Or worse, flagging blatant onside decisions as off which happened every single game.
At least you have to be off to be off these days
Get rid of VAR NOW! We want our game back! (...or not, some are happy)
- Thread starter RedFish
- Start date
At least you have to be off to be off these days
I never said that, just showing his argument of ‘I don’t get’ goes both ways.
For what it’s worth, yes I’d go back to the linesman making up his 1cm offside untill we can accurately do it otherwise what’s the point in fecking about with the celebration of goals
For what it’s worth, yes I’d go back to the linesman making up his 1cm offside untill we can accurately do it otherwise what’s the point in fecking about with the celebration of goals
Fair enough, I’ll watch the video when I get chance later, thanks.
I’m stillAbsolutely convinced the speed of the game (running/kicking motion) is to too fast to accurately record an offside the way they are doing it
No you don’t, the linesman have still flagged inside off even if they shouldn’t. You can’t just let every single glue attack continue ‘just incase’
The story goes that UEFA prepped for VAR, had it all sorted since the technology couldn't provide precise detail on offsides so you were still basically looking at the screen with your own eyes.
Spurs scored an offside goal v Chelsea that VAR missed. The angle they had showed Kane on but Chelsea provided their own post match showing him miles off.
The technology jumped forward so quickly during the following summer that we got the precise version we have today. When it was implemented it was never meant to be so accurate.
That being good or bad is up for debate.
Exactly, it’s an argument based on no logic or common sense. VAR should be scrapped because it is only 99% accurate in favour of human error which is what 10% as accurate.
The linesman isn’t making up 1cm. They are making up 1m and more.
For what it’s worth, it’s worth nothing. The point is it’s 100x times more accurate and stops teams from being fecked over by terrible 1m offsides. What’s the point of fecking about with goals using linesmen who aren’t accurate?
But they do let it continue? Linesmen are ordered to keep their flags down on close calls and only flag the obvious
Ah ok I’ll look more into that, thanks. I think we’re at an inbetween stage of perfect falls at the moment going by what you said there
You say there’s no logic or common sense but this 2-3 minute analysing of an offside is absolutely killing the enjoyment of the game and the most important part, goals scored. It’s totally different to the linesman raising his flag straight after the goal.
Players, managers and fans have already stopped celebrating. I think that atleast a counter argument to this to go against your no logic comment.
And before you say offside is offside, at the moment with our technology, is it really?
Yes I agree, but they havnt, onside have been flagged as off
I'm probably biased as feck, but I can't see where the pissing and moaning last night is coming from. Lindelof looks like he gets some of the ball, and Ayew is offside (and it's not particularly marginal).
Rival fans seem to want both of those things to be ignored though because they went in ori favour.
Rival fans seem to want both of those things to be ignored though because they went in ori favour.
They rarely take 3 minutes.
Hasn’t killed the enjoyment, I very much enjoyed two wins last night for the two clubs I support.
It is totally different as it is very accurate which linesmen aren’t. And exactly, the most important part is goals and we’ve managed to eliminate the majority of onside goals that were previously ruled out.
Our players celebrated both our goals last night. I celebrated 6 goals for my clubs last night.
Yes, it is really to the best possible ability. All we can go on for any decision in life is the best possible answer. Saying 99% accuracy isnt good enough in favour of 10% accuracy isn’t a valid or logical argument.
Totally agree. Lindelof did get the ball first, and the only reason there was contact on Zaha's leg was the fact that he put his leg across Lindelof so if he went for the ball there would be contact. Watch the highlights of any penalty decision similar to that, and I bet most of the attacking players do the same, put the leg nearest to the defender across them so that cannot help but contact it, so contact in the box = penalty.
You’re simply making those 10% and 99% calls up.
we just see it differently, yes I was happy when we scored obviously and also agree that having a system with more percentage of right calls is good. However I also think that football is a fast moving game that’s been around for decades and thrived without the need for such pedantic freeze framed analysing. it just doesn’t suit the sport imo
Luckily for United it hasn’t happened to us yet where we score a really important goal and then it gets ruled out for something controversial after everyone has gone through all the emotions of celebrating.
Agreed - I didn't see the game but with the way oppo friends were blowing up over it I expected Lindelöf to hack Zaha down with a drop kick or something!
It looked, at least to me, as though Zaha was expecting it and almost leant into the tackle.....
Good decision by the referee IMO!
Aye. Speaking as a neutral I thought it was a fair challenge.
- Gets plenty of the ball, without going to ground to do so - i.e. he has not slid in, completely wiped out Zaha and just got a faint touch on the ball. The tumble that follows is more because of Zaha's stepover across towards Lindelof, which Zaha has to take equal responsibility for.
- Gets the ball at the same time he connects with Zaha's leg, but he doesn't go through Zaha to get to it.
When you are chasing a game because of an 1 meter offside goal, then it is not a fair competition. Everything happens after their offside goal is irrelevant.
Yet you think it is better to have one man eyes focusing on everything at the same time, all players on the line inclusive the ball and the pass taker? what about offsides where players interfere with goalkeepers sight of vision? how can a lineman check the goalkeepers sight of vision from a 90 degree angel? It is not difficult to conclude that benefits of VAR has vastly overcame its negatives, VAR has reduced referee errors by 85%. So yes there will continue be wrong decisions but 85% reduction in wrong decisions is a not something to moan about. We of all fans have been done hard times by referees in past seasons and we benefiting the most of VAR now says it all on how much we were facing wrong decisions before that.
United were terrible up to that point. If anything we played better after the second goal. We were losing that game regardless unfortunately.
The offside is offside. And it’s not even one of the closer ones where they are measuring to the armpit. I’m not sure of the accuracy for the offsides in general but it’s far from the worst instance of a goal being disallowed. It’s actually a little more clear cut than many that have been disallowed.
The Lindelof one is a foul though. Doesn’t really matter if he gets a very slight touch on the ball because it was still well within Zaha’s control when he gets brought down. It should’ve been given for me. It will still attract more attention just because it’s United.
No, nothing is sure when the result stays 0-0.
But we were already losing 1-0.
So you'd give a foul everytime there's contact between players, unless the ball was completely out of reach of the player being tackled?
It's an interesting interpretation, but I can't think of that ever being applied.
No but I think it’s a clumsy tackle and stops Zaha having a chance of scoring. That’s the reason Lindelof panics and makes a challenge for a ball he wasn’t really able to win. That foul gets called everywhere else on the pitch.
Well it's clumsy, no doubt, but my contention is that it stops Zaha from scoring because he gets the ball as well as the man. The challenge 'that he wasn't really able to win' results in him winning the ball.
More to the point, whether it's given elsewhere on the pitch or not, it wasn't given here. The standard of proof you need to reach, therefore, is that no foul is clearly and obviously the wrong decision.
Even in your interpretation of events, I don't see how we've reached that threshold.
And for what it's worth, if it had been given on the pitch I'm not sure the evidence is good enough to conclusively overturn it either.
Yes. I was watching mutv of all places and the commentators thought it was crazy it was offside. But it was offside! I don’t get how pundits get outraged when something is offside, the line has to start somewhere.
On the subjective things like penalties etc. I agree, the refs should use the monitor more, if only to highlight that he had his own look at it to come to the subjective decision because people get outraged when it’s called through his ear piece. Which is ironic because the same people will be the ones outraged at the game being slowed down too much.
He hasn’t really won the ball because it’s still in the possession of the attacker. There is nothing in the rules about playing the ball first. I wouldn’t argue it’s a clear enough error for VAR to intervene but for me it’s a foul and getting the slightest touch on the ball isn’t really a relevant factor as to whether it’s a foul or not.
You're right, of course, but I'm asking where you think it's in the rules that you can't touch the opponent when making a tackle, or where your precedent is that tackles which win the ball and then bring down the player are routinely given as fouls? The only instances I can think of is when the tackle is reckless or uses excessive force, and we both agree that that is not the issue here.
At any rate, this is a discussion about VAR. Unless we're arguing that VAR should be interventionist and should actively rereferee games I think we're both in agreement that this is a rare (actual) example of the onfield decision being justifiable, even if it may have been fortuitous (in your opinion) that the onfield decision went in our favour.
Exactly. Unless theres a ridiculous margin of error then thats offside no matter what they do
it is not 1 cm. But even it is 1 cm if he is offside then it is offside.
If Zaha is running straight with the ball and is wiped out and Lindelof only gets a small touch on it then yes that would be true. But I'd say it's more complicated than that. Because Zaha's stepover means he lunges away from the ball into Lindelof. The contact between the players then becomes a joint responsibility, not just Lindelof's. The defender could equally claim that he was in control of the ball if Zaha hadn't lunged across his path and forced him to fall over. Ultimately it looks like more of a tangle where they both have to share some of the responsibility in my book.
There’s nothing in the rules about contact. The rules cover careless tackles. If it was just reckless or excessive force there wouldn’t be thirty plus fouls a game. Whether it is careless is down to interpretation, as many of the rules in the game are. That’s why it can be considered not a clear and obvious error. Doesn’t mean it definitely isn’t a foul just because he got a slight touch on the ball. The most important thing isn’t exactly how the rules are worded but how they are routinely applied. Routinely that is given as a foul more often than not in my opinion.
I don’t like having to make this argument because the current attention every decision United are getting is pissing me off. But I still think a penalty would’ve been a fair enough call.
Give over mate, you’re one of these offside is offside people when clearly it’s not accurate enough.
Didn’t even mention that was 1cm.
it is not 1 cm. But even it is 1 cm if he is offside then it is offside.
I wouldn’t feel strongly enough to really argue that point. I think most fans on here would’ve expected a penalty in United’s favour for it though. I think we got lucky but it definitely doesn’t deserve the attention it is getting. It’s always the way with United though because the media know what gets people riled up.
You've misunderstood. I'm arguing that I've never seen careless routinely interpreted as you're arguing it should be here. About the best I can think of is when players go through the back or side of a player first to get the ball. Lindelof did not do that. I'd love to see some examples of you think the law is routinely applied as you've suggested.
I have seen fouls routinely given for reckless tackles or tackles using excessive force which win the ball first, but this certainly isn't one of them.
The tackle was made both from behind Zaha’s leg and from the side though. What do you think happened? Fouling a player from behind is never careless, it is reckless because the opponent can’t see it coming.
'first' was the operative word in the sentence. He, quite clearly in my opinion, pokes the ball from between Zaha's legs and then makes contact with his right foot.
I have absolutely never seen the laws applied as you're suggesting they should be here.
The past page debate shows that VAR worked exactly as it should have last night, ref made on field decision, the debate shows it wasn’t a clear or obvious error so the decision was left as was.