VAR vote

[humanbeingincroydon]

You are talking about being offside from running ahead of the opponents, but that is not the only way of being offside. After an attack breaks down the forward has to get back onside to receive a pass. The scenario you present ignores this. To be fair my point is a little pedantic, but it is a tricky rule to write.

Especially as certain strikers are very good at exploiting this, most obviously van Nistelrooy and van Persie who would lurk just offside waiting to be played onside by defenders dropping back as the ball was played

And it was always deeply f'n irritating when they scored off the back of that

 

[The Changing Man]

I think that offside should be based purely on position of feet no other part of the body should matter and if any part of the foot is level with the last defender you should be onside, because it is only once you are beyond the last defender that it can be said that you have gained an advantage. I know that there would still be close calls, but I think they would be less controversial as they would be clearer. I would also have an additional line on the pitch 30 yards from the goal line and you can only be offside if you are ahead of that line.

 

[PowerSpurs]

There isn’t a problem with VAR getting clear decisions correct. It’s the marginal ones which are the issue. VAR doesn’t seem to be any better equipped to get those right. Stopping the game for protracted periods to decide if a toenail was offside - and having a no more than 50/50 chance of getting it right - is destroying the spectacle, causing unnecessary controversy and stifling and discouraging attacking play. Offsides should be given when a player is clearly offside and therefore gaining an unfair advantage. The benefit of doubt should go to the attacking side. Football is meant to be entertaining. Using a slide rule to try to decide the most impossibly marginal offsides is extremely tedious and time consuming. It does nobody any favours.

In all my replies I've assumed that the VAR protocol draws the offside line in a place which already allows for the uncertainty in the measurement. If not then it clearly should. But benefit of the doubt isn't mentioned in the Laws at all as far as I can see. It would be a good addition.

 

[PowerSpurs]

I've aways been of the opinion that VAR was only for clear and obvious errors...these decisions were never complained about in the past.
On top of that I do not know how accurate the decisions are considering how many frames per seconds filming takes.

VAR was supposed to improve football not steal goals.

The frame rate is 50 Hz and the highest likely relative speed of the feet of two players is about 20 meters per second. So they could move 40 cm between frames. But that should be dealt with by choosing the frame which is most favourable to the attacking player. If it isn't done like that then it needs changing. But humans judging VAR can only do it to a tenth of a second at absolute best which is 5 times worse and could mean errors of 2 meters (which have definitely been made in the past).
Under your proposal what would happen if the onfield decision was offside but the replay showed it was too close to call? Does the VAR award the goal?

 

[remembercolinlee]

The frame rate is 50 Hz and the highest likely relative speed of the feet of two players is about 20 meters per second. So they could move 40 cm between frames. But that should be dealt with by choosing the frame which is most favourable to the attacking player. If it isn't done like that then it needs changing. But humans judging VAR can only do it to a tenth of a second at absolute best which is 5 times worse and could mean errors of 2 meters (which have definitely been made in the past).
Under your proposal what would happen if the onfield decision was offside but the replay showed it was too close to call? Does the VAR award the goal?

Yes

 

[PowerSpurs]

Yes

Good!