VAR - Palace v Leeds

[xsnaggle]

The whole crux of these appalling decisions is that, like other sports, the VAR should only be used if the referee asks for a second opinion, not used to overrule him.
That works well enough in Rugby and in Cricket it is only used if one of the captains makes a formal request to the umpire, in tennis if one player asks for a review.
If the referee doesn't ask for it then he shouldn't have it rammed down his throat.

[Forest Green Bluebird]

The whole crux of these appalling decisions is that, like other sports, the VAR should only be used if the referee asks for a second opinion, not used to overrule him.
That works well enough in Rugby and in Cricket it is only used if one of the captains makes a formal request to the umpire, in tennis if one player asks for a review.
If the referee doesn't ask for it then he shouldn't have it rammed down his throat.

Spot on.

[Pedro de la Rosa]

You are wrong.

The hand up to (but not including) the armpit cannot be used to score a goal.

Therefore the hand / elbow / upper arm cannot make the player offside.

The screen shot shows Bamfords 'armpit' ahead of the last defender.

The armpit / shoulder can be used to score a goal; that is why he was offside.

Remember the days when the joke was to try to explain the offside rule to your girlfriend / mum / gran?

FA RULE:

Offside position

It is not an offence to be in an offside position.

A player is in an offside position if:

any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line)

and any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent

The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered.

A player is not in an offside position if level with the:
second-last opponent or last two opponents

They've changed the handball rule so the top of your arm is no longer handball, so he's offside. It's an absolute disgrace but it is the correct call, by the rules. It isn't offside to me, and it isn't handball for Gomez and Kilman but it is the rule thanks to David bloody Elleray.

[MacAdder]

I blame all these football pundits, panellists, analysts, "experts" and all the bullshit rhetoric that goes with it on the various football shows.

Far too many know alls blaming referees for bad decisions backed up by super HD slow-mo, exposing them as complete incompetents.

Referees and linesman have always made mistakes and they still are, even with all the gadgets!

[Pedro de la Rosa]

I blame all these football pundits, panellists, analysts, "experts" and all the bullshit rhetoric that goes with it on the various football shows.

Far too many know alls blaming referees for bad decisions backed up by super HD slow-mo, exposing them as complete incompetents.

Referees and linesman have always made mistakes and they still are, even with all the gadgets!

Agreed. Lineker etc were calling for VAR and calling anyone that didn't agree a dinosaur. Now they want rid of it . Shouldn't have been so smug in the first place.

[Forest Green Bluebird]

I blame all these football pundits, panellists, analysts, "experts" and all the bullshit rhetoric that goes with it on the various football shows.

Far too many know alls blaming referees for bad decisions backed up by super HD slow-mo, exposing them as complete incompetents.

Referees and linesman have always made mistakes and they still are, even with all the gadgets!

Another thing that shows a complete lack of intelligence by pundits and commentators alike is that they often say a player or team could have scored multiple goals - referring to chances missed.

Had the first chance resulted in a goal, then the whole pattern of play would have changed and the 'second' chance would not have occurred.

A correct conclusion should be that a player should have scored a goal, not two or more.

[MacAdder]

Another thing that shows a complete lack of intelligence by pundits and commentators alike is that they often say a player or team could have scored multiple goals - referring to chances missed.

Had the first chance resulted in a goal, then the whole pattern of play would have changed and the 'second' chance would not have occurred.

A correct conclusion should be that a player should have scored a goal, not two or more.

Indeed.
I very rarely watch the highlights shows "live" preferring to either record them or watch on catchup.
I find Lineker and his buddies backslapping each other pulling each others' legs with stories of how good they were and how it was in their day absolutely nauseating.

Even Gary Neville, who I once held in high esteem, and his new scouse bestie Carragher make me scramble for the remote to kill the volume in the live game.

This vaccine can't come soon enough so we can get out in the open watching football like it was meant to be watched, live, in the cold and wet, and commentator-less.

[MacAdder]

Agreed. Lineker etc were calling for VAR and calling anyone that didn't agree a dinosaur. Now they want rid of it . Shouldn't have been so smug in the first place.

Yes, I had the misfortune of watching some banter between games on the weekend where Lineker mentioned his tweet earlier posing the question of VAR.
"Neary half a million replies and around 70% were not in favour".

Really Gary?
Well hopefully in future you might be more careful what you wish for!

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Yes, I had the misfortune of watching some banter between games on the weekend where Lineker mentioned his tweet earlier posing the question of VAR.
"Neary half a million replies and around 70% were not in favour".

Really Gary?
Well hopefully in future you might be more careful what you wish for!

In fairness, nobody could have predicted how absolutely bloody awful VAR has been. It's arguably been worse this season. It needs an urgent review. Done properly it will be effective.

[lardy]

In fairness, nobody could have predicted how absolutely bloody awful VAR has been. It's arguably been worse this season. It needs an urgent review. Done properly it will be effective.

I was always against VAR (although in favour of goal line technology) but it has panned out differently to what I expected, and much more disruptive.

I'm still not sure how it could be done effectively.

[BLUETIT]

I was always against VAR (although in favour of goal line technology) but it has panned out differently to what I expected, and much more disruptive.

I'm still not sure how it could be done effectively.

The offside is simple to solve.
As the advantage should be with the attacking team, the whole body has to be past the imaginary line to be offside. SIMPLES

[lardy]

The offside is simple to solve.
As the advantage should be with the attacking team, the whole body has to be past the imaginary line to be offside. SIMPLES

There will still be times when an attacker's trailing foot is behind him and the defender's front foot is just about level as they're sprinting, but there'll be about two yards between their bodies, and this will be onside.

Wherever you draw the line when you're being this precise, there will be some ridiculous decision. It's unavoidable.

[Rjk]

What would be the implications of removing it completely? Is it archaic now? Once upon a time I’m sure it was created to prevent ‘goal hanging’ and I appreciate that if it didn’t exist teams would leave players up field which would force a change of tactics by defending teams

I’d personally like to see a change in rules that said you can’t be offside if the pass or cross originated in the attacking half of the field

That's an interesting one.

Do you remember a long time ago they experimented with scrapping the offside rule altogether in some anglo-italian cup games?
I was always a total goal hanger as a kid so I'd have been fully on board with that.

[Rjk]

Another thing that shows a complete lack of intelligence by pundits and commentators alike is that they often say a player or team could have scored multiple goals - referring to chances missed.

Had the first chance resulted in a goal, then the whole pattern of play would have changed and the 'second' chance would not have occurred.

A correct conclusion should be that a player should have scored a goal, not two or more.

I find it annoying when you get a pundit saying "he has to score from there" and then you look at the xG for the chance and it is something like 0.3

[MacAdder]

I’d personally like to see a change in rules that said you can’t be offside if the pass or cross originated in the attacking half of the field

That's an interesting one.

Do you remember a long time ago they experimented with scrapping the offside rule altogether in some anglo-italian cup games?
I was always a total goal hanger as a kid so I'd have been fully on board with that.

They tried the suggestion made by Straightoutacanton in one of the Cardiff leagues for a season back in the nineties.
(This same thing has been debated on here before).

From memory lots more goals were scored but it was not clear why it wasn't taken up longer than one season.

I suppose one reason is that the art of defending is seriously compromised.

[Forest Green Bluebird]

Indeed.
I very rarely watch the highlights shows "live" preferring to either record them or watch on catchup.
I find Lineker and his buddies backslapping each other pulling each others' legs with stories of how good they were and how it was in their day absolutely nauseating.

Even Gary Neville, who I once held in high esteem, and his new scouse bestie Carragher make me scramble for the remote to kill the volume in the live game.

This vaccine can't come soon enough so we can get out in the open watching football like it was meant to be watched, live, in the cold and wet, and commentator-less.