Will VAR Change Football for the Better?
Discussion
chml said:
Pukki was onside, he arched his run and the replay from Sky showed absolutely that he was onside at the point the pass was made. Ridiculous.
Nope, a stray beard hair was in an offside position. Just wondering, given that level is onside, what's the VAR definition of level. Because since this b
ks was introduced, I've seen about 30 goals ruled offside which were level in my book. TwigtheWonderkid said:
chml said:
Pukki was onside, he arched his run and the replay from Sky showed absolutely that he was onside at the point the pass was made. Ridiculous.
Nope, a stray beard hair was in an offside position. Just wondering, given that level is onside, what's the VAR definition of level. Because since this b
ks was introduced, I've seen about 30 goals ruled offside which were level in my book. It’s complete bks. It was supposed to do away with the “injustices” and help level then playing field by getting rid of the perception that all decisions favour the bigger clubs.
As it is it’s ruining the game. Nobody knows whether to celebrate a goal anymore and then the emotion has gone if it’s finally given.
The amount of games where a goal is ruled out for millimetres is ridiculous. Not least because as said above nobody can say when the ball actually leaves the boot / head of the player making the pass.
ks. It was supposed to do away with the “injustices” and help level then playing field by getting rid of the perception that all decisions favour the bigger clubs. As it is it’s ruining the game. Nobody knows whether to celebrate a goal anymore and then the emotion has gone if it’s finally given.
The amount of games where a goal is ruled out for millimetres is ridiculous. Not least because as said above nobody can say when the ball actually leaves the boot / head of the player making the pass.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Nope, a stray beard hair was in an offside position.
Just wondering, given that level is onside, what's the VAR definition of level. Because since this bks was introduced, I've seen about 30 goals ruled offside which were level in my book.
Spot on. I’ve always said, the off side rule was brought in to stop goal hanging, blatant offside players taking advantage of the big kick forward. Now the definition can only be judged by high definition images and computers. It’s a joke. Just wondering, given that level is onside, what's the VAR definition of level. Because since this b
ks was introduced, I've seen about 30 goals ruled offside which were level in my book. BEin Sports have just shown the Palace and Brighton “goals” that were ruled out. In both cases the player making the pass hasn”t released the bill fully. The ball stays is touch with a foot for a little while during the kick and this doesn’t appear to be considered with VAR.
Same stands for the Norwich player. I still can’t see that the lines show him as offside either.
Ian Rush and Andy Gray both reckon they’d have lost dozens of goals in their career to decisions like this.
Same stands for the Norwich player. I still can’t see that the lines show him as offside either.
Ian Rush and Andy Gray both reckon they’d have lost dozens of goals in their career to decisions like this.
Keoparakolo said:
Watford vs Villa has two interesting ones. The penalty not overturned for what is shoulder to shoulder and a blatant foul in the build up to their 3rd goal.
Some will argue the penalty was a penalty but it’s very, very soft IMO and really not a penalty.
bSome will argue the penalty was a penalty but it’s very, very soft IMO and really not a penalty.
ks, it's a clear attempt to knock Deeney over. I have far more sympathy for the 3rd goal, but as pointed out by Hoddle in the commentary, the ball had left a long before the challenge, so play wasn't impacted.
Puggit said:
Keoparakolo said:
Watford vs Villa has two interesting ones. The penalty not overturned for what is shoulder to shoulder and a blatant foul in the build up to their 3rd goal.
Some will argue the penalty was a penalty but it’s very, very soft IMO and really not a penalty.
bSome will argue the penalty was a penalty but it’s very, very soft IMO and really not a penalty.
ks, it's a clear attempt to knock Deeney over. I have far more sympathy for the 3rd goal, but as pointed out by Hoddle in the commentary, the ball had left a long before the challenge, so play wasn't impacted.
Any comments on the third goal foul?
em177 said:
There used to always be the view of; if it’s tight, favour the attacker.
That obviously went down the stter.
That's a bit of an urban myth. It was never about favouring the attacking team. The direction to referees for any decision is, if you aren't sure, don't give it, and play on. That favours the attacking team in an offside decision, and the defending side in a penalty appeal. Before goal line technology, it favoured the defending team in a "ball over the line" dispute. It's better not to give something that happened, than to give something that didn't happen. That obviously went down the s
tter.TTmonkey said:
Spot on. I’ve always said, the off side rule was brought in to stop goal hanging, blatant offside players taking advantage of the big kick forward. Now the definition can only be judged by high definition images and computers. It’s a joke.
Agreed, as usual the administrators are stuck in the headlights, it’s clear there’s a problem. I feel for Pukki, denied a goal of the month contender by a flawed system that goes unchallenged. LHRFlightman said:
craig1912 said:
Three VAR decisions today make the Premier League look a joke.
It probably needs a rule change but it should be their feet only- The Norwich players feet were at least 60cms behind the Spurs players. Absolute joke
I've been saying this for weeks. Feet only, jobIt probably needs a rule change but it should be their feet only- The Norwich players feet were at least 60cms behind the Spurs players. Absolute joke
done.
Could've meant Ajax going through to the knock-out stages and Chelsea in the EL.
Blue62 said:
Agreed, as usual the administrators are stuck in the headlights, it’s clear there’s a problem. I feel for Pukki, denied a goal of the month contender by a flawed system that goes unchallenged.
They're not stuck in the headlights, they are too arrogant to change. The belief is they are always right. Puggit said:
They're not stuck in the headlights, they are too arrogant to change. The belief is they are always right.
This.As a Spurs fan I found it outrageous that Pukki's arm rendered him offside.
FIFA, UEFA and the FA have invested too much in this flawed system for it ever to be dropped.
They destroy the game in their attempt at improving it.
I'm off the AFC Wimbledon today. It will be all the better for not having VAR, as the crowd can celebrate a goal without concern that 3 minutes after the ref gives it it's taken away.
If one was to set out to devise a method to remove spontaneous, unalloyed joy from the game of football VAR would be just the thing to use.
"His elbow's 5cm offside".
- It's not his arm or elbow, it's any part of the body you can score with i.e. his shoulder.
- When I played 30-40 years ago it was written in the book of laws that "The benefit of doubt should go to the attaching team." (Not just for offside, but throw-ins and every decision, it was a general instruction for referees. not that they ever applied it
- When I played 30-40 years ago it was written in the book of laws that "The benefit of doubt should go to the attaching team." (Not just for offside, but throw-ins and every decision, it was a general instruction for referees. not that they ever applied it
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff