Will VAR Change Football for the Better?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

LotusOmega375D said:

What happened to the claim that VAR would be used for “clear and obvious errors?” This is from the PL’s own website, posted 3 years ago now. It wasn’t worth the virtual paper it was written on.

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1297392

If you read your link, clear and obvious only applies to subjective decisions. Offside is not a subjective decision, it's binary. It's either offside or it isn't.

[Driver101]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

LotusOmega375D said:

What happened to the claim that VAR would be used for “clear and obvious errors?” This is from the PL’s own website, posted 3 years ago now. It wasn’t worth the virtual paper it was written on.

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1297392

If you read your link, clear and obvious only applies to subjective decisions. Offside is not a subjective decision, it's binary. It's either offside or it isn't.

Did you not see Rashford's goal against Liverpool? He was offside, but within a new margin of error. Even though VAR found him to be offside he was still onside.

The bigger issue is the margin of error hasn't been used in other tight offside decisions.

[Driver101]

LotusOmega375D said:

The chalked-off Mac Allister thunderbolt in the Brighton v Leicester game was an odd one. On-field referee gives the goal. VAR then spends ages looking if a Brighton player was off-side just before the shot came in. Even with slow motion replays it looked like he didn’t touch it and the ball was cleared out of the penalty area by a Leicester defender. You could then claim that the suspect was interfering with play regardless of whether he touched the ball or not. This is the route VAR seemed to go down, but instead of drawing the cross field lines and telling the referee it was off-side and rule out the goal, they asked him to go and check the monitor. Why? He was either off-side or he wasn’t. The on-field referee has no additional tools to make that decision: that’s what VAR is for. The only time I have ever seen a PL referee go to the monitor is to adjudicate on something like a foul in the penalty box, not an off-side decision.

I think the referee getting involved would be to make the decision if the player that was offside was interfering or not.

If the defender cleared the ball without interference then it wouldn't have been offside. The attacking player had his foot high and it did put the defender off. He didn't clear the ball with any conviction with fear of getting a boot to the face.

[Terminator X]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

LotusOmega375D said:

What happened to the claim that VAR would be used for “clear and obvious errors?” This is from the PL’s own website, posted 3 years ago now. It wasn’t worth the virtual paper it was written on.

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1297392

If you read your link, clear and obvious only applies to subjective decisions. Offside is not a subjective decision, it's binary. It's either offside or it isn't.

They need to change the rule, daylight between players rather than milimetres.

TX.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Terminator X said:

They need to change the rule, daylight between players rather than milimetres.

TX.

That would mean that say, from a free kick, the attacker got goal side of the defender, and was standing right in front of him, with the defender pressed up against him, he would be onside. Even though he's clearly in front of the defender, because there was no daylight between them!

[franki68]

Driver101 said:

Did you not see Rashford's goal against Liverpool? He was offside, but within a new margin of error. Even though VAR found him to be offside he was still onside.

The bigger issue is the margin of error hasn't been used in other tight offside decisions.

The margin of error is used in other decisions ,they just didn’t fall within the tolerance range .

[pincher]

Terminator X said:

They need to change the rule, daylight between players rather than milimetres.

TX.

With these extrememly marginal offside decisions, I believe half the problem is that the VAR person is freezing the action at a certain point which shows it as offside, yet go back one frame and the story is different. That one frame can make a heck of a difference.

I'd prefer it if we just used the goal-line technology and not have VAR - just go back to the on-pitch referee calling it as he sees it, for good or bad. If he makes an innocent mistake, then so be it.

As a WH fan, obviously I'm annoyed at what happened against Chelsea but I'm also pragmatic enough to recognise that, over the course of time, VAR has quite possibly gone our way more times than not (see game v Spurs as a prime example). Doesn't mean I have to like it though.

[Blib]

That's one more thing. There are too few frames to make these close calls. Especially if, as it seems, half a boot, or a hand, is vital to a VAR decision.

[TEKNOPUG]

Blib said:

That's one more thing. There are too few frames to make these close calls. Especially if, as it seems, half a boot, or a hand, is vital to a VAR decision.

That's why there needs to be a margin of error applied in the attacker's favour.

[LotusOmega375D]

I wouldn’t recommend Bruno Fernandes or Manuel Neuer as VAR officials after they retire from playing. According to their on-field reactions, their respective teams have never conceded a legitimate goal, so they would rule everything out.

[Glassman]

LotusOmega375D said:

Bruno Fernandes

When you can see what he can do on the pitch, he is easily a likeable player. When you see what he does on the pitch, he's hateful.

[pincher]

Glassman said:

LotusOmega375D said:

Bruno Fernandes

When you can see what he can do on the pitch, he is easily a likeable player. When you see what he does on the pitch, he's hateful.

I said to my son at the weekend that there aren't many players that I dislike intensely due to the way that they act on the pitch but he is certainly up there in the top 1.

[Blib]

TEKNOPUG said:

Blib said:

That's one more thing. There are too few frames to make these close calls. Especially if, as it seems, half a boot, or a hand, is vital to a VAR decision.

That's why there needs to be a margin of error applied in the attacker's favour.

It is a shame that the same 'margin of error' is not afforded to the referee.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

pincher said:

I'd prefer it if we just used the goal-line technology and not have VAR - just go back to the on-pitch referee calling it as he sees it, for good or bad. If he makes an innocent mistake, then so be it.

I'd get rid of it all, including goal line tech. Goals given that never crossed the line, or not given that did, were quite rare events and when they happen, become part of football folklore. The odd awful injustice is a good thing.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Blib said:

It is a shame that the same 'margin of error' is not afforded to the referee.

Indeed. If you analyse every game, every misplaced pass, every off target shot, every corner that hits the first man, then without doubt the referee makes the fewest errors of anyone on the pitch, even if he has a bad game.

[Antony Moxey]

'Clear and obvious errors'. If it takes 4 1/2 minutes to decide whether a player's offside or not, it's not a clear and obvious error - that should be spotted on a replay pretty much instantly, otherwise, by definition, it's not 'clear and obvious'.

[Glassman]

I'm struggling with the interpretation of 'clear and obvious' as to me it's subjective. No doubt someone will quote what PGMOL says it is, but what is CAO to one may not be to another when you consider how much acting and faking goes on. Consistency is a debate of its own and club/player/referee personalities/reputations are also factors.

Martinelli's goal was chalked off for an alleged foul which the referee confirmed after a review. There are countless comparisons which support both sides of 'clear and obvious'. Some given, others not.

[TEKNOPUG]

Glassman said:

I'm struggling with the interpretation of 'clear and obvious' as to me it's subjective. No doubt someone will quote what PGMOL says it is, but what is CAO to one may not be to another when you consider how much acting and faking goes on. Consistency is a debate of its own and club/player/referee personalities/reputations are also factors.

Martinelli's goal was chalked off for an alleged foul which the referee confirmed after a review. There are countless comparisons which support both sides of 'clear and obvious'. Some given, others not.

Football clubs are not run by former players. The EPL is not run by former players. The FA is not run by former players. Yet the PGMOL is run by former Referees. Therein lies the problem.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Antony Moxey said:

'Clear and obvious errors'. If it takes 4 1/2 minutes to decide whether a player's offside or not, it's not a clear and obvious error - that should be spotted on a replay pretty much instantly, otherwise, by definition, it's not 'clear and obvious'.

How many times!!!! Offsides ARE NOT subject to the "clear and obvious" ruling.

[Antony Moxey]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Antony Moxey said:

'Clear and obvious errors'. If it takes 4 1/2 minutes to decide whether a player's offside or not, it's not a clear and obvious error - that should be spotted on a replay pretty much instantly, otherwise, by definition, it's not 'clear and obvious'.

How many times!!!! Offsides ARE NOT subject to the "clear and obvious" ruling.

Calm down petal. 4 1/2 minutes is still too long to decide whether someone's offside, especially as the referee was then invited to look at a pitchside monitor.