Soild proved it, you didn't. I can believe him, yours was just a statement. So not 100%, but close enough its not worth arguing about. Closer than a linesman's judgement?
Ok so while we can disagree on the margins of accuracy for judging offside, we can agree VAR is better at judging it than a Linesman because it has the advantage of pausing the action. So overall VAR works better for offside than the current/old method. Is that not a good thing?
not if it takes 4 mins to decide and review. its clear that as of now var attitudes are breaking the flow of games as officials are now acting differently to the point where you almost now need to play on til a goal goes in before they will flag. the ideal state must be that the computers signal offside instantly on that ref watch thing just like the goal line. but guess what you need intelligence and commone sense to spot whis going for ball or now
So you'd rather lose a game to an offside goal, rather than get the correct decision over a couple of minutes. Now imagine this happens in a world cup final or happened in the Champions League final and Spurs end up winning the trophy.
it stops complete **** ups like the one we benefited from at WHam but i loath the "we've scored - but don't celebrate as you need to wait to see if some tiny infraction will get picked up by some jobsworth in a bunker near Waltham Abbey" feeling . Made worse by the fact that i disagree with a number of decisions even after VAR . If it just covered total cock ups (which very rarely happen ) i'd happily take it but it interferes with the flow of the game and i believe it will grow in scope with time so atm its a no from me.
No I've been very clear in saying I want a right of review for my team. 2 max per game and if we've wasted then or don't use them then tough. it's quite clear if spurs had a review and used it for that pen then it would still have been given.
Why, I'd rather have a correct decision. I'd rather win the game than lose or draw to a bad decision. I can't understand why you would want that
See you're arguing the wrong thing here. I agree that there should be referrals. Thats not whats being argued. The two things being argued are: 1. Is VAR better than a linesman over offside decisions? 2. Are you willing to wait a couple of minutes for a correct decision, whether that be through a referral or whatever?
no guarantee of that as a different set of VAR refs may have come to a different decision. See Messi sending off yesterday
not if there is a clear process and steps to work through by 4th official and decision has to be explained live and on field ref is out of it
nah... I clearly wrote about referrals first so you can make it about what you like but I'll bring it back to the core issue. too much is being abdicated by officials and too many delays to games are happening. imo on off side you must have intelligence applied or a good side will simply refine offisde trap to point where every attack gets blown up. in ye olden days arsenal under Graham were masters of offside and dull dull dull. we can't have 2 mins every offside and we can't have a lack of intelligence in the officials meaning we get 20 offsides a half. I would as I said make officials officiate and fix the error on review system. if you use your reviews up and lose a bad goal once a season tough. I don't need every goal reviewed. just have a couple reviews and even **** out... give the managers the power. they will put people in stand watching and analysing and let it be so. in the extreme version of cricket which apparently is much easier to review. a) no balls have been creeping up due to 2nd umpire laziness... why look any more.. yet 3rd umpire does call this. b) you would have running on pitch as a tech check not umpire. but where is the sense then to check if the football is really in a spot to take wickets from. c) you would police sides with tech d) you would have an over counter up on a board e) you'd police high balls with tech. f) you'd use a scanner to examine ball after each over for tampering none of these things are cos they are perfectly easily done by a human with the common sense their mothers taught them. football has merely a larger area and more dynamic issue with off side to police. namely interference with play. this needs intelligence , not just two lines in a screen.
you mean rugby since that is the only similar one and that is much easier cos no one knows the rules including most of the players
I want the right decision but not at the expense of excitement of the game. Waiting a minute for a decision kills the atmosphere, never mind when it takes eight minutes. It's a bit like with the trophy vs entertaining football argument, I'd rather win ****all and be entertained. Why? Because I watch football because I find it entertaining. If it's boring, I lose interest.
At the moment its maybe one or two decisions that get referred to a VAR, sometimes it will be none and alot of the Offside decisions are made during the celebration parts of a goal (meaning you're not losing/adding any time cause those stoppages are happening already). However if it were to get to the level where every decision needs, I'd agree VAR would be robbing something from the game. Which is why I prefer a system with team referrals, 1 imo, so that it limits the amount of times VAR is used and therefore limits its impact. I'd also prefer the Referee to maintain the responsibility rather than handing it off to a VAR.
Referrals including goals? Offsides are going to be a nightmare regardless, they never get that instantaneous. It irritates me when a goal is scored and you start to celebrate before thinking "****, VAR!" and having that wait.
