I enjoyed football much more when i was a youth on the terraces. With no 40 different camera angles, ultra slow mo or pixel thin lines we used to cheer a goal then look and say "ref says no" and accept it. Same for all teams, always been subject to human error but played by humans and officiated by same so ok.
I understand why they brought it in and agree with having video technology but like Alan Shearer said on motd, it’s not supposed to be used like it is. There was absolutely no reason for the var to get involved for the West Ham goal, but then to get involved and then make a decision that baffling is crazy. Whoever was the var official needs to be sent on some training or taken off it until they improve.
Yes, but then people got pissed off at your hero cheating the system all the time. There's only so much Fergie Time and Old Trafford Decisions that people can take. Now we've got this ****ing mess and your lot are still getting away with it.
"It's not VAR - let me get this correct. VAR just records the TV footage, it's the people who are running VAR. "It's those human beings who are making the decisions. It's the referees stuck in that office, wherever they are, making the decisions." Tony Pulis. He's right, of course. Crowding the ref is back, too. Both sides did it in our game. Mitrovic should've gone for the amount of **** he gave the ref after being booked for it already.
And he's right of course. Now people are being asked to make decisions on absolute minimal things that millions of people who see the same footage can't agree on. Human game played and officiated by humans at human speed ruined.
It’s laughable that Blueman and Ginger in the general match day thread actually think it was a foul on Mendy. They were the first to bitch and whine at all the supposed terrible decisions and refereeing in the game against us. Funny how blinkered they are when decisions go in favour of their team not against.
IMHO offside for an attacking player P should be (at the point the ball is played by anyone) : P is in motion beforehand such that they have gained a physical advantage over the defence in being closer to the goal (a foot race, opportunity for a header etc) So for me : - there is no 'offside by a hair's breadth' . - I do not care where on the pitch P starts their movement from, whether on the opposition goal line or their own. All that matters is that at the moment the ball is played, P is not closer to the goal than aforementioned defenders.
The "steel man" view of this IMHO is the officials have to decide whether the : 1. contact between player and GK really has incapacitated the latter 2. GK is indulging in "amateur dramatics" (could be bad if they call this and the player really is injured) . I contend that the fear within #2 is why VAR said "no" .
If the human decision is going to be the deciding factor with VAR it should be a normal speed , slowing it down to frame by frame almost always make a challenge or offside look far worse , if it take 4 minutes to decide whether a player is offside at frame by frame then something is very wrong with the system
If the offside rule has to exist (and I just about accept why it does), then it needs to favour the attacking side more - and be interpreted in such a way. It’s 11 v 11; every opponent can be marked. If teams choose to set up to play an offside trap, then they take a risk. They shouldn’t have an insurance policy in the officials. Football is principally about scoring goals; the default position shouldn’t be to protect the defenders. Assume onside unless there is clear evidence the player is offside (daylight)
Playing the offside trap is a risk, which is why teams try and play on the finest lines to get attackers offside. If a defence is superbly coached and plays the offside trap perfectly, why should they be penalised when the officials get it wrong? Offside is a binary decision and while the marginal calls are frustrating, it ultimately rewards good defending, and a little luck as exists in all sports. Where VAR falls down is that it obviously cannot remove human error from the non-binary calls, and that’s frustrating for everyone. Handball is also ever more complex. The laws of the game are overly complicated. But offside isn’t a problem IMO.
It is a binary decision but like the lbw law in cricket, it is far from straightforward in applying and interpreting it. If the officials are told to assume onside unless clear evidence it is offside, the the hair’s breadth decisions should be decided in favour of the attacking side. I don’t accept that playing for offside is a legitimate tactic which merits the support of officials It is in the interests of the game that a team who adopts such tactics bears the risk.
Absolutely. Attack vs defence is a chess game. The skill is how to play both well, and just as importantly, how you transition between them. The key is in the term : offside TRAP. As in life, traps that are set can be bypassed or not triggered. We don;t punish the targets because they may have managed to do so by a matter of millimetres. So it should be in football.
They already do bear the risk. What officiating should do is ensure that the success or failure of the tactic is decided accurately.
Brighton have a goal disallowed for an offside that had no bearing on the goal and caused Leicester no disadvantage. Should the rules of the game operate to deny a player scoring a 25 yard screamer into the top corner?
No That decision further brings the game into disrepute. Farsical that it took nearly 5 minutes to review and incident that had no influence over the goal. In any rate, maybe introduce a 30sec rule for reviews. If not clear in that time then the original decision stands.
