Will VAR Change Football for the Better?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

RichB said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

There's only ever been 1 change to the offside law, level used to be off, now it's on. Everything else is just down to Fifa directives on interpretation.

Disagree. Any player used to be offside as long as he was in an offside position on the pitch, i.e. you could be strolling around by the corner flag with the play in the middle of the park but you would be offside and a free kick would be given to the defending side. It was then changed so that you had to be interfering with play. That's not interpretation, that's a change to the law.

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong. The last change in the law was 1990, level became on instead of off. The change before that came in 1925, it used to be 3 players from the defending team to play you onside, but in 1925 it changed to 2.

Not interfering with play has been with us always, but has ebbed and flowed in interpretation. I think it was Shankley who said, after conceding what he though was an offside goal, "if he's not interfering with play, what's he doing on the pitch?" which just goes to show that back then, 40 years ago, it was a raging debate.

There was a period in the 50s when the interpretation was similar to what we have now. Stanley Matthews would have been technically offside for half of the goals he set up, as he'd whip the ball in from the touchline and still be miles offside when the attacker headed it in, unless he'd gone off the pitch.

[RichB]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

RichB said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

There's only ever been 1 change to the offside law, level used to be off, now it's on. Everything else is just down to Fifa directives on interpretation.

Disagree. Any player used to be offside as long as he was in an offside position on the pitch, i.e. you could be strolling around by the corner flag with the play in the middle of the park but you would be offside and a free kick would be given to the defending side. It was then changed so that you had to be interfering with play. That's not interpretation, that's a change to the law.

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong. The last change in the law was 1990, level became on instead of off. The change before that came in 1925, it used to be 3 players from the defending team to play you onside, but in 1925 it changed to 2.

Not interfering with play has been with us always, but has ebbed and flowed in interpretation. I think it was Shankley who said, after conceding what he though was an offside goal, "if he's not interfering with play, what's he doing on the pitch?" which just goes to show that back then, 40 years ago, it was a raging debate.

There was a period in the 50s when the interpretation was similar to what we have now. Stanley Matthews would have been technically offside for half of the goals he set up, as he'd whip the ball in from the touchline and still be miles offside when the attacker headed it in, unless he'd gone off the pitch.

I know you have strong opinions but I played in the '60s & '70s and your statement of interpretation was not the case. You were simply offside or not, end of. don't recollect a single occasion when I was ambling around in an offside position and the ref allowed play to continue because I wasn't interfering with play.

Edited by RichB on Friday 2nd March 16:23

[RichB]

p.s. I thought Harry Redknapp said it but Wiki says your interfering with play quote is credited to Bill Nicholson (Spurs) not Shankley. Who knows for sure.

Edited by RichB on Friday 2nd March 16:25

[RichB]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Stanley Matthews would have been technically offside for half of the goals he set up, as he'd whip the ball in from the touchline and still be miles offside when the attacker headed it in, unless he'd gone off the pitch.

No, because if the winger beat the last bloke to the byline and whipped a cross in the striker would be behind the ball i.e. onside.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

RichB said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Stanley Matthews would have been technically offside for half of the goals he set up, as he'd whip the ball in from the touchline and still be miles offside when the attacker headed it in, unless he'd gone off the pitch.

No, because if the winger beat the last bloke to the byline and whipped a cross in the striker would be behind the ball i.e. onside.

I know, the cross from Matthews is fine, but when the striker rises to head the ball forward, then Matthews is standing in an offside position.

Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Friday 2nd March 18:01

[TwigtheWonderkid]

RichB said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

RichB said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

There's only ever been 1 change to the offside law, level used to be off, now it's on. Everything else is just down to Fifa directives on interpretation.

Disagree. Any player used to be offside as long as he was in an offside position on the pitch, i.e. you could be strolling around by the corner flag with the play in the middle of the park but you would be offside and a free kick would be given to the defending side. It was then changed so that you had to be interfering with play. That's not interpretation, that's a change to the law.

Sorry, but you are just plain wrong. The last change in the law was 1990, level became on instead of off. The change before that came in 1925, it used to be 3 players from the defending team to play you onside, but in 1925 it changed to 2.

Not interfering with play has been with us always, but has ebbed and flowed in interpretation. I think it was Shankley who said, after conceding what he though was an offside goal, "if he's not interfering with play, what's he doing on the pitch?" which just goes to show that back then, 40 years ago, it was a raging debate.

There was a period in the 50s when the interpretation was similar to what we have now. Stanley Matthews would have been technically offside for half of the goals he set up, as he'd whip the ball in from the touchline and still be miles offside when the attacker headed it in, unless he'd gone off the pitch.

I know you have strong opinions but I played in the '60s & '70s and your statement of interpretation was not the case. You were simply offside or not, end of. don't recollect a single occasion when I was ambling around in an offside position and the ref allowed play to continue because I wasn't interfering with play.

Edited by RichB on Friday 2nd March 16:23

You may be right, that at the time you played, the directive on interfering was very strict. But the bottom line is the offside law hasn't changed, only the interpretation. It's easy enough for you to check, just google history of the offside law.

[RichB]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

It's easy enough for you to check, just google history of the offside law.

Google is notoriously incorrect. There will be a generation of kids who think everything on the internet is gospel, instead it's usually something hacked together by someone hoping to get clicks on a website. Have you got a copy of the FA's Laws & Rules of the game from the late 60s? I distinctly remember the change because lino's then had to watch which player touched the ball (at the same time as watching when the ball was kicked - joke!) and then deciding whether or not to raise their flag. Previously at least all they had to do was cast an eye across the field to look for offside players. Anyway, this rather detracts from the discussion on VAR which I agree is crap.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

RichB said:

I distinctly remember the change

No doubt there was a change, following a directive from Fifa on how to interpret the law, not a change in the law.

[RichB]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

RichB said:

I distinctly remember the change

No doubt there was a change, following a directive from Fifa on how to interpret the law, not a change in the law.

OK... the current law states "If a player receives the ball in an offside position, the referee awards a free-kick where the ball was touched." So, when I played , before the more recent change, the ref always, awarded a free kick from where I was if I was in an offside position, even if I had not touched the ball.

And to quote from your friend Google... "The impact of the 2005 Change"

"So to be offside, a player has either to touch the ball or be in a position potentially to make physical contact with an opponent."

Note the word Change.

"But it was in 2005 that the most radical changes came, and the switch to a law that, 142 years after it was first formulated, at last seems to have got it right."

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2010/apr/13...

I'll let you read it in your own time

Edited by RichB on Friday 2nd March 21:09

Edited by RichB on Friday 2nd March 21:11

[TwigtheWonderkid]

RichB said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

RichB said:

I distinctly remember the change

No doubt there was a change, following a directive from Fifa on how to interpret the law, not a change in the law.

OK... the current law states "If a player receives the ball in an offside position, the referee awards a free-kick where the ball was touched." So, when I played , before the more recent change, the ref always, awarded a free kick from where I was if I was in an offside position, even if I had not touched the ball.

And to quote from your friend Google... "The impact of the 2005 Change"

"So to be offside, a player has either to touch the ball or be in a position potentially to make physical contact with an opponent."

Note the word Change.

"But it was in 2005 that the most radical changes came, and the switch to a law that, 142 years after it was first formulated, at last seems to have got it right."

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2010/apr/13...

I'll let you read it in your own time

Edited by RichB on Friday 2nd March 21:09

Edited by RichB on Friday 2nd March 21:11

Fair point, but as far as I know, this was classed not as a law change but an amendment, which is basically, in Fifa speak, a written instruction on interpretation. As opposed to just a recommendation on interpretation (which refs can be punished for not following anyway). Although I accept that an amendment is a change to most people.

[Boydie88]

[redacted]

[dsmith1990]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43791511

Ridiculous

[zb]

dsmith1990 said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43791511

Ridiculous

Not really, I thought this bet was burst.

[Puggit]

dsmith1990 said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43791511

Ridiculous

It's so ridiculous, it's as if the referees are working to get VAR removed...

[graylag]

Sorry to resurrect this, but watching ESP v Barca and they e just spent 4 minutes ruling out a n Espagnol
Goal to Make it 1-4 after 72 mins. The infringement was pretty much imperceptible to the human eye. If football is that scientific then it’ll kill the game IMO

[Gad-Westy]

graylag said:

Sorry to resurrect this, but watching ESP v Barca and they e just spent 4 minutes ruling out a n Espagnol
Goal to Make it 1-4 after 72 mins. The infringement was pretty much imperceptible to the human eye. If football is that scientific then it’ll kill the game IMO

I'm sick of VAR already and it hasn't even really hit the english game properly yet. Actually, it's not VAR I'm sick of, it's the absolute obsession the football media have with decisions having to be right that has led to VAR in the first place. Pundits banging on about how important it is now that the big decisions must be correct. They don't have to be. The game has been played for getting on for 150 years almost unchanged and grown enormously popular despite many decisions, some in very big games, being completely wrong. As fans we'll all have been on the receiving end of an unjust decision or two and we'll have conveniently turned a blind eye when a total refereeing howler goes our way. It fuels the romance of the game, the pub chat, the banter. It's okay for the game to be flawed.

In recent years, the only things that I can see that has changed is that we have more and more camera angles on the big games, more and more 'experts' with a voice and there is more money at stake. The actual game of football itself hasn't changed a bit. I don't know why we are trying to change such a beautifully simple game into something that seems so flawed, clunky and cold.

[Black can man]

Gad-Westy said:

graylag said:

Sorry to resurrect this, but watching ESP v Barca and they e just spent 4 minutes ruling out a n Espagnol
Goal to Make it 1-4 after 72 mins. The infringement was pretty much imperceptible to the human eye. If football is that scientific then it’ll kill the game IMO

I'm sick of VAR already and it hasn't even really hit the english game properly yet. Actually, it's not VAR I'm sick of, it's the absolute obsession the football media have with decisions having to be right that has led to VAR in the first place. Pundits banging on about how important it is now that the big decisions must be correct. They don't have to be. The game has been played for getting on for 150 years almost unchanged and grown enormously popular despite many decisions, some in very big games, being completely wrong. As fans we'll all have been on the receiving end of an unjust decision or two and we'll have conveniently turned a blind eye when a total refereeing howler goes our way. It fuels the romance of the game, the pub chat, the banter. It's okay for the game to be flawed.

In recent years, the only things that I can see that has changed is that we have more and more camera angles on the big games, more and more 'experts' with a voice and there is more money at stake. The actual game of football itself hasn't changed a bit. I don't know why we are trying to change such a beautifully simple game into something that seems so flawed, clunky and cold.

It has changed the game of Cricket to be fair & for the better, I'm not a fan myself but i would like to see silly officiating mistakes eradicated .

There are lots of fans of the smaller clubs that think the bigger clubs get the bigger decisions & VAR will sort this out.

I'm happy to see how this goes & surely we all want a level playing field. That's what sport is all about surely.

May not be as bad as you think.

[Driver101]

If the decision takes anything more than a few seconds then it wasn't a clear and obvious error.

I still can't decide if I want VAR or not. If it is implemented it does need to be better than it has been so far. It might improve over time, but the inconsistency of its usage in games is as bad as getting decisions wrong anyway.

[Melchett1905]

VAR will certainly change games/results.

I'm thinking back to Spurs v Chelsea a few weeks ago. Chelsea denied two penalties. The one on Hazard and Foyth pulling the Chelsea player from the corner. VAR would have given them.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Melchett1905 said:

VAR will certainly change games/results.

I'm thinking back to Spurs v Chelsea a few weeks ago. Chelsea denied two penalties. The one on Hazard and Foyth pulling the Chelsea player from the corner. VAR would have given them.

If the first one had been given, the rest of the game from that point on would have been completely different so the second one wouldn't have occurred. It would have been a different game which we probably would have lost by a bigger margin, given we played so badly. Hazard might have picked up a career ending injury in the alternative game that would have been played.