Have we been unlucky with ref/VAR decisions in the previous 4 games.

[allsa001]

I don't like to complain/moan about referee and VAR decisions, as I usually think it's swings and roundabouts. However, seeing Man Utd go joint top today, with another very dubious penalty decision, I am finding it really annoying.

 

Recently, we have had a lot of decisions not go our way. Also a lot of the decisions have not been checked or sometimes not even shown on the tv replays. Admittingly, not all of the decisions below are obvious, but it seems like the ref/VAR hasn't given them a fair check. Where as it seems as Utd have been awarded every decision possible.

 

A lot rides on momentum, and if some of these decisions had gone our way, then I think we would be playing a lot better and with confidence. As it is, we seem to be devoid of confidence and lacking that cutting edge.

 

Below are just some examples from our last 4 games. Not all should have been given, but some were very clear cut. Also, I have probably missed some of the other decisions, as this was just from memory. The chances below show we could have in theory had an additional 7 points, which meant we would have been joint top of the league, instead we are in 9th. Again, I think this would have made us play so much better with that momentum and confidence. Just gutting seeing the amount and type of decisions that go in the favour of other teams, where we get given very little.

 

29/12/2020 - West Ham (Offside goal could have given an extra 2 points)

Offside that led to Ings goal being disallowed, was quite close with their defender on the right. We didn't even get the lines drawn.

Adams being kicked in the head whilst being on the floor. Surely dangerous play, but not even a yellow card.

 

26/12/2020 - Fullham (Penalty could have given us an extra 2 points)

Penalty not given for a hand ball in the box. This looked certain to me.

Also that free kick which was not given against KWP just outside the box.

 

19/12/2020 - Man City (Penalty could have given us a point)

Penalty not given for Sterlings handball. Possibly not a penalty, but they do get given very often.

 

16/12/2020 - Arsenal (Penalty could have given us an extra 2 points)

Penalty not given on Djenepo, where he was body checked. This looked certain to me.

 

Also there was another penalty not given on Walcott where he was taken out, in one of the games above, but cannot remember which.

[benjii]

The Arsenal shout is a nonsense, I'm afraid. Never a foul, just sloppy desperate play by Djenepo, and Bednarek committed more of a foul in our box in the first half which wasn't given, so we weren't hard done by there at all.

The West Ham offside, I agree, looked tight with respect to their right back so I'm not sure why the lines didn't appear, but he was probably off. The Adams kick in the head was a complete accident and wasn't a high foot so I can see why no action was taken.

The Fulham penalty shout would 100% have been given as a penalty in the first couple of months of the season. They seem to be trying to row back on giving handball now, which is silly because changing the rules mid-competition doesn't make much sense. However, again Bednarek also handled in our box so we could also have conceded a penalty. I have no idea how the ref didn't give the free kick on KWP.

The Man City one did really annoy me. I don't know why we didn't get a penalty for Sterling's handball. It came up off his leg but I don't think that means it cannot be a penalty; they still need to consider arm position, reaction time etc. 

We've been fairly lucky too. The penalty we got at Brighton was a little farcical with the officials clearly having no real idea where the foul occurred. If there was no VAR and only replays, no one (apart from our biggest weirdos) would have seriously been claiming we should have had a penalty for that, and it won us two extra points we barely deserved.

[Nordic Saint]

What you have to remember is that VAR is ultimately just the opinion of another referee and the bias in favour of big clubs still holds. Where it will make a difference is when crowds return as the VAR ref won't be influenced by the crowd.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

All our disallowed goals we correctly disallowed.couple of the penalty decisions could have gone our way, maybe. 

I dont think we've been particularly unlucky and dont want ours to be a "wow is me" fanbase like some others.

[Harry_SFC]

4 hours ago, benjii said:

The Arsenal shout is a nonsense, I'm afraid. Never a foul, just sloppy desperate play by Djenepo, and Bednarek committed more of a foul in our box in the first half which wasn't given, so we weren't hard done by there at all.

The West Ham offside, I agree, looked tight with respect to their right back so I'm not sure why the lines didn't appear, but he was probably off. The Adams kick in the head was a complete accident and wasn't a high foot so I can see why no action was taken.

The Fulham penalty shout would 100% have been given as a penalty in the first couple of months of the season. They seem to be trying to row back on giving handball now, which is silly because changing the rules mid-competition doesn't make much sense. However, again Bednarek also handled in our box so we could also have conceded a penalty. I have no idea how the ref didn't give the free kick on KWP.

The Man City one did really annoy me. I don't know why we didn't get a penalty for Sterling's handball. It came up off his leg but I don't think that means it cannot be a penalty; they still need to consider arm position, reaction time etc. 

We've been fairly lucky too. The penalty we got at Brighton was a little farcical with the officials clearly having no real idea where the foul occurred. If there was no VAR and only replays, no one (apart from our biggest weirdos) would have seriously been claiming we should have had a penalty for that, and it won us two extra points we barely deserved.

Pretty sure the rules state (or did state at one point) that if the ball ricochet's off a body part onto the arm/hand then it can't be given as a penalty. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, Nordic Saint said:

What you have to remember is that VAR is ultimately just the opinion of another referee and the bias in favour of big clubs still holds. Where it will make a difference is when crowds return as the VAR ref won't be influenced by the crowd.

Not on all decisions it’s not.

And remember it’s not about the VAR’s opinion of the incident , but his opinion of whether it’s a “clear & obvious error”. A decision the VAR thinks “I probably would have given a penalty, but I can see why he didn’t “, should, if the guidelines are followed,  go with the on field referee. 

[Matthew Le God]

8 hours ago, allsa001 said:

26/12/2020 - Fullham (Penalty could have given us an extra 2 points)

Penalty not given for a hand ball in the box. This looked certain to me.

Also that free kick which was not given against KWP just outside the box.

That foul continued into the box, which makes it a penalty.

[adrian lord]

I seem to remember VAR saved us last season on a few occasions. We might have gone down otherwise. Not defending VAR per se, I deplore the way it has neutered spontaneity in enjoyment of goals.

[Matthew Le God]

5 minutes ago, adrian lord said:

 I deplore the way it has neutered spontaneity in enjoyment of goals.

It now gives you the opportunity to celebrate a legitimate goal twice... once at the time and the second when the review allows it. Double the celebrations! 😉

[Fabrice29]

10 hours ago, allsa001 said:

29/12/2020 - West Ham (Offside goal could have given an extra 2 points)

 We didn't even get the lines drawn.

 

Just FYI it's the broadcaster that decides what is shown and Amazon decide not to show the lines being drawn. VAR process doesn't change, what you are being shown by the broadcaster does. Amazon have followed UEFA in not showing the process unlike Sky and BT who decide to show the lines being drawn. Personal opinion is it's better without seeing the lines being drawn anyway. 

That said, VAR do not have to draw the lines if it's obviously offside, which it was imo.

[allsa001]

2 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

That foul continued into the box, which makes it a penalty.

I agree with this, that it shold have been a penalty.

 

I just think with all of the examples, we are unlucky not to have ben given any. I often think these things equal out, but I feel we are being unlucky not to be given anything.

[Toussaint]

I think it’s pretty neutral to be fair, a few could equally have gone against us. I think our dip is due to fatigue, key injuries and other teams working us out.

[Charlie Wayman]

It's the offside rule that needs to be clarified not VAR. Standing in an offside position when the ball is last played should be offside?

This hand, foot ,toe, elbow thing is ruining the game. 

[Matthew Le God]

4 minutes ago, Charlie Wayman said:

It's the offside rule that needs to be clarified not VAR. Standing in an offside position when the ball is last played should be offside?

This hand, foot ,toe, elbow thing is ruining the game. 

What clarification do you what exactly?

[itchen]

12 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

What clarification do you what exactly?

I realise that there has to be a line* but it seems ridiculous to judge this by any other part of a player's body than the most forward foot. How can an arm or shoulder really give an attacking player an unfair advantage? 

*If VAR is to justify itself by consistency. Personally I'd rather leave it to the referee's assistants and accept that sometimes they get things wrong. 

On a related subject, if every penalty decision is going to be reviewed please we can go back to penalising players for blatant diving? That seems to have disappeared.

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, itchen said:

I realise that there has to be a line* but it seems ridiculous to judge this by any other part of a player's body than the most forward foot. How can an arm or shoulder really give an attacking player an unfair advantage? 

Arms don't count as offside, shoulders do. You can't score with your arm.

[Medrurkin]

13 minutes ago, Charlie Wayman said:

It's the offside rule that needs to be clarified not VAR. Standing in an offside position when the ball is last played should be offside?

This hand, foot ,toe, elbow thing is ruining the game. 

So can you define exactly how you would set the rules without leaving it open to the officials "guessing"? Surely it is the attacking players mis-judgement that is creating the decisions to be called against them? When pundits and commentators say "That would never have been given in the past" they just mean the officials would have guessed wrong. How many assistant referees are exactly in line with the player when the ball is played? If they are a few centimetres out, then they have a different perspective from the correct one. Unless there is evidence that VAR is inaccurate (and I haven't seen that argued much anywhere), then who is to say that officials making wrong decisions is better for the game and more interesting to watch? The only issue I have with VAR is the time it sometimes takes to get a decision.

The penalty against Leeds today is a good example. Anyone could see that it was almost certainly a penalty based on the first couple of re-runs. But determining exactly when the contact took place, then was it on the line of the area? If the VAR officials had to make a call within 30 seconds would be a better way. Better information, but still allowing judgement.

[Fabrice29]

1 hour ago, Matthew Le God said:

Arms don't count as offside, shoulders do. You can't score with your arm.

Not quite true. Due to handball rule change part of your arm can be offside. Bamford had a goal ruled out for this as an example.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I always find it a bit strange that people think changing the rules will eliminate borderline offsides. If it’s your foot, they’ll still be occasions when your foot will be offside by a minuscule distance. Wherever you draw the line, whatever body part you use, they’ll always be tight distances. Even if you said being 1 meter offside should be considered onside (benefit of doubt with attacker) it won’t be too long before var are judging whether a bloke was 1 meter or 1 meter 000.1mm offside. 

[Chickendippers]

25 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I always find it a bit strange that people think changing the rules will eliminate borderline offsides. If it’s your foot, they’ll still be occasions when your foot will be offside by a minuscule distance. Wherever you draw the line, whatever body part you use, they’ll always be tight distances. Even if you said being 1 meter offside should be considered onside (benefit of doubt with attacker) it won’t be too long before var are judging whether a bloke was 1 meter or 1 meter 000.1mm offside. 

And that is where they have got the implementation of VAR wrong. All fans want the Gabbiadini type decision overturned (and to be fair the last couple of offside goals we have scored were correctly ruled out). What they should have done is make it like the umpire's call in cricket which gives half a stump of doubt. Get the linos to do their job and flag for offside when they see it and use a margin of 5cm say for 'lino's call'. If he flags and the attacker's toe, armpit or nostril hair is behind the line or in the disputed zone then he is onside - don't deliberate for minutes on end in case he is 5.0001cm. One or two slomos should do it otherwise it goes down down to Lino's call and given or not given.

6 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

That foul continued into the box, which makes it a penalty.

100% correct. No consistency for applying the rules. If that was a pen at Brighton it should have been a pen at Fulham. We had a duff ref on the pitch and in the VAR studio which is not good combo.

[angelman]

Have we been unlucky?? I guess that depends on your view - me, I'd say no - but what you have to do is to separate the subjective from the objective.

 

Offside is offside. If a goal is ruled out for that, then no, it's not unlucky. To me, it should be kept to feet position to make things that more simple, and remove the (incorrect) feelings of unfairness when some other body part strays over that line.

 

So penalties, the subjective bit. Some you win, some you don't. Because it is largely subjective, you'll always get those who think it is (un)lucky. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

38 minutes ago, Chickendippers said:

Get the linos to do their job and flag for offside when they see it and use a margin of 5cm say for 'lino's call'. If he flags and the attacker's toe, armpit or nostril hair is behind the line or in the disputed zone then he is onside - don't deliberate for minutes on end in case he is 5.0001cm. One or two slomos should do it otherwise it goes down down to Lino's call and given or not given.

 

This is the biggest misinterpretation people use when discussing VAR. Football does use “umpires call”, it’s the “clear & obvious “ guideline, which in effect is referees call. Like Cricket line decisions are judged solely by technology. No balls, run outs, stumpings aren’t “umpires call” and neither are offsides or goal line decisions. If a bloke is 00000.1mm out of his crease, he’s given  run out,  no matter how long the decision takes and it doesn’t make a blind bit of difference what the on field umpire thinks. 

Edited 2 January, 2021 by Lord Duckhunter

[whelk]

The nerds who are so tied to the offside ‘millimetres is offside so what’s your problem’ have no understanding of why the rule was brought in but now think the rule itself must be adhered to regardless of how it spoils the game and the moment.

They will not be won over but guarantee they are boring bastards who I wouldn’t want to drink with. Analogies with cricket sum up their incomprehension of the game. 

 

[Fabrice29]

31 minutes ago, whelk said:

The nerds who are so tied to the offside ‘millimetres is offside so what’s your problem’ have no understanding of why the rule was brought in but now think the rule itself must be adhered to regardless of how it spoils the game and the moment.

They will not be won over but guarantee they are boring bastards who I wouldn’t want to drink with. Analogies with cricket sum up their incomprehension of the game. 

 

lol it's alright mate, we don't want to drink with you either. Especially as the game so spoiled presumably you wouldn't be watching it anyway?

[Saint_clark]

I have no doubt that a different team (top 6) would have got at least one of those handball decisions given for them, as it was for us it was barely looked at before play continued. 

[whelk]

1 hour ago, Fabrice29 said:

lol it's alright mate, we don't want to drink with you either. Especially as the game so spoiled presumably you wouldn't be watching it anyway?

You’d be talking about pass completion stats when necking your Babysham

[Chickendippers]

2 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

This is the biggest misinterpretation people use when discussing VAR. Football does use “umpires call”, it’s the “clear & obvious “ guideline, which in effect is referees call. Like Cricket line decisions are judged solely by technology. No balls, run outs, stumpings aren’t “umpires call” and neither are offsides or goal line decisions. If a bloke is 00000.1mm out of his crease, he’s given  run out,  no matter how long the decision takes and it doesn’t make a blind bit of difference what the on field umpire thinks. 

You are right that run outs and no balls are not 'umpire's call' and are treated as matters of fact largely because the line is already there. LBW's are more subjective as they use Hawk-eye ball tracking to make a best guess of whether the ball would go on and hit the stumps. This is where the margin of error comes in and if the ball is clipping the stumps the player is only out if he has been given out by the on-field umpire. The point I am trying to make is that the technology cannot give a perfect answer as to whether someone is offside, there is always some doubt as to when exactly the ball was played and if the resulting lines were drawn in the right place (or not). When the technology is going to that level of detail it just seems pointless as it no longer becomes a matter of fact - there is still some subjectivity involved.

I would like a bit more clarity on what  constitutes a 'clear and obvious' mistake though - for example our pen at BHA wasn't' a clear and obvious mistake (I shouted pen from the sofa - btw) but if THAT was a clear and obvious mistake why didn't VAR give KWP's similar one at Fulham (or at least spend 5 minutes looking at it) or the blatant handball. It frustrates the hell out of me to the point where it forces me to type boring replies on chat forums.

[Dark Munster]

4 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I always find it a bit strange that people think changing the rules will eliminate borderline offsides. If it’s your foot, they’ll still be occasions when your foot will be offside by a minuscule distance. Wherever you draw the line, whatever body part you use, they’ll always be tight distances. Even if you said being 1 meter offside should be considered onside (benefit of doubt with attacker) it won’t be too long before var are judging whether a bloke was 1 meter or 1 meter 000.1mm offside. 

Yes there will always be borderline offsides, but by using feet only it will be much simpler to implement, with fewer errors. If a player's foot is offside by 1 mm and the goal stands, or 1 mm onside and it's ruled out, who cares? Those would be rare instances, and it'll even itself out over the short run. If a player is that close to being offside/onside both the attacker and defender can't complain if it the decision goes against them.

Also someone mentioned that a player can score with other parts of his body. Again, who cares? The idea is to have a rule that stops long punts and goal hangers, and that wouldn't change using feet only.

As they say, K.I.S.S.

Edited 2 January, 2021 by Dark Munster

[Whitey Grandad]

6 hours ago, Medrurkin said:

So can you define exactly how you would set the rules without leaving it open to the officials "guessing"? Surely it is the attacking players mis-judgement that is creating the decisions to be called against them? When pundits and commentators say "That would never have been given in the past" they just mean the officials would have guessed wrong. How many assistant referees are exactly in line with the player when the ball is played? If they are a few centimetres out, then they have a different perspective from the correct one. Unless there is evidence that VAR is inaccurate (and I haven't seen that argued much anywhere), then who is to say that officials making wrong decisions is better for the game and more interesting to watch? The only issue I have with VAR is the time it sometimes takes to get a decision.

The penalty against Leeds today is a good example. Anyone could see that it was almost certainly a penalty based on the first couple of re-runs. But determining exactly when the contact took place, then was it on the line of the area? If the VAR officials had to make a call within 30 seconds would be a better way. Better information, but still allowing judgement.

They shouldn’t be. They have to be in line with the second to last defender. Then at the moment the ball is kicked they only have to decide if the attacking player is nearer the goal than they are.

[Medrurkin]

9 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

They shouldn’t be. They have to be in line with the second to last defender. Then at the moment the ball is kicked they only have to decide if the attacking player is nearer the goal than they are.

Basically, isn't that the same thing in these close decisions? And he still has to be level with the play to make the decision.

[Whitey Grandad]

3 hours ago, Medrurkin said:

Basically, isn't that the same thing in these close decisions? And he still has to be level with the play to make the decision.

No, it isn’t the same. The assistant doesn’t and shouldn’t have to be level with play. They must be level with the second to last defender at all times other that when they have other temporary duties.

[Medrurkin]

3 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

No, it isn’t the same. The assistant doesn’t and shouldn’t have to be level with play. They must be level with the second to last defender at all times other that when they have other temporary duties.

OK, I'll go with your hair splitting on that one. My original point still holds though and the VAR replays show that the assistant is hardly ever exactly in line with either when the lines are drawn so a human decision is a calculated guess.

[allsa001]

I just thought I would bump this a thread, which I posted about the decisions from mid December. So flippin angry att he moment.

I don't actualy mind the loss today, I thought we were going to lose before kick off, I resigned myself to accpeting the loss after the first red.

I just hate after every game, having more and more of a feeling that I don't see the point in watching football anymore.

[Turkish]

On 02/01/2021 at 14:57, Matthew Le God said:

Arms don't count as offside, shoulders do. You can't score with your arm.

 

[Harry_SFC]

8 hours ago, Turkish said:

 

People say the technology is "100% factual". Well it's not is it because Graham Scott has drawn the lines in the wrong position! 

[tajjuk]

1 hour ago, Harry_SFC said:

People say the technology is "100% factual". Well it's not is it because Graham Scott has drawn the lines in the wrong position! 

It's just a poor decision, its not the technology, its the humans operating it are failing. 

All of him is either level or behind where Maguire is, his feet and body are behind Maguires and at worse his 'arm' or 'shoulder' are level, it's just a bad decisions.

--------------------------

Overall I think we can say we have been very unlucky with decisions over the last 4-6 weeks. The only 'contentious' decision I feel has gone in our favour that might not have done was the pen against Brighton. 

[davefizzy14]

100% we have been unlucky. I could even go back as far as the Man City game before Christmas when we could have had at least 1 penalty. We also had one disallowed against West Ham for another offside, that was debatable too.

Edited 3 February, 2021 by davefizzy14

[jimmysaint7]

On 02/01/2021 at 10:31, Harry_SFC said:

Pretty sure the rules state (or did state at one point) that if the ball ricochet's off a body part onto the arm/hand then it can't be given as a penalty. 

Thats true but there is a caveat that goes with that rule,that is that if the players arms are in an outstretched or unnatural position then regardless if it ricochet it can still be a penalty.This is what should of happened with the penalty against villa

[Whitey Grandad]

1 minute ago, jimmysaint7 said:

Thats true but there is a caveat that goes with that rule,that is that if the players arms are in an outstretched or unnatural position then regardless if it ricochet it can still be a penalty.This is what should of happened with the penalty against villa

Indeed. And to describe that as a ricochet is stretching things. It would have hit his hand even if it hadn’t brushed his thigh.

[StrangelyBrown]

There's an interesting point above on why VAR was brought in in the first place. As I remember it was brought in because of the sheer number of mistakes made by the officials....

Good to see it hasn't made any difference. Arguably it has made things worse.

The solution was to get rid of the corrupt and inept celebrity referees but unfortunately they remain and continue to spoil football.

Football used to be a game that was played in the same manner with the same rules regardless of whether it was a grassroots game or an international. VAR ruined that. Now we have VAR in some FA cup games and not others.

Football is now broken IMO

[Hayling Saint]

1 hour ago, StrangelyBrown said:

There's an interesting point above on why VAR was brought in in the first place. As I remember it was brought in because of the sheer number of mistakes made by the officials....

Good to see it hasn't made any difference. Arguably it has made things worse.

The solution was to get rid of the corrupt and inept celebrity referees but unfortunately they remain and continue to spoil football.

Football used to be a game that was played in the same manner with the same rules regardless of whether it was a grassroots game or an international. VAR ruined that. Now we have VAR in some FA cup games and not others.

Football is now broken IMO

SO TRUE

[hans gruber]

The VAR system is broken

 

Somehow its not able to see a clear dive or determine a clear hand ball but they can spend 10 minutes trying to analyse whether someones finger nail or armpit is offside.

 

[rallyboy]

Anyone who has played the game at any level knows that the Villa one was a blatant handball and that Martial dived before contact.

Some refs have read the laws alright, but clearly do not understand how the game is physically played.

Footballers know when studs are left in deliberately, or if an elbow is accidental, referees need to have played the game or at least get a better feel for it.

As for offsides, they are beyond help - neither Ings nor Adams were offside, it was as clear as day in front of their eyes and they still got them wrong.

[Wurzel]

1 hour ago, rallyboy said:

Anyone who has played the game at any level knows that the Villa one was a blatant handball and that Martial dived before contact.

Some refs have read the laws alright, but clearly do not understand how the game is physically played.

Footballers know when studs are left in deliberately, or if an elbow is accidental, referees need to have played the game or at least get a better feel for it.

As for offsides, they are beyond help - neither Ings nor Adams were offside, it was as clear as day in front of their eyes and they still got them wrong.

It still amazes me how few players ( off the top of my head can't think of any) go on to referee after their playing career ends. Ok their peak fitness may have gone by then but doubt it would be any less than most current referees of any age. Certainly plenty go on to be studio pundits, nothing stopping  any ex-pro sitting on their arse in the VAR centre and making (or at least helping make) decisions from there.

Players, even at lower levels, are well paid. Maybe the PFA could withhold a small percentage of earnings whilst they play which they only get repaid once they've completed a season or two officiating. 

Only drawback I can see is some personal vendettas and/or anti club bias may still fester in their minds so soon after playing, influencing decisions, but that seems to be the case with several of our proper "impartial" refs anyway.

[Turkish]

Two in a week for us 

[tajjuk]

That very clearly shows the problem, Ings against Villa, the frame they used very clearly the ball has already been played, but they ruled him offside by mere CMs, even though he could have clearly moved way more than that between the frames. 

The offside then basically comes down to the person applying the lines in the VAR box, if they apply it on Frame A, onside, if they go with Frame B, they decide offside. 

Edited 5 February, 2021 by tajjuk

[Whitey Grandad]

11 minutes ago, tajjuk said:

That very clearly shows the problem, Ings against Villa, the frame they used very clearly the ball has already been played, but they ruled him offside by mere CMs, even though he could have clearly moved way more than that between the frames. 

The offside then basically comes down to the person applying the lines in the VAR box, if they apply it on Frame A, onside, if they go with Frame B, they decide offside. 

With the Ings/Villa one it would be understandable if they went with the onfield decision, which was offside, but withdrew the Adams one they not only overruled the onfield officials but actually saw something that nobody else did.

Whatever happened to ‘clear and obvious error’?

[Lord Duckhunter]

42 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Whatever happened to ‘clear and obvious error’?

Nothing has happened to it.

It has never applied to offside. 

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

Nothing has happened to it.

It has never applied to offside. 

Exactly.  And that's what's wrong about using VAR for offside. 

[Sheaf Saint]

43 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Exactly.  And that's what's wrong about using VAR for offside. 

I disagree, because if it was applied to offsides then you would just get more situations like the one against Villa, where the VAR ref tries desperately to find a way to justify the on-field decision, rather than overrule it.

With offsides, they should acknowledge the issue with the freezeframe not being precise. The VAR ref should rewind to the last identifiable frame before the ball is played, and if the player is onside there, but offside by millimetres on the next frame, then the advantage should be given to the attacking team and the goal should stand. If that means overruling the lino's flag then so be it.