VAR- What is it good for.........

[Saint_clark]

Having read the explanation isn't it the case that the VAR official didn't realise the goal had been disallowed? So essentially he was working under the assumption that the goal was given and believed he was checking to see if the goal was disallowed. He then saw the goal was onside, told the ref that the check was complete and the on field decision stands and only after they restarted did they realise their cock up. 

Huge breakdown in communication between the officials, inexcusable. 

[Elmore Saint]

A lot of this debate would be brought to an end if the ref audio was made available in real time as in other sports. Knowing this, the officials would be forced to committed with clarity and with a level of accountability that would be necessary. It would also shine a light on the mouthy knobhead players who verbally hassle/abuse the officials too. 

[southamptonfc]

6 hours ago, Dark Munster said:

 

I think the moral of the story is, VAR run competently is better than no VAR, and VAR with idiots in control is no worse than no VAR.

Not at all. VAR run competently (for fouls) is still subjective, you just move the decision to somebody in a box rather than the onfield ref. They'll still be arguing about if a VAR decision was correct on MOTD.

VAR for offside has reached the level of pedantry IMHO. If a VAR ref needs more than 30 seconds and requires lines to be drawn on screen, either stick with the onfield decision or give the benefit of the doubt to the striker.

VAR has ruined some of enjoyment I get from going to games. It feels like a weight of my shoulders this season tbh. VAR has required stupid changes to the handball rules & offside rules. People sitting on their sofas love it, I bet the majority of fans who go to games would now prefer it to be scrapped.

Edited 3 October, 2023 by southamptonfc

[Fabrice29]

1 hour ago, tillerp said:

A lot of this debate would be brought to an end if the ref audio was made available in real time as in other sports. Knowing this, the officials would be forced to committed with clarity and with a level of accountability that would be necessary. It would also shine a light on the mouthy knobhead players who verbally hassle/abuse the officials too. 

None of this is true fwiw. The audio is available in real time and is heard by commentators every game. And guess what, humans still make mistakes. 

Not sure why everyone needs to hear the audio now either, ‘check complete’, wooow so enlightening to hear those words.

[Fabrice29]

53 minutes ago, southamptonfc said:

Not at all. VAR run competently (for fouls) is still subjective, you just move the decision to somebody in a box rather than the onfield ref. They'll still be arguing about if a VAR decision was correct on MOTD.

VAR for offside has reached the level of pedantry IMHO. If a VAR ref needs more than 30 seconds and requires lines to be drawn on screen, either stick with the onfield decision or give the benefit of the doubt to the striker.

VAR has ruined some of enjoyment I get from going to games. It feels like a weight of my shoulders this season tbh. VAR has required stupid changes to the handball rules & offside rules. People sitting on their sofas love it, I bet the majority of fans who go to games would now prefer it to be scrapped.

Yeah what these incompetent humans really need is a clock ticking down in the corner of their screen as they check the offside. ‘5 seconds left Darren, quick! Just fucking hurry up and say something’. 

Also love the idea of sticking with the on field decision which was also terribly wrong on Saturday. 

[Fabrice29]

10 hours ago, whelk said:

You are right about us fucking it up. In Euros and World Cup hardly noticed it 

This is also not true. Plenty of terrible decisions around the world.  But yeah, the select few best referees and var’s in each country are quite good. 

[Fabrice29]

Fwiw, there is no solution. Entitled fans and clubs accepting that whenever humans are involved nothing will be perfect, is the first step to a solution of sanity. The good thing is VAR really helps corrects errors like the one not to send Jones off Saturday and the net benefits far outweigh the negatives, but they will still make mistakes. 

[Elmore Saint]

31 minutes ago, Fabrice29 said:

None of this is true fwiw. The audio is available in real time and is heard by commentators every game. And guess what, humans still make mistakes. 

Not sure why everyone needs to hear the audio now either, ‘check complete’, wooow so enlightening to hear those words.

Come on Fabrice, the dialogue is far more nuanced than that. I try to refrain from comparing footy to rugby (2 sports that I share a love of), but over there, the refs and TMO are in regular contact and the ref asks clear questions of them “can I award the try”, and also receives clear notifications from upstairs, “I’m looking at possible foul play here….”  As for no one wanting to hear it, what then is the reason that ref radios sell out at a fiver a go?

Even if the commentators get to hear the conversation, why can’t we? Transparency matters..

[Fabrice29]

11 minutes ago, tillerp said:

Come on Fabrice, the dialogue is far more nuanced than that. I try to refrain from comparing footy to rugby (2 sports that I share a love of), but over there, the refs and TMO are in regular contact and the ref asks clear questions of them “can I award the try”, and also receives clear notifications from upstairs, “I’m looking at possible foul play here….”  As for no one wanting to hear it, what then is the reason that ref radios sell out at a fiver a go?

Even if the commentators get to hear the conversation, why can’t we? Transparency matters..

Hearing the audio won’t change anything. Mistakes will be made, people will argue about the audio as well as the decisions and be even further removed from the football itself. There’s a whole culture reset needed to get football anywhere near Rugby, hearing people who are already vilified chat and justify their decisions to a baying crowd won’t achieve much really but it’s a nice line, idea, and dream. 
 

Oh and btw, those things you say that rugby refs say to each other, they get said in football too, there’s plenty of audio of that released now, they do a monthly show with it all on, lots of conferring and talking etc, but guess what, mistakes still get made, it’s life, it’s human.

Edited 3 October, 2023 by Fabrice29

[Alain Perrin]

There will always be mistakes (human / computer) etc.

My problem with VAR and offside in general is it has forgotten why the law is there.  Whether or not someone's foot / sleeve / or nose was technically offside,  it takes no account of whether the advantage was material.  

When you are 30m from goal, beat 3 players and then the goal is ruled out because of someone's toenail in the build up, it is a joke.

 

[Fan The Flames]

25 minutes ago, Alain Perrin said:

There will always be mistakes (human / computer) etc.

My problem with VAR and offside in general is it has forgotten why the law is there.  Whether or not someone's foot / sleeve / or nose was technically offside,  it takes no account of whether the advantage was material.  

When you are 30m from goal, beat 3 players and then the goal is ruled out because of someone's toenail in the build up, it is a joke.

Material advantage isn't the law, offside is a yes or no decision. It doesn't matter where the line is drawn, there will always be toenail decisions. Otherwise it's subjective, and if its subjective there will be more frustratingly wrong decisions, where the bigger clubs normally benefit.

[Whitey Grandad]

36 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

Material advantage isn't the law, offside is a yes or no decision. It doesn't matter where the line is drawn, there will always be toenail decisions. Otherwise it's subjective, and if its subjective there will be more frustratingly wrong decisions, where the bigger clubs normally benefit.

Not true. Being in an offside position is just a part of it. There are many other factors in the final decision and they are all subjective.

[Elmore Saint]

1 hour ago, Fabrice29 said:

Hearing the audio won’t change anything. Mistakes will be made, people will argue about the audio as well as the decisions and be even further removed from the football itself. There’s a whole culture reset needed to get football anywhere near Rugby, hearing people who are already vilified chat and justify their decisions to a baying crowd won’t achieve much really but it’s a nice line, idea, and dream. 
 

Oh and btw, those things you say that rugby refs say to each other, they get said in football too, there’s plenty of audio of that released now, they do a monthly show with it all on, lots of conferring and talking etc, but guess what, mistakes still get made, it’s life, it’s human.

Totally get you on the culture change - That cannot come soon enough. 

As for the audio, we’ll have to agree to disagree on that. Of there will always be debate and contention over decisions, but a “monthly VAR show” just gives the impression of glossing over things. Transparency in its glorious and inglorious form matters. 

[Fan The Flames]

29 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Not true. Being in an offside position is just a part of it. There are many other factors in the final decision and they are all subjective.

Fundamentally it is a yes no question. There are the nuances around being active and inactive but at the heart of offside and in the majority of cases, is the factual question 'was the player receiving the ball offside when the ball was kicked'.

[gecko]

32 minutes ago, Alain Perrin said:

There will always be mistakes (human / computer) etc.

My problem with VAR and offside in general is it has forgotten why the law is there.  Whether or not someone's foot / sleeve / or nose was technically offside,  it takes no account of whether the advantage was material.  

When you are 30m from goal, beat 3 players and then the goal is ruled out because of someone's toenail in the build up, it is a joke.

 

Yup. This is my biggest gripe with VAR + Offside. The slightest body part being offside isn't offside in my eyes, and not what the rule was originally brought in to stop. I get why the VAR system has to be so black/white about it though, but I'm getting to the point where I now think it's more enjoyable to not have it, and suffer the mistakes instead of seeing a good goal chalked off for a toe being over a line.

 

1 hour ago, Fabrice29 said:

Hearing the audio won’t change anything. Mistakes will be made, people will argue about the audio as well as the decisions and be even further removed from the football itself. There’s a whole culture reset needed to get football anywhere near Rugby, hearing people who are already vilified chat and justify their decisions to a baying crowd won’t achieve much really but it’s a nice line, idea, and dream. 
 

Oh and btw, those things you say that rugby refs say to each other, they get said in football too, there’s plenty of audio of that released now, they do a monthly show with it all on, lots of conferring and talking etc, but guess what, mistakes still get made, it’s life, it’s human.

I think the majority of people would prefer to hear the reasoning behind the decision than not hear it. At least with the audio fans might actually know why a goal was disallowed, which will lessen the anger for some, or will at least provide reasons to their arguments. Rather than no-one knowing why a seemingly good goal was chalked off and just hurling abuse at the officials.

People understand that hearing it wont undo a mistake/decision against their team, but it's much easier to accept it and move on if you know the reasons why it was disallowed.

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, Fabrice29 said:

Hearing the audio won’t change anything.  

I dunno, it might make it clear what went wrong, wether it was genuine mistake or just cheating.

I've heard the VAR guy thought the goal had been given so just confirmed to the ref that the decision was correct. How that happened and why VAR didn't correct it when it was obvious the mistake had happened is anyone's guess. Looks like cheating to me.

[Whitey Grandad]

39 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

Fundamentally it is a yes no question. There are the nuances around being active and inactive but at the heart of offside and in the majority of cases, is the factual question 'was the player receiving the ball offside when the ball was kicked'.

You are so wrong. I recommend that you lookup the Laws relating to offside decisions.

[AlexLaw76]

16 minutes ago, aintforever said:

I dunno, it might make it clear what went wrong, wether it was genuine mistake or just cheating.

I've heard the VAR guy thought the goal had been given so just confirmed to the ref that the decision was correct. How that happened and why VAR didn't correct it when it was obvious the mistake had happened is anyone's guess. Looks like cheating to me.

Cheating what and for what gain?

was Kevin friend cheating the numerous times he gave Liverpool ridiculous decisions?

[AlexLaw76]

1 hour ago, gecko said:

Yup. This is my biggest gripe with VAR + Offside. The slightest body part being offside isn't offside in my eyes, and not what the rule was originally brought in to stop. I get why the VAR system has to be so black/white about it though, but I'm getting to the point where I now think it's more enjoyable to not have it, and suffer the mistakes instead of seeing a good goal chalked off for a toe being over a line.

 

I think the majority of people would prefer to hear the reasoning behind the decision than not hear it. At least with the audio fans might actually know why a goal was disallowed, which will lessen the anger for some, or will at least provide reasons to their arguments. Rather than no-one knowing why a seemingly good goal was chalked off and just hurling abuse at the officials.

People understand that hearing it wont undo a mistake/decision against their team, but it's much easier to accept it and move on if you know the reasons why it was disallowed.

The idea that football fans and pundits simply accept decisions and move on is hilarious. Why do you think we have VAR in the first place?

Edited 3 October, 2023 by AlexLaw76

[Whitey Grandad]

26 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

The idea that football fans and pundits simply accept decisions and move on a hilarious. Why do you think we have VAR in the first place?

To provide more fuel for arguments.

[sydney_saint]

12 hours ago, Saint_clark said:

Just don't understand why they are using current referees for VAR, all mates and chums working together not wanting to make each other look stupid. VAR should be an independent pool of newly hired and trained officials that have no problem telling a referee that they're a blind c*nt and need to go change their decision. 

Good idea in theory, but in practice less so. There just isn't this great pool of referees for them to dive into. After decades of referee abuse at grassroot level, we are feeling the results of it. Wenger, Sir Alex, Klopp, Pep, Mourinho etc have all abused their positions at refs, as well as footballers themselves, and that behviour has been replicated at grassroots. Unfortunately this is the best group of refs in this country and they are not up to standard. Getting even worse refs to man the var stations will likely end up with even more inconstancy. 

Clubs like Liverpool need to stop berating and actually start working on the solution. There's no corruption, there's just incompetence, and that's gonna take years to sort out.

[Fan The Flames]

2 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

You are so wrong. I recommend that you lookup the Laws relating to offside decisions.

I'm not so wrong.

I get that you are a referee and that inactive play has brought some subjectivity into it. But the classic offside in the 'toenail type' decisions where they draw the line, is about whether the receiving player is offside when the ball was kicked. The is no subjectivity there, the moment the ball is kicked is defined, the line of offside is defined and the body parts that can be offside are defined. 

Name me a situation where the player who recieves the ball can be in an offside position when the ball is played, without something happening in between. 

[Fan The Flames]

2 hours ago, aintforever said:

I dunno, it might make it clear what went wrong, wether it was genuine mistake or just cheating.

I've heard the VAR guy thought the goal had been given so just confirmed to the ref that the decision was correct. How that happened and why VAR didn't correct it when it was obvious the mistake had happened is anyone's guess. Looks like cheating to me.

Because there isn't a mechanism to correct a mistake made by VAR, which is ironic as VAR is the mechanism to correct on field mistakes. It's obviously a fundamental flaw with the VAR set up.

But it's no surprise this flaw wasn't foreseen, because referees arrogantly believe that they are infallible. They understand mistakes can happen on the field because of the speed of the game, but if they are given time and numerous views, the black law gods would never be wrong.

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Cheating what and for what gain?

was Kevin friend cheating the numerous times he gave Liverpool ridiculous decisions?

I don't know but releasing the audio should make it clearer. If it's obviously just a genuine fuck-up it should stop the scousers moaning for a day or two.

[PJ]

Haven't seen it mentioned anywhere, but would VAR have ruled-out Leeds' goal on Saturday? It seemed from the TV replays that Leeds' first attempt was cleared by Armstrong (I think?) with a Leeds player immediately behind him. Armstrong was stretching to clear the ball, when presumably he would had let it go passed him and out for a goal kick if the Leeds player wasn't there. From the resulting scramble, Leeds scored.

Because i've not seen a single comment about this, perhaps i've got it wrong, and the leeds player was being played onside by someone...but i can't see it from the TV replays

 

[danjosaint]

2 hours ago, AlexLaw76 said:

Cheating what and for what gain?

was Kevin friend cheating the numerous times he gave Liverpool ridiculous decisions?

But after Mike Dean came out and implied he's let decisions go to back up his mates then what do you expect 

[Whitey Grandad]

44 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

I'm not so wrong.

I get that you are a referee and that inactive play has brought some subjectivity into it. But the classic offside in the 'toenail type' decisions where they draw the line, is about whether the receiving player is offside when the ball was kicked. The is no subjectivity there, the moment the ball is kicked is defined, the line of offside is defined and the body parts that can be offside are defined. 

Name me a situation where the player who recieves the ball can be in an offside position when the ball is played, without something happening in between. 

Being in an offside position is not an offence in itself. It’s what action that this player does next that determines the decision. Such player might also be interfering with an opponent, for instance.

Here is the full Law. There are also some explanatory notes.

2. Offside offence

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

• interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
• interfering with an opponent by:
  • preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
  • challenging an opponent for the ball or
  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

*The first point of contact of the 'play' or 'touch' of the ball should be used

or

• gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
  • rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
  • been deliberately saved by any opponent

A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately played* the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent. 

*‘Deliberate play’ (excluding deliberate handball) is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:

• passing the ball to a team-mate;
• gaining possession of the ball; or
• clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it)

If the pass, attempt to gain possession or clearance by the player in control of the ball is inaccurate or unsuccessful, this does not negate the fact that the player ‘deliberately played’ the ball.

The following criteria should be used, as appropriate, as indicators that a player was in control of the ball and, as a result, can be considered to have ‘deliberately played’ the ball:

• The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it
• The ball was not moving quickly
• The direction of the ball was not unexpected
• The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited
  contact/control
• A ball moving on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the air

A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area).

In situations where:

• a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent's progress (e.g blocks the opponent) the offence should be penalised under Law 12
• a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence
• an offence is committed against a player in an offside position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge

[Fan The Flames]

50 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Being in an offside position is not an offence in itself. It’s what action that this player does next that determines the decision. Such player might also be interfering with an opponent, for instance.

Here is the full Law. There are also some explanatory notes.

2. Offside offence

......

Firstly that is not the whole law as you've missed out section one, the most important section. Secondly, you still haven't answered my question. Put aside the inactive stuff, I said early on that everyone understands this bit to be nuanced and therefore could be subjective. Where is the subjectivity in your everyday 'toenail type' offside decisions? 

[Fan The Flames]

1 hour ago, danjosaint said:

But after Mike Dean came out and implied he's let decisions go to back up his mates then what do you expect 

Where was that from, I'll like to see that.

[Whitey Grandad]

21 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

Firstly that is not the whole law as you've missed out section one, the most important section. Secondly, you still haven't answered my question. Put aside the inactive stuff, I said early on that everyone understands this bit to be nuanced and therefore could be subjective. Where is the subjectivity in your everyday 'toenail type' offside decisions? 

The first part of the Law is not worth repeating because I’m sure everybody knows that, or thinks they do.

The problem is in defining the exact moment that the ball is ‘kicked’. Then there are occasions where a defender might have touched it. TV cameras are typically 50 frames per second so the time difference between shots can be 20ms. 
 

The offside law as introduced was never meant to be implemented by pseudo-scientific methods. The general principle is whether the player is nears to the opponent’s goal than the second to last defender. That’s the player, not his nose or his toenail. It is intentionally imprecise and is expected to be adjudged by some standing at the side of the pitch holding a flag. Football in general is an imprecise sport. If you want something more definitive then you should play Russian Roulette.

[The Cat]

2 hours ago, PJ said:

Haven't seen it mentioned anywhere, but would VAR have ruled-out Leeds' goal on Saturday? It seemed from the TV replays that Leeds' first attempt was cleared by Armstrong (I think?) with a Leeds player immediately behind him. Armstrong was stretching to clear the ball, when presumably he would had let it go passed him and out for a goal kick if the Leeds player wasn't there. From the resulting scramble, Leeds scored.

Because i've not seen a single comment about this, perhaps i've got it wrong, and the leeds player was being played onside by someone...but i can't see it from the TV replays

 

Unlikely but you never know.

More likely is that out first goal would have been ruled out for offside.

[Fan The Flames]

43 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

The first part of the Law is not worth repeating because I’m sure everybody knows that, or thinks they do.

The problem is in defining the exact moment that the ball is ‘kicked’. Then there are occasions where a defender might have touched it. TV cameras are typically 50 frames per second so the time difference between shots can be 20ms. 
 

The offside law as introduced was never meant to be implemented by pseudo-scientific methods. The general principle is whether the player is nears to the opponent’s goal than the second to last defender. That’s the player, not his nose or his toenail. It is intentionally imprecise and is expected to be adjudged by some standing at the side of the pitch holding a flag. Football in general is an imprecise sport. If you want something more definitive then you should play Russian Roulette.

But it was the first part of the law we were talking about. Whatever the intentions of the original law are irrelevant, it has changed loads over times over the years. It is what the governing body is now doing that's relevant, and it has chosen to manage the law in top flight football using pseudo-scientific methods, the body is clearly defined and the nose or toenail is part of the body. Whether you like VAR or not is a different argument, there are clearly deficiencies with VAR and that is another discussion. But the fact remains, offside in this manner is a matter of fact, yes or no, just like has the ball crossed the goal line or not.

[Fan The Flames]

39 minutes ago, The Cat said:

Unlikely but you never know.

More likely is that out first goal would have been ruled out for offside.

 

It's very tight. 

[PJ]

1 hour ago, The Cat said:

Unlikely but you never know.

More likely is that out first goal would have been ruled out for offside.

Not disagreeing with you, but why unlikely? Have you seen the replay for the first part of the Leeds goal? If I knew how to post an image I would…

[Fan The Flames]

44 minutes ago, PJ said:

Not disagreeing with you, but why unlikely? Have you seen the replay for the first part of the Leeds goal? If I knew how to post an image I would…

 

The Leeds player is offside but he's not challenging for the ball or stopping Armstrong play it. I had a discussion with a ref when we had something similar at our kids game, the fact that the player being in an offside position entices Armstrong to play the ball is ok and the fact that Armstrong's clearance is poor is just tough luck.

 

Edited 3 October, 2023 by Fan The Flames

[AlexLaw76]

This incident will go down in Scouse Folklore. Shirts will be worn during warmups, songs sung, Tories blamed....this is everything they revel in

Until such time they benefit from a significant referring cock up

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Fan The Flames said:

But it was the first part of the law we were talking about. Whatever the intentions of the original law are irrelevant, it has changed loads over times over the years. It is what the governing body is now doing that's relevant, and it has chosen to manage the law in top flight football using pseudo-scientific methods, the body is clearly defined and the nose or toenail is part of the body. Whether you like VAR or not is a different argument, there are clearly deficiencies with VAR and that is another discussion. But the fact remains, offside in this manner is a matter of fact, yes or no, just like has the ball crossed the goal line or not.

The images are a long way from having the resolution necessary to identify body parts to anything accurate enough to compare positions on different parts of the pitch, in some cases over 50 metres apart. Bearing in mind that you are projecting a three dimensional scene onto a flat sensor surface typically less than 9mm across through a significant lens then distortions are unavoidable.

There is no such thing as ‘matter of fact’. There will always be an area of uncertainty in any measurement process and in the case of offside that is probably more than half a metre or so.

[Fan The Flames]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

This incident will go down in Scouse Folklore. Shirts will be worn during warmups, songs sung, Tories blamed....this is everything they revel in

Until such time they benefit from a significant referring cock up

Dark forces want Man City to win the league.

[Whitey Grandad]

Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

This incident will go down in Scouse Folklore. Shirts will be worn during warmups, songs sung, Tories blamed....this is everything they revel in

Until such time they benefit from a significant referring cock up

Didn’t they benefit last season when Salah was well offside when the ball was deflected to him off the head of a defender?

[Fan The Flames]

3 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

The images are a long way from having the resolution necessary to identify body parts to anything accurate enough to compare positions on different parts of the pitch, in some cases over 50 metres apart. Bearing in mind that you are projecting a three dimensional scene onto a flat sensor surface typically less than 9mm across through a significant lens then distortions are unavoidable.

There is no such thing as ‘matter of fact’. There will always be an area of uncertainty in any measurement process and in the case of offside that is probably more than half a metre or so.

But you are still talking about the deficiencies of VAR, just like there are deficiencies in using the naked eye, that wasn't your original point. In either system a yes no decision is called, there is no uncertainty as far as the game is concerned. We know that's not actually the case but accept it as being as good as it can be. Although fans, managers and pundits didn't accept it and this is why we have VAR. Anyway I am getting boring now, so I shall leave it at that.

[PJ]

17 minutes ago, Fan The Flames said:

 

The Leeds player is offside but he's not challenging for the ball or stopping Armstrong play it. I had a discussion with a ref when we had something similar at our kids game, the fact that the player being in an offside position entices Armstrong to play the ball is ok and the fact that Armstrong's clearance is poor is just tough luck.

 

Thanks! That’s the explanation I was looking for. It’s a crazy rule. It encourages Armstrong to leave the ball alone and hope/trust the linesman  does his job and flags offside (if Leeds player attempts to play the ball). That would be ok if we could always trust the linesmen to get it right. 

[IFHP]

Talk sport have just played the audio It’s worth a listen .

[trousers]

27 minutes ago, IFHP said:

Talk sport have just played the audio It’s worth a listen .

F**k me... Sounds like a bunch of 12 year olds arguing in a play ground. They couldn't make it sound any more unprofessional if they tried. How can rugby and cricket make this kinda thing work so easily yet the football authorities completely f**k it up. Amateurs.

Edited 3 October, 2023 by trousers

[whelk]

25 minutes ago, IFHP said:

Talk sport have just played the audio It’s worth a listen .

https://x.com/centregoals/status/1709261334687125560?s=46&t=t-JdmEIKBz0VQY714SRLhQ

 

Oli Oli?

Edited 3 October, 2023 by whelk

[benali-shorts]

What a bunch of muppets. They have absolutely no defined process to work to. And tiny little brains to try and work it out on the hoof. 

[AlexLaw76]

28 minutes ago, benali-shorts said:

What a bunch of muppets. They have absolutely no defined process to work to. And tiny little brains to try and work it out on the hoof. 

Bit of a daft comment 

Edited 3 October, 2023 by AlexLaw76

[danjosaint]

6 hours ago, Fan The Flames said:

Where was that from, I'll like to see that.

When he stopped reffing a few months back he done interview with either sky or talksport and said he iirc didn't give a decision because didn't want to undermine his 'mate' he also said he shouldn't of sent Bednarek off at old Trafford and that was mistake 

[Ex Lion Tamer]

It's quite funny that we're now the big club getting the favourable decisions

[Shufty Zubrik]

The lack of professionalism in that audio is unacceptable. Talking to each other as if they were in the pub, “mate”. No focus on what was being arbitrated. No clarity or authority in communication. Lax attention to detail. Contrast with Rugby and Cricket where the VAR/TMO are clear about the incident that requires clarification and it ends with a totally clear decision on the outcome that includes confirmation of the incident referred. Howard Webb needs to grip this and tear up the assumption that the on field referee is somehow to be supported. If video proves the referee wrong or right so be it. Just accept that a properly managed referral ceases to be about the referee, it is about the truth. 

[rallyboy]

Onside is the only verdict they needed to give in this latest case.

One word, repeated with clarity.

We clearly have the wrong people operating a system that has been complicated by committee.

People say it doesn't matter, but there's big money at stake and that mistake could make the difference between Liverpool finishing 8th or 9th.