Refs & VAR 2020/2021 Discussion

[Annihilate Now!]

But VAR cant give fks though?

It wouldn't. It would just say, well actually the foul started with Maguire so it's not a penalty so there's nothing to give.

VAR does technically give free kicks if there is - for example - a foul in the build up to a goal (us vs. Chelsea at the Bridge last year for example)

 

[James Peril]

There's feck all in that 'push' he literally just puts his arm up for balance. That's as clear as a penalty as I've ever seen!

Jesus christ, what’s the point in having a discussion with certain people. «Absolute disgrace» and «clearest penalty you’ve ever seen». Mate, what happens next is irrelevant as Maguire CLEARLY pushed the goalkeeper out of bounds, big or small, it’s a very obvious infraction, caught on video, slow motion, high definiton. Just like Everton were clearly offside before Maguire tackles Digne on the foot earlier in the game. Learn the rules, then comment, don’t use your bias or feelings, it’s a good rule in general life too.

 

[arnie_ni]

It wouldn't. It would just say, well actually the foul started with Maguire so it's not a penalty so there's nothing to give.

VAR does technically give free kicks if there is - for example - a foul in the build up to a goal (us vs. Chelsea at the Bridge last year for example)

Fair enough. I think its was pen but also a fk in the build up so I guess your correct

 

[sullydnl]

Isnt he just pointing where he wants the pass? Ridiculous decision based on the rules though.

It should be changed to feet vs feet

Yep, he is. With the news rules being what they are, pointing like that can push you offside. And if a defender points like that it can extend the offside line too. Not by much obviously but maybe enough to make a difference in a few instances.

 

[arnie_ni]

Rl

Yep, he is. With the news rules being what they are, pointing like that can push you offside. And if a defender points like that it can extend the offside line too. Not by much obviously but maybe enough to make a difference in a few instances.

that rule is just ridiculous then. No way should that be ruled out for offside, its just wrong

 

[TrustInJanuzaj]

Jesus christ, what’s the point in having a discussion with certain people. «Absolute disgrace» and «clearest penalty you’ve ever seen». Mate, what happens next is irrelevant as Maguire CLEARLY pushed the goalkeeper out of bounds, big or small, it’s a very obvious infraction, caught on video, slow motion, high definiton. Just like Everton were clearly offside before Maguire tackles Digne on the foot earlier in the game. Learn the rules, then comment, don’t use your bias or feelings, it’s a good rule in general life too.

Maybe you could try playing football instead of being condescending. That's never been a foul whereas getting sliced down by two players is a certain penalty.

 

[kiristao]

I assume with the Maguire penalty incident today, the conversation between the on pitch referee and the VAR goes along the lines of either, “I’ve checked that and it was no foul, move on”, However, you often see examples of, “I’ve checked that, it may be a foul, you might want to check the monitor.” I just find it all very odd how sometimes the VAR makes the call and that’s it done and other times, gives the power back to the on pitch referee to check on the monitor. Maybe that’s how it supposed to be used!

I think it's more on the lines of 'I have checked it and I agree with your on-field call so move on' or 'I think there is contact (or no contact based on what the on field call has been) so it might be better if you have a look yourself and take a call'

 

[Hester_manc]

Danish pundits think that VAR made 2 mistakes in Uniteds match today: 1) Maguire should have had a penalty in the 60th minute 2) Maguire should have been sent off 2 minutes later, when he tackles after an offside decision.

 

[Chipper]

As with prior offsides this season, the line is drawn from the top part of the arm as you can now play the ball with it.

Leaving aside the controversey of that specifically, the picture made wonder something.

I think the Palace defender that the decision is being measured against is Scott Dann. From that angle Bamford's body/arm is obscuring any clear view of the other Palace defender (is it Kouyate?). Not saying he's playing him onside but at the same time we don't know how far his arse is sticking out or whatever because Bamford is blocking us from seeing that.

How do they deal with that, and do they do a reverse angle camera view, drawing lines on that to check if someone who was obscured from one angle might be relevant after all?

 

[RUCK4444]

That's my point though: the linesman wouldn't just say those calls were level. They would variously call them offside/onside just as VAR does, but with less accuracy.

There seems to be an idea that all close calls were previously let slide. That was never the case. "Too close to call" offsides were being called. And they still are being called. Even with VAR we see borderline mm-tight offsides that the linesman has correctly flagged, even though getting such a call right has to come down to luck as much as anything.

On the bolded I think a large proportion of these tight calls that are being disallowed would indeed have been given prior to VAR.

I just think it’s forcing us to take every rule to the furthest possible degree, when an element of human decision making is always going to need to be involved anyway.

I honestly think that the calls where it takes ages to see if somebody is offside should be given as level.

 

[giorno]

Leaving aside the controversey of that specifically, the picture made wonder something.

I think the Palace defender that the decision is being measured against is Scott Dann. From that angle Bamford's body/arm is obscuring any clear view of the other Palace defender (is it Kouyate?). Not saying he's playing him onside but at the same time we don't know how far his arse is sticking out or whatever because Bamford is blocking us from seeing that.

How do they deal with that, and do they do a reverse angle camera view, drawing lines on that to check if someone who was obscured from one angle might be relevant after all?

They use 3 different angles to create a 3D image to determine who is the furthest defender and which is the furthest part of said defender

 

[sullydnl]

Leaving aside the controversey of that specifically, the picture made wonder something.

I think the Palace defender that the decision is being measured against is Scott Dann. From that angle Bamford's body/arm is obscuring any clear view of the other Palace defender (is it Kouyate?). Not saying he's playing him onside but at the same time we don't know how far his arse is sticking out or whatever because Bamford is blocking us from seeing that.

How do they deal with that, and do they do a reverse angle camera view, drawing lines on that to check if someone who was obscured from one angle might be relevant after all?

They use multiple camera angles to determine which defender is creating the offside line.

On the bolded I think a large proportion of these tight calls that are being disallowed would indeed have been given prior to VAR.

I just think it’s forcing us to take every rule to the furthest possible degree, when an element of human decision making is always going to need to be involved anyway.

I honestly think that the calls where it takes ages to see if somebody is offside should be given as level.

Tbf they've tried something like that in other leagues (not using lines, basically) but it just lead to different complaints from fans. A quick call would be made but the broadcasters would then show it was the wrong decision (because they will keep using tech even if the officials don't). But rather than fans saying "well it was too close to call really so that's okay", they predictably complained about corrupt officials, pointless VAR that couldn't get "obvious" decisions right and how stupid it was that broadcasters and other leagues could take a proper look but their VAR couldn't.

Really a lot of this comes down to the fact that, whatever they do, fans will moan about it. Especially when it goes against them.

 

[JSArsenal]

What would that accomplish though, the situation’s already been reviewed by the time you’d make the appeal. The referees changing their minds would just make for more subjectivity and cause more controversy would it not?

I might be wrong, but VAR doesn't review every single action that happens on the field right?

My suggestion is to let managers pick a situation to review regardless of where it happens on the pitch.

The thing is though, the technology isn’t good enough for these ridiculously close offside decisions.

The technology has changed the game, it’s made us attempt to view offsides that are too close to call and we never did that before, we didn’t need to. The game was better for it.

The reviewing of footage from refs is just embarrassing now.

It doesn’t improve the fan experience, the tech can’t prove offside, and the refs get the reviews wrong.

For football purists it detracts from what was the perfect game. Appeals would just delay things and kill the game momentum and amount to another change from what was a perfect game.

Football was never the perfect game. The Offside rule and its application has been an issue for years now, even before VAR. Putting that aside for a second, I'd rather the right decision was made then the wrong one. Delaying a game and killing the momentum of the same has been a thing in football for years now. It has been a deliberate tactic applied by many a manager a team. Right now it's a bit hokey with the referee leaving the field to go to the pitch side monitor, when another referee could just review the footage and tell the referee in his earpiece what call to make. The on field referees just need to give up some of their power.

How many times has your team been screwed over by a bad referee call? It's happened to every single club That is why VAR was brought in. Referees have made mind boggling decisions over the years, sometimes deliberately going against the rules. Was it Clatternburg in that Chelsea-Spurs game where he said he didn't want to ruin the game by carding a Spurs player? When 9 of them should have been sent off.

It's that kind of mentality that leads to players "letting him know you're there" in the first few minutes of the game because he knows at that stage he won't be carded for it, whereas in the 80th minute he might be.

Referees just need to apply the law as written, use VAR as it was intended and everything else would fall into place. If players, clubs and fans have a problem? Then they just need to readjust their play and start following the rules of the sport.

It's like speeding. Imagine if you've always broken the speed limit but never been caught. Then the government introduces some new technology that catches you every time you speed and impose the appropriate penalty. The correct move from that point, would be to stop speeding and obey the rules. The other thing that could happen is that the government could increase the speed limit. If the refs are finally correctly applying the offside rule, then players need to abide by it. If the rule itself is silly, then change it.

 

[Longshanks]

Sorrry but your concept is flawed. If margin of error is 10cm then 10cm is on or offside?. This is totally illogical. If a frame of video with a best fit line across the pitch shows 1cm offside then its offside. How can you not grasp that.

“Common sense” and “margin of error” should not be even in the mix.

For example. A video frame shows a foot offside.. They dont give because of margin of error ?
Really, I fail to see any sense with regard to binary decisions.

If they are within the margin then you go with the linesmans decision. if they are over the margin then its whatever the technology says.

For example a goal is scored the linesman puts his flag up to indicate a offside, VAR check shows player to be 4cm onside but because this is within the margin of error the the goal is ruled out because linesman has given offside. Or
A goal is scored, linesman doesn't flag, VAR check reveals player to be 5cm offside but because it's in the margin of error the goal stands as the linesman didn't flag.

The bamford non goal is a prime example of where referees should be allowed to use some common sense bamford has no advantage from his upper arm being offside, he doesn't use it to put the ball in the net if he had then maybe you could argue for it being offside.

 

[Mb194dc]

As with prior offsides this season, the line is drawn from the top part of the arm as you can now play the ball with it.

Technically probably the correct decision unlike the Lo Celso stamp or Liverpool pen after 5 minutes of the season.

The decision feels wrong. Law needs to be changed, if Bamford arms it in to the goal with bit supposedly off you could say it would feel like justice.

The other point is that VAR doesn't enforce other laws with anal precision in lots of other circumstances when a pen could be given. Like Maguire holding like rugby in Chelsea game and today. Every match it seems reviews of clear fouls which would be Pens if you apply the letter of the law are missed.

 

[One Night Only]

But you can't legally play the ball with your feckin arm? feck this. Made the rules harder to follow than NBA of NFL.

 

[Zlatan 7]

Pathetic Bamford offside decision and it’s that kind of nonsense that’s making a mockery of it and genuinely spoiling goals being celebrated

 

[Annihilate Now!]

But you can't legally play the ball with your feckin arm? feck this. Made the rules harder to follow than NBA of NFL.

I do think for an easy start /change to make that offside should only be based on feet.

 

[big rons sovereign]

Maybe you could try playing football instead of being condescending. That's never been a foul whereas getting sliced down by two players is a certain penalty.

VAR wasn't interested in it being a foul on de gea against Everton last season. There's no consistency, and with clowns like Michael Oliver in charge it comes as no surprise really.

 

[James Peril]

The Bamford-situation is obviously utter bullshit, but it’s 100% correct given the rules. No problem at all. There will always be strange situations and «worst outcomes» like this with any rule, we’ll never see a similar one the rest of the season. No matter what rule they make, it will always be controversy. Perhaps the boot itself is what should be counted as the striker’s measurement, which gives the attacking team the advantage is many cases. If a striker is offside with his head, but not with his front toe, it’s not offside. The arm thingy they made up this season is worse than last season, a player obviously cannot score with his upper arm. Why wasn’t the front finger used, why capped at elbow? Furthermore, the point they use above the elbow is not very definitive, the front boot is.

 

[Anustart89]

As with prior offsides this season, the line is drawn from the top part of the arm as you can now play the ball with it.

I'm more curious as to the position of the Palace player that's hidden behind Bamford. You'd wonder how it's physically possible for his body, being turned the way it is, to not be further behind than Bamford's arm. Did they show any other angle of that player's position?

 

[GenZRed]

VAR is a waste. That Bamford goal should have stood. Just get rid of VAR and have goal line technology.

VAR was supposed to remove controversial decisions but is simply adding to them and it is ruining the game and making football hard to enjoy.

 

[cyberman]

VAR is a waste. That Bamford goal should have stood. Just get rid of VAR and have goal line technology.

VAR was supposed to remove controversial decisions but is simply adding to them and it is ruining the game and making football hard to enjoy.

Get rid of VAR for offsides means a lot of goals and moves that were on would be flagged off and there were plenty of them pre VAR. But we were always told they even themselves out..
They didnt

 

[MikeeMike]

If they are within the margin then you go with the linesmans decision. if they are over the margin then its whatever the technology says.

For example a goal is scored the linesman puts his flag up to indicate a offside, VAR check shows player to be 4cm onside but because this is within the margin of error the the goal is ruled out because linesman has given offside. Or
A goal is scored, linesman doesn't flag, VAR check reveals player to be 5cm offside but because it's in the margin of error the goal stands as the linesman didn't flag.

The bamford non goal is a prime example of where referees should be allowed to use some common sense bamford has no advantage from his upper arm being offside, he doesn't use it to put the ball in the net if he had then maybe you could argue for it being offside.

You are just talking rubbish now. “within the margin of error” + “common sense”.please listen to how utterly vague you are sounding.
Offside is off (1cm or 2cm whatever)
Onside is on

Easy ?

 

[arnie_ni]

I do think for an easy start /change to make that offside should only be based on feet.

Its an easy solution and one I mentioned a few posts up as well.

It would be a lot clearer and should cut out crap like bamfords.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Its an easy solution and one I mentioned a few posts up as well.

It would be a lot clearer and should cut out crap like bamfords.

we have lost the notion that we should favour the attacker.

I think it should just be feet, and then it can be as close as you like, and if your judged to be offside by 1cm, then so be it. But shins, armpits and nipples are just ridiculous - and even if ‘technically’ right, it just causes confusion, and conflict. Just simplify it, and base offside just on your feet.

 

[UncleBob]

Its an easy solution and one I mentioned a few posts up as well.

It would be a lot clearer and should cut out crap like bamfords.

It wouldn't be a lot clearer, it'd just move the line somewhere else.

 

[Needham]

Wonder if the Bamford one would be given in all countries countries using VAR. There's a strain of over-officiousness in the English character that lends itself to this kind of bullshit, same as that clown who jumped in to stop relatives consoling a grieving widow during a recent funeral.

 

[Glorio]

The Bamford-situation is obviously utter bullshit, but it’s 100% correct given the rules. No problem at all. There will always be strange situations and «worst outcomes» like this with any rule, we’ll never see a similar one the rest of the season. No matter what rule they make, it will always be controversy. Perhaps the boot itself is what should be counted as the striker’s measurement, which gives the attacking team the advantage is many cases. If a striker is offside with his head, but not with his front toe, it’s not offside. The arm thingy they made up this season is worse than last season, a player obviously cannot score with his upper arm. Why wasn’t the front finger used, why capped at elbow? Furthermore, the point they use above the elbow is not very definitive, the front boot is.

Is it 100% correct even according to the rules there though? Interestingly I disagree with the pundits here. The top of his shoulder is actually onside, and everything beyond the red line is not a part of his body he can score with. If the ball gets in contact with any part of the arm across the red line en route a goal, its getting chalked off

 

[MikeeMike]

It wouldn't be a lot clearer, it'd just move the line somewhere else.

Yes ! I thought this is obvious but seemingly not.

 

[bleedred]

What's the take on the Westham goal against fulham?.
Haller was offside and the defender had to clear because of his presence which leads to the goal? Should it have stood?

 

[Bobcat]

There's feck all in that 'push' he literally just puts his arm up for balance. That's as clear as a penalty as I've ever seen!

His arm is straight and even looking wrong at a keeper when they contend for high balls in the box is a foul so that was the right call

 

[Longshanks]

You are just talking rubbish now. “within the margin of error” + “common sense”.please listen to how utterly vague you are sounding.
Offside is off (1cm or 2cm whatever)
Onside is on

Easy ?

Easy as pie, apart from the fact the technology isn't accurate enough to actually confirm that.

So a goal is disallowed because the technology says its 1cm off but the technology actually isn't that accurate, so we are disallowing a goal that may actually not be offside.

Goal line technology has a margin of error of 3.6mm and that's a actual physical line that doesn't move, with perfect camera angles set up and doesn't have to consider timing. So there will be a considerably higher margin of error for offside calls you would think.

You talk about it being binary, and just going with what technology says but how can it be binary if it's not accurate?

It would be like getting a speeding ticket for doing 30.1mph in a 30 limit there's no way your speedo is that accurate nor the actual technology in speed cameras. So there is a certain amount of grace given.

The idea of common sense is vague, fair enough, but I would say it is required in certain instances for interpretation of the law. For example liverpool's winner against west ham last week, mane was coming back from an offside position, he was in the keepers eyeline and the defenders didn't react instantly to the pass because it was heading directly for mane surely liverpool have gained an advantage from mane being In an offside position? Yet the goal is allowed to stand, but bamford yesterday has gained no advantage from his upper arm being in a offside position yet the goal is disallowed? How can that be right?

 

[Dorkstorm]

You are just talking rubbish now. “within the margin of error” + “common sense”.please listen to how utterly vague you are sounding.
Offside is off (1cm or 2cm whatever)
Onside is on

Easy ?

Yes, offside is off, and onside is on. But we have the VAR refs selecting which frame to use. In most cases with such fine margins, a player is onside one frame, and offside the next.

More emphasis needs to be put on which frame/s should be taken. Is it just as the passers foot hits the ball, or just as the ball leaves his foot (or somewhere inbetween). The offside rule needs to clarify that point, and then VAR should use 3 frames to make their rulings. If the attacker is onside in 1 and offise the next, give them the benefit of the doubt. If they are offside in the first, and onside in the second or 3rd, I'd also give them the benefit of the doubt.

I'd also add a time limit on these offside calls (or just on VAR in general) as most of the time, if its taking more than 1 minute to make a call its going to be contentious. If thats the case, let the onfield ref take a look and he can decide (or just stick with their original decision).

You will never have everyone be happy with every decision, thats just the nature of the game (and the nature of fans), but it would be a whole lot better than what we currently have.

 

[Bale Bale Bale]

They should do away with the whole quantum physics line thing and just take a still frame like we've always had, if they can't tell from that then you go with the on-field decision. Yes it might technically be less consistent than the system in place currently but you won't have all of these ridiculous marginal calls that no one wants in the game, it's just the blatant wrong calls that needed eradicating.

Also Maguire pushed Pickford but would have been a pen otherwise.

 

[UncleBob]

They should do away with the whole quantum physics line thing and just take a still frame like we've always had, if they can't tell from that then you go with the on-field decision. Yes it might technically be less consistent than the system in place currently but you won't have all of these ridiculous marginal calls that no one wants in the game, it's just the blatant wrong calls that needed eradicating.

Also Maguire pushed Pickford but would have been a pen otherwise.

Ofcourse you fecking would.

You'd have the exact same images and situations but worse tools.

 

[Bale Bale Bale]

Ofcourse you fecking would.

You'd have the exact same images and situations but worse tools.

I don't believe that any of these ridiculous offside calls(Bamford/Mane etc) would have been ruled out if it was simply a case of looking at a still and deciding from that, to the naked eye they are onside.

 

[MikeeMike]

I don't believe that any of these ridiculous offside calls(Bamford/Mane etc) would have been ruled out if it was simply a case of looking at a still and deciding from that, to the naked eye they are onside.

Oh dear. VAR has no chance of being accepted when “ridiculous offside calls are ruled out” “to the naked eye they are onside”
Please please please. You can clearly see from the still frame he is offside. To state “naked eye” is different from a video is beyond reason.

 

[sullydnl]

Wonder if the Bamford one would be given in all countries countries using VAR. There's a strain of over-officiousness in the English character that lends itself to this kind of bullshit, same as that clown who jumped in to stop relatives consoling a grieving widow during a recent funeral.

Nothing to do with the PL. It's the way offside works.

 

[UncleBob]

I don't believe that any of these ridiculous offside calls(Bamford/Mane etc) would have been ruled out if it was simply a case of looking at a still and deciding from that, to the naked eye they are onside.

Believe whatever you want, doesn't make it true.

It's fairly fecking obvious to the majority that the end result would be worse decisions overall.