VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion

[FrankDrebin]

That offside highlights why some common sense needs to be applied to the use of VAR for offsides.

The offside rule was never designed or introduced to rule out goals because someone's shoulder was 5mm offside.

Yep. VAR is a fecking waste of time.

 

[Pexbo]

It’s the one objective rule. The last thing we want to do is introduce more finger in the air bollocks. He was offside. No complaints.

 

[Swedish_Plumber]

I'm amazed that people have an issue with that offside call. It's one of the few objective laws and I'm glad its being consistently called correctly. I'd be fuming if that goal had stood against us.

Would you have been able to tell it was offside if VAR didn’t exist?

 

[Adz_99]

I don't even celebrate half our goals anymore because I know full well there's going to be a VAR check.

I've never known a sport persist with something that's so universally detested.

 

[90 + 5min]

I’m honestly unsure how much more I can put up with. We get players booked almost instantly all fecking season and yet whoever we’re playing get about 8 warnings before a card comes.

Changes the way games are played.

Just another game. I am used that we don't have any luck with referees in any shape or form. I'm used to that our manager and those higher up being silent and never say anything in press or send any statements through official channels.

 

[Thom Merrilin]

Would you have been able to tell it was offside if VAR didn’t exist?

I thought it looked off in real time but obviously hard to tell. That has nothing to do with whether it was offside or not though.

 

[stevoc]

I'm amazed that people have an issue with that offside call. It's one of the few objective laws and I'm glad its being consistently called correctly. I'd be fuming if that goal had stood against us.

His shoulder was marginally offside. What advantage was gained?

You do know why the rule was introduced?

 

[Sandikan]

Would you have been able to tell it was offside if VAR didn’t exist?

That's the big problem with it. No-one would have said a word if that was given. Most of us still cheered, then the dreaded check, and all that release is just ruined.

 

[awop]

How many tackles in the past 40 years have broken a bone? People really overestimate what it takes to break a leg.

I don't know you tell me. I barely consider this as a tackle, he's standing, stretching his leg, makes contact with his foot/ankle but there's next to no force. It's a trip. Voluntary and malicious to break a counter-attack? Absolutely. But if this challenge is at risk of breaking Doherty's leg then he might want to retire. He has and will face 10 times more dangerous challenges every weekend. Everybody will, it's football, there's contact every 10s.

 

[hellhunter]

It’s the one objective rule. The last thing we want to do is introduce more finger in the air bollocks. He was offside. No complaints.

What this guy said

 

[Withnail]

I'm amazed that people have an issue with that offside call. It's one of the few objective laws and I'm glad its being consistently called correctly. I'd be fuming if that goal had stood against us.

It's what I've been saying for a while as well. The rule itself needs to be revisited.

Goals are being ruled out when the offside offence was basically inconsequential to the outcome and gave no material advantage to the attacker.

 

[FerociousCorgis]

Would like to see Wenger idea where it's if all your body is offside. Then yeah it's a 1cm offside but it's 1cm of your entire body and not a hip or something

 

[Annihilate Now!]

To be honest, he looked offside straight away

And he still looked offside on the replay

So yeah, offside

 

[Swedish_Plumber]

That's the big problem with it. No-one would have said a word if that was given. Most of us still cheered, then the dreaded check, and all that release is just ruined.

Yup. What advantage was gained over the defender?

 

[Strats]

100% correct offside call.

Shame though, was one of our best goals of the year

 

[SER19]

It wasnt offisde. thankfully it didnt matter but this nice idea that offisde is an objective rule that is now never wrong is such utter nonsense. Its a prick in a studio with a computer and in this case pausing it a fraction too late, to find a fraction offside - which he wasnt. why is the line for the fulham player up his armpit when he can score with his upper arm/shoulder. Once again, var have searched for a reason to find offside rather than search for a reason not to. If they were tasked with finding that goal onside youd simple draw those thick lines a micromillimeter back and have your still a fraction of a second earlier.

Its a complete mess and needs better technology or just scrap it.

 

[Thom Merrilin]

His shoulder was marginally offside. What advantage was gained?

You do know why the rule was introduced?

You don't have to gain an advantage to be called offside.

 

[stevoc]

It’s the one objective rule. The last thing we want to do is introduce more finger in the air bollocks. He was offside. No complaints.

It's offside under the current rules I'm not saying it was a bad call by var. But the rule could and really should be changed.

There should be benefit of the doubt given to the attacker and a clear gap before its an offside.

 

[Red in STL]

I'm amazed that people have an issue with that offside call. It's one of the few objective laws and I'm glad its being consistently called correctly. I'd be fuming if that goal had stood against us.

It's trhe tin foil effect, in real time I thought he was off though on the replay it was much closer than I thought

 

[Snow]

I don't know you tell me. I barely consider this as a tackle, he's standing, stretching his leg, makes contact with his foot/ankle but there's next to no force. It's a trip. Voluntary and malicious to break a counter-attack? Absolutely. But if this challenge is at risk of breaking Doherty's leg then he might want to retire. He has and will face 10 times more dangerous challenges every weekend. Everybody will, it's football, there's contact every 10s.

It's pretty memorable when someone breaks their leg and I can not think of many instances and usually it's bad luck and not the force behind a bad tackle.

What kind of game do we want to watch? People really seem to hate tackling if they agree that was a red. Refs see studs touch someone on slow motion and they lose all senses.

 

[Zlatan 7]

The fact that it’s ruined goal celebrations is the biggest travesty. Onside/offside, foul/no foul after every goal to the mm.
It’s killed that genuine release of a goal being scored

 

[stevoc]

It's what I've been saying for a while as well. The rule itself needs to be revisited.

Goals are being ruled out when the offside offence was basically inconsequential to the outcome and gave no material advantage to the attacker.

Exactly. Amad gained no advantage.

 

[LawCharltonBest]

100% correct offside call.

Shame though, was one of our best goals of the year

You’re wrong. Quite simply. It was onside

Zoom in on the lines. They’ve included Amad’s arm but done it from the defenders shoulder

Had they done it properly, it’s onside

 

[Red in STL]

It's offside under the current rules I'm not saying it was a bad call by var. But the rule could and really should be changed.

There should be benefit of the doubt given to the attacker and a clear gap before its an offside.

It was offside under every offside rule there's ever been, aside from the interfering with play part it's virtually the only non-subjective rule there is

 

[stevoc]

You don't have to gain an advantage to be called offside.

Indeed. Which is the problem with the current rules. If the position of your body gives you no advantage. Then why should it lead to a goal being ruled out?

 

[SER19]

You’re wrong. Quite simply. It was onside

Zoom in on the lines. They’ve included Amad’s arm but done it from the defenders shoulder

Had they done it properly, it’s onside

Give me 5 seconds on that shit machine they use and I'll be able to draw it so he's onside. Its another farcical situation where these nerds want to influence the game.

 

[Davie Moyes]

He looked onside in real time and then inside even on the replays. Look where the defenders arms are. Or am I not understanding where lines should be drawn from?

 

[Thom Merrilin]

Indeed. Which is the problem with the current rules. If the position of your body gives you no advantage. Then why should it lead to a goal being ruled out?

I like having objective laws so I'd keep it as is. What do you think the law should be?

 

[Shnabb]

Does anyone have a high quality picture of the offside lines for Amad's goal?

 

[stevoc]

He looked onside in real time and then inside even on the replays. Look where the defenders arms are. Or am I not understanding where lines should be drawn from?

If you have to zoom in on a still frame of play and draw lines to decide if someone is offside then they should just be onside. The rule was never devised for this scenario.

 

[Zed is not dead]

I'm amazed that people have an issue with that offside call. It's one of the few objective laws and I'm glad its being consistently called correctly. I'd be fuming if that goal had stood against us.

Because the law as applied is utter nonsense.

The point of the law is not to sanction someone having a toe over the defender, it’s to prevent situations where strikers would just wait for long balls and completely bypass the defence.

A striker is naturally going forward while a defender will need to turn back before sprinting to his goal, so so it’s absolutely evident that the striker’s torso and at least one of his foot will be moving slightly ahead of the defender.

The law is not supposed to protect defenders from being too slow to respond to an opponent attacking the space when both are from a similar starting point.

 

[Withnail]

You’re wrong. Quite simply. It was onside

Zoom in on the lines. They’ve included Amad’s arm but done it from the defenders shoulder

Had they done it properly, it’s onside

It's supposed to be measured from the armpit of both players.

A player's head, body and feet can all be caught in an offside position but the hands and arms of players aren't counted. According to the Football Association (FA), "For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit."

 

[stevoc]

I like having objective laws so I'd keep it as is. What do you think the law should be?

It can still be objective. All they need to do is give the attacker a thicker line so more goals like thse are onside. I genuinely have no idea why your shoulder being 5mm offside should rule a goal out. Before VAR no one would have ever even suggested that that was an offside.

 

[Pexbo]

It's offside under the current rules I'm not saying it was a bad call by var. But the rule could and really should be changed.

There should be benefit of the doubt given to the attacker and a clear gap before its an offside.

No there absolutely should not. Because you know exactly how it will be used and who will be given benefit of the doubt and who will not. No fecking way that you very much.

 

[Pexbo]

It can still be objective. All they need to do is give the attacker a thicker line so more goals like thse are onside. I genuinely have no idea why your shoulder being 5mm offside should rule a goal out. Before VAR no one would have ever even suggested that that was an offside.

All you’re doing is moving the lines at that point, nothing is gained for anyone. They draw lines and it’s a slightly different point.

 

[LawCharltonBest]

It's supposed to be measured from the armpit of both players.

Yeah that is what I’m saying. Had they done that, it’s onside

 

[CassiusClaymore]

Does anyone have a high quality picture of the offside lines for Amad's goal?

Hmmm

 

[stevoc]

No there absolutely should not. Because you know exactly how it will be used and who will be given benefit of the doubt and who will not. No fecking way that you very much.

I disagree mate, goals being ruled out for a shoulder being marginally offside is a nonsense.

All you’re doing is moving the lines at that point, nothing is gained for anyone. They draw lines and it’s a slightly different point.

But if the attacker had a thicker line under the exact same rules and implementation of where they apply the lines that would have been onside.

 

[Thom Merrilin]

Because the law as applied is utter nonsense.

The point of the law is not to sanction someone having a toe over the defender, it’s to prevent situations where strikers would just wait for long balls and completely bypass the defence.

A striker is naturally going forward while a defender will need to turn back before sprinting to his goal, so so it’s absolutely evident that the striker’s torso and at least one of his foot will be moving slightly ahead of the defender.

The law is not supposed to protect defenders from being too slow to respond to an opponent attacking the space when both are from a similar starting point.

The law is applied exactly as it's written. That is the point of the law, to stop players receiving the ball or impacting play when they were in an offside position. It has nothing to do with protecting defenders. If you want the law changed how would you write it?

 

[arnie_ni]

I'm amazed that people have an issue with that offside call. It's one of the few objective laws and I'm glad its being consistently called correctly. I'd be fuming if that goal had stood against us.

Still think it should be based purely on feet but other than that offside is offside