Funkstain wrote:

Not saying this is the solution, right, but it's good that influential people are thinking about it because right now offsides and VAR suck: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51556872

I don't think that particular idea helps. It'll still come down to measuring things in millimetres that were never supposed to be. There'll still be long pauses and overturned decisions that nobody had a problem with in the first place.

Perhaps it would help if it was more like the cricket system, where the conceding team has to appeal for an offside decision, and if they get it wrong they lose the right to appeal again. They would only bother if it was a blatant mistake and we wouldn't have the long waits after so many goals.

Or perhaps VAR have a limited time to look at the freeze frame and if it's not clear without the measuring lines the original decision stands. Or maybe they don't get a freeze frame and have to look at it in motion and make a decision based on that.

Or maybe just ditch it because it's shit.

What is interesting I find is that in pre VAR days, if a lino flagged for offside and replays showed the attacker was fractionally offside, theyd be heaped with praise for a fantastic call.

Because its been removed from linsemen and given to VAR, suddenly the same calls are ruining the game.

cos the scenario is completely different. the games weren't stopped, or goals ruled in/out. it would be looked at after the game and if it was marginal the pundits would generally agree it was too close to call.
Howlers would be criticised, but VAR isn't just picking up howlers.

But was it easy to accept? Do you think if people accepted it we’d have VAR?

I wonder if a referee's call option for VAR would be the best option.
 
Have linesman immediately flag for anything they think is offside, or flag if the ref over-rules to say offside. Play though continues and if a goal is scored, we review. We don't use the lines as currently done. We have a margin of error to account for the gap between frames, and if the offside is within that it goes to referees call. Which is to say, did the lino flag, no goal. If they didn't flag, goal.

Surely that would raise hell in a "did the ball cross the line" situation, which was the driving force of bringing technology in.

By the way i always thought Adam Lallana was a great player.

I was ambivalent-to-positive about VAR in principle, and have been ambivalent-to-negative about how it's been implemented (specifically with regards to offsides). sorry to bang on about it, but now having been to a game very much affected by it, it's clear it has a terrible impact on games.

It's not about whether the offside calls are correct by the letter of the law or not, I hope that's clear by now, and if it isn't, read the hundreds of posts about that and come back. It's about the technology being

a) not perfect, or anywhere near, meaning it's still subjective
b) and therefore also taking minutes to make marginal decisions
c) and those decisions not really helping the game, in terms of: flow, atmosphere, feeling of fairness, remote overlords, etc.

In my view, VAR was supposed to correct howlers and clear errors. The offsides it is picking up are only "clear" in so far as they are offside by the letter of the law (mostly - remember it's still subjective due to imperfect tech), but they aren't "clear" in terms of human error on the field, which should remain the ultimate authority.

I say again - minor tweaks to the offside law will make VAR very palatable, and VAR itself should mostly be involved by referees themselves and only step in when there is a clear and substantial error on the field.

I know it's easy to suffer from confirmation bias but this seems so obvious to me that we should have VAR step in and confirm my view

Wengers solution... be careful what you wish for because teams will stop playing high lines as a result and the game will be a lot less fun to watch.

Knight wrote:

Wengers solution... be careful what you wish for because teams will stop playing high lines as a result and the game will be a lot less fun to watch.

Nah. Teams played with a high line before VAR came in, and the attackers had the benefit of the doubt then.

Funkstain wrote:

I worry that with Wenger's solution we're just moving the problem - literally. The actual issue is that the tech is not perfect, which means it's still subjective, which means it's just as annoying as it used to be but it takes far longer and retrospectively affects decisions. Just use it for clangers. When someone is a yard offside and missed by the lino. When someone punches someone when the ref isn't looking. When a pen was actually a blatant (and I mean blatant) dive. All of this is OK - because it's still subjective, but the tech should help the subjectivity be less variable. Let the refs use it for reference too. But using it for "exact" offsides is as pointless as it is annoying. IF and when the tech improves to the extent of goal line tech - ie: ref or lino gets signal within seconds that dude was offside and it's based on computers judging it precisely with an array of high res high frame rate cameras - then great, bring it back.

This sums up my thoughts on it.

I think we've sorted this now lads.
What's next for us to solve... climate change? brexit? best flavour of yoghurt*?

*it's a trick question cos the answer is 'Rolo' even though it's not really yoghurt but it comes in a pot and is sold in the same section of the shop.

LivDiv wrote:

The thoughts about blurriness or framerate don't need to be considered if following the IFAB guidelines I posted because using those things goes far beyond 'clear and obvious error'.

Out of interest, would you be happy with Spurs having a goal chalked off where it is less than a cm over the line, but the refs don't spot it?

Goal line tech is different to VAR on offsides though.
It's also presented as an absolute and is pretty much instant.