford are also the only sides that have had a VAR decision go in their favour that the PGMOL have since admitted were the wrong decisions too.
Offsides or penalty/red card decisions? We are getting correct offside decisions, we just don't like the offside rule. VAR for pens and red cards is a lucky dip though - you see a very soft foul given by VAR like the City penalty vs Wolves but then you see a nailed on penalty not given the next game.
Anything to support this having happened?
A linesman might blink at the moment somebody plays a pass, we should get rid of linesmen.
I wasn't asking you to explain why it's possible that they could make a mistake, I asked whether you had any evidence to suggest that they had selected the wrong frame or pixel. To my knowledge none of these close calls have been anything like 1 or 2mm on/offside. We exaggerate when we see the lines drawn on the TV pictures and as somebody explained before, the lines are widened so it's clearer for TV purposes, the problem with this is it makes close calls look even closer than they are. These close calls are likely to have been several cm's offside.
Is the technology 100% perfect? No. Is it 100x more accurate than a human linesman? Yes.
Based on the most accurate measure we have, the decisions have been correct. Again, the issue is people don't like the law.
Is the technology 100% perfect? No. Is it 100x more accurate than a human linesman? Yes.
Based on the most accurate measure we have, the decisions have been correct. Again, the issue is people don't like the law.
This is mad. You cannot use VAR for offsides by just looking without the hawkeye technology. Camera angles will mean that just looking at a replay with the naked eye could potentially be even less accurate than the linesman making the decision in real time.
Dale Johnson does a weekly thing on twitter re VAR and he made the point today about how different camera angles can make the same call look completely different. He used the Harry Kane offside call vs Chelsea in last seasons League Cup as an example. The old VAR tech that was being used in last seasons Cups wasn't the same as the Hawkeye tech being used now, it was effectly using the naked eye from the replays with a straight line across the pitch - that day VAR decided that Kane was onside but post match Chelsea released an image from one of their in-house cameras that showed Kane to be offside. Another example would be Salah's goal vs City this season - just from looking at the replay numerous people said Salah was offside but the hawkeye tech which takes into account the camera angle showed he was comfortably onside. In that ocassion Salah was given onside but under your scenario, had the lino made the wrong call then VAR would have given him off when he was clearly on.
As for the stuff about a margin of error or giving the benefit of doubt to the on field officials decisions, it's just crazy. We're going to end up with all the bad side of VAR without more accurate decisions.
edit: In addition to the above, the back page of the Times has a story about FIFA supposedly considering changes to the offside law so that the attacker only had to have part of his body level with the defender to be onside.
I sincerely hope this never happens. It will do more damage to the game than anything we've seen before. Football will become 10x more defensive than it's ever been with teams camped on the edge of their 18 yard box to stop runs in behind.
Last edited: