VAR - The Great Debate

[Dwmh]

@Ham  btw - what is all this about voice recordings and videos being given away freely all of a sudden?
is this a new policy?  Did Chelsea push for this?

[Ham]

1 hour ago, Dwmh said:

@Ham  btw - what is all this about voice recordings and videos being given away freely all of a sudden?
is this a new policy?  Did Chelsea push for this?

Howard Webb doing PR on Sky.  Using the Gusto red to show how super the team is. 

Even with a week to prepare, they still went ahead and chose the one where they still fecked up. 

[Mark Kelly]

1 minute ago, Ham said:

Howard Webb doing PR on Sky.  Using the Gusto red to show how super the team is. 

Even with a week to prepare, they still went ahead and chose the one where they still fecked up. 

I don't know about institutionalised bias it's more like institutionalised idiocy. 

[Dwmh]

5 minutes ago, Ham said:

Howard Webb doing PR on Sky.  Using the Gusto red to show how super the team is. 

Even with a week to prepare, they still went ahead and chose the one where they still fecked up. 

men in tin studios getting it wrong again.

[paulw66]

One of the many issues I have with VAR, and this world we now live in where goals are disallowed by inches, is that you cannot always exactly pinpoint the moment of contact. Look at this still from yesterday. I am not saying it would have worked for or against if more precise, but clearly this is not the "exact" moment of contact.

Same with Son's goal.......or any goal where it is being ruled out when on face value, the players are "level"

[Ham]

6 hours ago, paulw66 said:

One of the many issues I have with VAR, and this world we now live in where goals are disallowed by inches, is that you cannot always exactly pinpoint the moment of contact. Look at this still from yesterday. I am not saying it would have worked for or against if more precise, but clearly this is not the "exact" moment of contact.

Same with Son's goal.......or any goal where it is being ruled out when on face value, the players are "level"

Plus there are 5 Spurs players blocking the keeper's view. 

 

[Dwmh]

1 minute ago, Ham said:

Plus there are 5 Spurs players blocking the keeper's view. 

 

Does it go through their legs too?  

[Ham]

1 minute ago, Dwmh said:

Does it go through their legs too?  

No but the suggestion that Jackson affected anything that their keeper did is absurd.  

 

[Dwmh]

Just now, Ham said:

No but the suggestion that Jackson affected anything that their keeper did is absurd.  

 

absurd but true.  Keeper can't commit till it passes.  He has to do nothing till then.  Of course it affects the keeper - I can't seriously believe anyone could think otherwise.
Is this a wind up?

[Ham]

39 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

absurd but true.  Keeper can't commit till it passes.  He has to do nothing till then.  Of course it affects the keeper - I can't seriously believe anyone could think otherwise.
Is this a wind up?

This one from tonight is why the offside rule involving players affecting the play was brought in......

By the way, this goal was given.

[Dwmh]

1 hour ago, Ham said:

By the way, this goal was given.

Did it go through his legs?

[Sleeping Dave]

14 hours ago, paulw66 said:

One of the many issues I have with VAR, and this world we now live in where goals are disallowed by inches, is that you cannot always exactly pinpoint the moment of contact. Look at this still from yesterday. I am not saying it would have worked for or against if more precise, but clearly this is not the "exact" moment of contact.

Same with Son's goal.......or any goal where it is being ruled out when on face value, the players are "level"

VAR in its current format will kill the game. I’m much less inclined to watch a game these days. Can’t even celebrate a goal, that’s 99% of why I’d watch in the first place! 

By the way, using VAR to disallow goals like the one above (and not send of Udobie) is perfect examples of how the games is getting killed. 

[flllerywhereru2]

4 hours ago, Sleeping Dave said:

VAR in its current format will kill the game. I’m much less inclined to watch a game these days. Can’t even celebrate a goal, that’s 99% of why I’d watch in the first place! 

By the way, using VAR to disallow goals like the one above (and not send of Udobie) is perfect examples of how the games is getting killed. 

Agree, and specifically it's form in England and how it is used. I have been to matches in Europe (dutch league and champions league at dortmund) where you would hardly know VAR was in use and when needed used quickly and efficiently. I blame not just the officials but the pressure put on them by the english media and more directly the coaches. Frankly they cannot handle it and therefor take far too long to ensure no blame can come there way for whichever team loses/drops points. This is particularly evident in televised games or those involving the big teams. There is less attention to the rest as there is less unconcious bias for or against and frankly less fans/pro pundits for Luton/Brentford/Burnley/Palace/wolves etc etc

[Sciatika]

Let's get rid of VAR and go back to having matches run by an onfield ref and assistants. I'm OK with any automatic system proven to work,e.g. goal-line technology. For offsides, I want to go back to only giving obvious offside decisions with the attacker getting the benefit of the doubt. I want decisions to be made by individuals in full view of the crowd/TV audience, not in secret discussions. Referees will get it wrong from time to time, but I will live with that. 

[Backbiter]

50 minutes ago, Sciatika said:

Let's get rid of VAR and go back to having matches run by an onfield ref and assistants. I'm OK with any automatic system proven to work,e.g. goal-line technology. For offsides, I want to go back to only giving obvious offside decisions with the attacker getting the benefit of the doubt. I want decisions to be made by individuals in full view of the crowd/TV audience, not in secret discussions. Referees will get it wrong from time to time, but I will live with that. 

Agree. Goalline technology seems reliable and uncontroversial. The notable exception (at Villa the other year) was easily fixable, as it was plain as day the technology hadn't worked, and only human failings stopped the goal being awarded. Hairsbreadth offside decisions are just stupid, as the cameras and freeze-frame technology are just not accurate enough to be reliable, as the picture above of Caicedo's shot makes clear. They said they would start using thicker lines so there would be overlaps that would avoid hairsbreadth decisions, but I've not seen much evidence of them.

[Mark Kelly]

I think it's worth reminding ourselves that it's a difficult job being a referee or a linesman.

Not helped by the fact that they're generally a bunch of utter fuckwits. 

[My Blood Is Blue]

15 hours ago, Dwmh said:

absurd but true.  Keeper can't commit till it passes.  He has to do nothing till then.  Of course it affects the keeper - I can't seriously believe anyone could think otherwise.
Is this a wind up?

Hmm, I'm not sure about this. The Spurs goal went in because it took a deflection and Sanchez had already dived, but had he not dived and the deflection hadn't happened, there was no way he would get down quick enough to save it. If keepers waited for the ball to get past all the players in front of them every time, before starting to dive, we'd see many more goals, IMO.

Would you say Sanchez was at fault for the Spurs goal, because he dived too soon?

[Dwmh]

14 minutes ago, My Blood Is Blue said:

Hmm, I'm not sure about this. The Spurs goal went in because it took a deflection and Sanchez had already dived, but had he not dived and the deflection hadn't happened, there was no way he would get down quick enough to save it. If keepers waited for the ball to get past all the players in front of them every time, before starting to dive, we'd see many more goals, IMO.

Would you say Sanchez was at fault for the Spurs goal, because he dived too soon?

The rule isn't about whether the keeper would have saved it, but whether the player in an offside position is interfering with play.
If he is affecting the decision process of the keeper (unhelpfully or helpfully) he is offside.
 

[My Blood Is Blue]

18 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

The rule isn't about whether the keeper would have saved it, but whether the player in an offside position is interfering with play.
If he is affecting the decision process of the keeper (unhelpfully or helpfully) he is offside.
 

But I don't think he is, purely because the keeper will have made that decision before it's reached Jackson as he can't wait and see if it takes the deflection.

But anyway, not wanting to start a debate on it as it appears to have been covered numerous times before. I'm sure 'by the rules' it was the right decision to rule it out, but for me from a pure footballing POV, I don't believe Jackson is interfering with play.

[chara]

40 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

The rule isn't about whether the keeper would have saved it, but whether the player in an offside position is interfering with play.
If he is affecting the decision process of the keeper (unhelpfully or helpfully) he is offside.
 

I keep banging on about this...every player within the keeper's vision range affects the decision making ,and the "memory" image of players not in vision as well...an impossible scenario for a ref or anyone to process accurately.

Anyone ever see a keeper jumping up and down whilst his opposite number is preparing for a penalty?..certainly trying to interfere with play....the whisper to the keeper as he prepares for a penalty?

[Backbiter]

34 minutes ago, Dwmh said:

The rule isn't about whether the keeper would have saved it, but whether the player in an offside position is interfering with play.
If he is affecting the decision process of the keeper (unhelpfully or helpfully) he is offside.
 

Based on recent application of the laws, they rarely if ever take the keeper's decision-making process into account. A player standing in an offside position but not in the direct line of view between ball and keeper is rarely penalised, even though his presence is likely to be a distraction the keeper. The criterion used is " clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision". rather than being a  distraction affecting his thought process. I agree that should   be the way it is refereed, but it doesn't appear to be.

I know it pre-dates VAR, but think back to that travesty of a cup final goal by Sanchez, when he clearly handled the ball outside the box. He and Ramsey chased the ball into the box, and Ramsey was clearly offside, directly in front of the keeper, but he didn't touch it. He massively affected the Courtois's decision-making, but he was deemed 'inactive' because Taylor felt he didn't directly interfere with an opponent (or touch the ball). A player these days is deemed 'inactive' if steps over the ball/ lets the ball go through his legs in an offside position.

The linesman flagged him offside but Taylor overruled him. Don't watch if you have blood pressure issues.

 

[Dwmh]

52 minutes ago, Backbiter said:

Based on recent application of the laws, they rarely if ever take the keeper's decision-making process into account. A player standing in an offside position but not in the direct line of view between ball and keeper is rarely penalised, even though his presence is likely to be a distraction the keeper. The criterion used is " clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision". rather than being a  distraction affecting his thought process. I agree that should   be the way it is refereed, but it doesn't appear to be.

I know it pre-dates VAR, but think back to that travesty of a cup final goal by Sanchez, when he clearly handled the ball outside the box. He and Ramsey chased the ball into the box, and Ramsey was clearly offside, directly in front of the keeper, but he didn't touch it. He massively affected the Courtois's decision-making, but he was deemed 'inactive' because Taylor felt he didn't directly interfere with an opponent (or touch the ball). A player these days is deemed 'inactive' if steps over the ball/ lets the ball go through his legs in an offside position.

The linesman flagged him offside but Taylor overruled him. Don't watch if you have blood pressure issues.

 

That is how we got reffed when we were winning stuff.  different now.

[chara]

"clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision"

What is the line of vision?..a keeper hunched down to try to get a line on the ball has a different line of vision when he stands tall and can see over a smaller player...say Hazard v TC... for size comparision.... such a grey fluctuating set of circumstances..not breaking down the Jackson incident but who's to say the keeper couldn't see the line through Jacksons legs?...maybe..maybe not...who's to judge without actually discussing it with the keeper...another factor...a keeper is as likely to anticipate a ball rolling across a player in front of him without seeing the actual strike as he has read the play correctly..the often so called worldie...all credit to the keeper but part of the game.

An issue either TOTALLY embraced and laid out or one left well alone.

[paulw66]

On 08/11/2023 at 23:34, Dwmh said:

absurd but true.  Keeper can't commit till it passes.  He has to do nothing till then.  Of course it affects the keeper - I can't seriously believe anyone could think otherwise.
Is this a wind up?

You honestly believe the goalie was waiting for a deflection before diving? No chance. 

On 09/11/2023 at 01:33, Dwmh said:

Did it go through his legs?

No. He is standing right in the way of the goalie, clearly impeding his ability to see what is in front of him

21 hours ago, Mark Kelly said:

I think it's worth reminding ourselves that it's a difficult job being a referee or a linesman.

 

Agree. But it's not hard to watch a replay a few times and come to the correct outcome.

20 hours ago, Dwmh said:

The rule isn't about whether the keeper would have saved it,
 

So we are disallowing goals for something that didn't affect whether or not the goal was scored?

If Jackson isn't there, the ball still goes in. 

[paulw66]

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside

I can't find anywhere in that law description anything that would suggest the Caicedo shouldn't have stood