How do you define clear and obvious for offside? Remember that you referees have to make that particular decision before going to VAR. If a lino flags for offside, they obviously think it's offside. They're not going to flag and then say "I'm not actually sure"
Think this comes down to the offside rule actually being clear. For Example an Arm/hand should not be considered offside as they are non-scoring body parts. And until VAR, this seemed to be the case. Since VAR, the hand/arm have suddenly become offside again. Linesmen have been told not to flag unless they are really sure, so its not them, its the VAR people who are interpreting the rules wrong imo.
I know you said the England offside was for her arm but when I looked at the picture I didn't even notice her arm because her foot is - that old chestnut - just offside. As you rightly say, arms and hands can't be offside.
I thought the whole point of var was to stop the ridiculous descions that get given wrong. The yard offside, the clear dives ect but it feels like its used for the most minscule of things. The keeper coming off the line thing, really pissed me off. Also you've got to stop the game when the descion needs to be made. Playing on for another 5 minutes and then bringing the game back is ridiculous
Yep, definitely a foot. Ironically, if all body parts counted, she would have been played onside by the defenders arm!
all of this is easily solvable. if you look to cricket they can do the analysis is less than a minute but most importantly they have set a review count and have respected the officials on field decision. therefore my simple fixes are this a) officials should officiate. That means none of this **** about don't stick flag up unless forward scores etc. do your job. b) if a decision is marginal aka camera angles and drawing line etc make it subjective then stick with on field decision. no flag.. well this is inches here so stick with on field. you flags but the forward might be in line.. well tough unless it's clear. c) give each team 2 reviews a game total.. job done. if they choose to appeal a perfect goal or whatever and lose it **** them when something goes against them later you are out of reviews. it's really bloody simple once you actually.man up and make decisions and stop trying to please everyone.
when we played barca var looked at an incident about widji fouling keeper after he scored that could have led to him being sent off and all he did was try to get ball back quickly and keeper made out he had been hit in the face. now my question is, that wasn't even looked at by var, why not part of same incident? could see no foul took place but unsportsmanlike behavior and attempted cheating by keeper and should have been booked!! barca got what their ****ing cheating deserved, but not the fecking point!!
Wrong. The keeper tried to make out he had been hit in face which was what var review was for. He tried to cheat and get our player sent off
I can't as on mobile, but if someone could post video of incident you will see what I mean dribs. He got away with trying to cheat one of our players being sent off! Why? Incident was being review end anyway.
Pretending to be hit in the face when you clearly weren't should be punished retrospectively. Just like clear diving (clear daylight between players) should be. Ten game bans would soon put a stop to it!
i think having a ban for it longer than a racism ban or a leg break offence is too much. I would agree however that a manditory 3 match ban would work. We have systems in rugby where both teams involved and an independent citing officer can report players and it MUST be reviewed. If you had a proper system and not just an expense scam then this stuff would be cleaned up pronto. If a player was assured of being cited and banned for diving or pretending to be injured to get someone sent off then... well... maybe they would be less inclined.
A leg breaking incident isn't always an offence, **** happens. Racism should be dealt with legally, not by the FA. If found guilty then ban them. Punishment needs to be a deterrent.
Yes **** happens but when i say a leg breaker I mean a deliberate assault. I would actually agree on racism. if governments were strong on it you wouldn't need kick it out. there are rules in uk but in europe sides can still be absolute scum and get away scot free. If we have a 10 match ban with a very small chance of being dinged on it people will still do thing. if youve an even 1 match ban but 100% assurance of getting done its a deterrent. Citing system works in rugby. just copy and paste same for VAR works in cricket very well copy and paste.
A deliberate leg break should be one of two punishments: 1) banned indefinitely because you're a **** 2) banned for as long as tbe injured player is out for I'd go with the first personally. Good luck proving it was deliberate though
The technology is capable of defining it as clear and obvious. The rule is any part of the body which can be used to score and it was my understanding it was her foot offside, not her hand. It looks clear and obvious to me. In the offside image, there's a red line, which could be her shoulder, which also counts for offside, but the blue line behind it is the onside line and White's foot is clearly and obviously beyond it, clarified by the foot of the US player next to her. It was never clear and obvious with refs. We could see it week after week on slo-mo replays. If we won't allow the referees the technology, then the pundits and viewers should also be denied it. Don't hold your breath for that. It must be galling for refs to have pundits determining their incompetence week after week, then dismissing the solution, too. The time it was taking in the WWC was too long but they sped that up with some common sense. (Nobody has a problem with a game being stopped for water breaks in heat and that takes longer. We'll see a lot more of that as the temps ramp up globally.) I doubt it was that they just weren't using VAR but it was being done in the background without bothering the ref until they had to. That makes more sense than any argument I've heard against it. I keep going back to that Thierry Henry handball that kept Ireland out of the World Cup and wonder how long critics of VAR would've been happy to wait if it were their country. "However long it took" would be my guess. We'd never hear a pundit or fan saying, "Taking too long, get on with it, we're not qualifying, end of." No doubt the use of referees took a while to evolve and VAR should be given time, too.
