VAR this season

[Saint_clark]

It's worked well for us so far, gone in our favour on quite a few times...how far adrift would we be without it now?

 

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[alehouseboys]

It's worked well for us so far, gone in our favour on quite a few times...how far adrift would we be without it now?

 

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

Could have done us a favour today with that clear pen.

[benjii]

Impossible to say because the linesman would have probably flagged two of the goals that were chalked off, were it not for VAR.

[Heisenberg]

That Sheffield United disallowed goal sums up VAR

 

Offside by an apparent toe nail

[whelk]

Could have done us a favour today with that clear pen.

 

Just saw that again. Absolute pen. Don’t know anyone who likes or has confidence in VAR now. Staggering how they can fck up something that could be simple and benefit the game.

[Noodles34]

That Sheffield United disallowed goal sums up VAR

 

Offside by an apparent toe nail

 

so he was offside then.

what aspect are you struggling to understand?

[Heisenberg]

so he was offside then.

what aspect are you struggling to understand?

 

VAR wasn't introduced for this.

 

You can't give off sides on a toe when using just 50 frames per second.

[Nordic Saint]

so he was offside then.

what aspect are you struggling to understand?

 

I'm no expert on the rules but I definitely recall there being a rule which stated there had to be 'daylight' between the attacker and the last defender for him to be offside and in most of these recent VAR offside decisions there hasn't been. When was this rule changed and why?

[shurlock]

I'm no expert on the rules but I definitely recall there being a rule which stated there had to be 'daylight' between the attacker and the last defender for him to be offside and in most of these recent VAR offside decisions there hasn't been. When was this rule changed and why?

 

“Daylight” - that clear, unambiguous and easily enforceable instruction What happens for night games pal?

Edited 10 November, 2019 by shurlock

[Nordic Saint]

It meant that the forward had to have his entire body offside, not just part of it. Have referees started to ignore this or has there been a rule change?

[Nordic Saint]

It meant that the forward had to have his entire body offside, not just part of it. Have referees started to ignore this or has there been a rule change?

 

I should add that before the 'daylight' rule was introduced, a player could be offside with any part of his body which could play the ball, which appears to be the case again now. Was the 'daylight' rule just a short-term experiment which was then dropped? I know that rules are constantly being revised. If there are any referees on here who know what happened, it would clarify the situation.

[Nordic Saint]

OK, I've Googled it. It appears it was only ever given as advice to linesmen and it was largely being ignored by 2010. Personally, I liked it, for the short time that it was in use.

 

https://forums.digitalspy.com/discussion/1292956/what-happened-to-the-daylight-offside-rule

[East Kent Saint]

VAR is an embarrassment, the Prem have completely cocked it up .......

[Roo1976]

“Daylight” - that clear, unambiguous and easily enforceable instruction What happens for night games pal?

 

players have glow in the dark shirts on maybe?......whatever next the need for video evidence?

[Barry the Badger]

They're now saying the refs on pitch are going to start using the screens pitchside, as though that will solve anything. If qualified refs with massive screens are making questionable calls, a ref with a tiny screen pitch side is not going to be any better.

 

Using it for offside just isn't working. If they're going to insist on using it for offside it needs to be hawkeye level, factual, not a decision made by somebody drawing red and blue lines onto an off angle image. Or they should say that if you can't tell without drawing lines on it, it's not an obvious error and the original decision stands.

[Nordic Saint]

players have glow in the dark shirts on maybe?......whatever next the need for video evidence?

 

You sound like a bright spark. I'm sure you can shed some light on the subject

[Nordic Saint]

“Daylight” - that clear, unambiguous and easily enforceable instruction What happens for night games pal?

 

The video evidence disappears into a dark hole? It's already in the twilight zone.

[Supersubpuckett]

They're now saying the refs on pitch are going to start using the screens pitchside, as though that will solve anything. If qualified refs with massive screens are making questionable calls, a ref with a tiny screen pitch side is not going to be any better.

 

Using it for offside just isn't working. If they're going to insist on using it for offside it needs to be hawkeye level, factual, not a decision made by somebody drawing red and blue lines onto an off angle image. Or they should say that if you can't tell without drawing lines on it, it's not an obvious error and the original decision stands.

 

Agree with this. Same as in cricket when the decision stays with the umpire on 50/50 lbw's.

 

the VAR tech is fine, it's the application of it that needs reviewing.

[Whitey Grandad]

so he was offside then.

what aspect are you struggling to understand?

 

Was he? That is impossible to judge from a TV screen. There are too many imprecisions. The instant that they choose the freeze-frame from a 50 fps set of images allows for an inaccuracy of 20ms which equates to over 30 cm for someone running at about 15mph. The lines that they draw across the pitch are no more accurate than 30 cm at best on the far side of the pitch.

 

Nowhere near enough to interfere it’s the decisions taken on the field.

[Whitey Grandad]

players have glow in the dark shirts on maybe?......whatever next the need for video evidence?

 

Not just shirts but boots, socks, legs, knees and teeth too.

[davefoggy]

VAR already proving in the Liverpool v Man City game that it is utterly useless and that the game is indeed corrupt. The sooner we are out of the Premier League, the better

[Heisenberg]

Just seems to be run by sky and for Liverpool advantage

[Heisenberg]

Got away with one yesterday.

[derry]

Got away with one yesterday.

 

Who cares except Watford, they really deserved it to turn against them because of the cheating punched goal two seasons ago and the ref and linesman ruling out Austin's perfectly good goal last season because the linesman thought it hit Yoshida from the touchline. It was a yard away and not in the goalkeepers eyeline. Both of those decisions could have relegated us. We deserved a bit of luck against them.

[Whitey Grandad]

Got away with one yesterday.

 

Not a ‘clear and obvious’ error though, was it.

 

When something like that goes unnoticed by everybody in the stadium and on the pitch and even most of the television shots it would be really pernickety to overrule the referee in charge.

[Batman]

Not a ‘clear and obvious’ error though, was it.

 

When something like that goes unnoticed by everybody in the stadium and on the pitch and even most of the television shots it would be really pernickety to overrule the referee in charge.

 

does not need to be with handball. If there is a handball from the attackers when the goal is scored, it should be ruled out

[Whitey Grandad]

does not need to be with handball. If there is a handball from the attackers when the goal is scored, it should be ruled out

 

But there does need to be for VAR to overrule the onfield decision.

[Batman]

But there does need to be for VAR to overrule the onfield decision.

 

for an attacking handball, it should be ruled out. We got away with it because a camera angle was not available to see it.

Clear and Obvious error has nothing to do with it

[Whitey Grandad]

for an attacking handball, it should be ruled out. We got away with it because a camera angle was not available to see it.

Clear and Obvious error has nothing to do with it

 

It does for the VAR to interfere.

[Batman]

It does for the VAR to interfere.

 

every goal is checked by VAR regardless. every goal should be ruled out if an attackers arm/hand plays a part...regardless

 

we never got away with it because it was seen and not enough to overrule the ref, we got away with it because the camera angle did not provide a view where the ball accidentally hit Djenepo's hand. Even the premier league said after the game it should not have been a goal

[Whitey Grandad]

every goal is checked by VAR regardless. every goal should be ruled out if an attackers arm/hand plays a part...regardless

 

we never got away with it because it was seen and not enough to overrule the ref, we got away with it because the camera angle did not provide a view where the ball accidentally hit Djenepo's hand. Even the premier league said after the game it should not have been a goal

Fair enough, I hear what you’re saying.

 

In matters which are not subjective the VAR can have the definitive decision. In effect we got away with it because the ‘handball’ was not obvious. Personally I think there’s something wrong with the implementation of the system if they have to go hunting through all sorts of angles and slow-motion replays before they can find some sort of infringement.

 

As for the new attacker’s handball ruling the least said the better. There’s an enormous difference between yesterday’s example and punching the ball straight into the net

[Heisenberg]

Has nothing to do with being obvious or not obvious.

 

Any goal coming from handball deliberate / not deliberate / obvious / not obvious will be disallowed

 

We got away with one yesterday. Simples

[OttawaSaint]

That’s made up for the Decoure hand ball, next time we play them they need to have a perfectly legal goal disallowed, then we’re even.

[Dark Munster]

Fair enough, I hear what you’re saying.

 

In matters which are not subjective the VAR can have the definitive decision. In effect we got away with it because the ‘handball’ was not obvious. Personally I think there’s something wrong with the implementation of the system if they have to go hunting through all sorts of angles and slow-motion replays before they can find some sort of infringement.

 

As for the new attacker’s handball ruling the least said the better. There’s an enormous difference between yesterday’s example and punching the ball straight into the net

But they (rightly) don't do that in the PL, which is why we got away with it. If they'd done a Women's WC type VAR analysis we would've waited 3 minutes before having the goal disallowed.

 

And I think the point of the new rule is to avoid having a long deliberation if an attacking handball is intentional or not. Handball, yes or no? 10 second VAR check and it's done one way or the other.