VAR

1731 posts
URZZZZ
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 7279
Joined: 20 Apr 2013 18:30

Re: VAR

by URZZZZ » 20 Jan 2021 20:04

More VAR nonsense :roll:

Should have called City’s first off

User avatar
Franchise FC
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 10855
Joined: 22 May 2007 16:24
Location: Relocated to LA

Re: VAR

by Franchise FC » 20 Jan 2021 20:08

URZZZZ More VAR nonsense :roll:

Should have called City’s first off

There’s been some nonsensical decisions with VAR but shirley this just about tops the lot.

To be fair, he was only 20 yards offside so maybe they couldn’t get the margin lines to stretch that far

Nameless
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 8851
Joined: 23 Aug 2013 12:25

Re: VAR

by Nameless » 21 Jan 2021 07:09

Franchise FC
URZZZZ More VAR nonsense :roll:

Should have called City’s first off

There’s been some nonsensical decisions with VAR but shirley this just about tops the lot.

To be fair, he was only 20 yards offside so maybe they couldn’t get the margin lines to stretch that far


The explanation from the referee clarified the decision. The claim from the manager and Mings that,because they don’t know the rules of the game they earn vast sums from, then the decision must be wrong is rather odd. Players inother much more complex sports pride themselves in knowing the laws inside out. Footballers seem to think they don’t need to bother. As TV pundits regularly show the level of ignorance is stunning. We end up in a situation where a ref gives a correct but technically obscure decision and it’s ‘wrong’ because of an ignorant manager....

Sanguine
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 24791
Joined: 27 Feb 2013 14:36

Re: VAR

by Sanguine » 21 Jan 2021 08:06

Rather than just piling in on Villa - and pretending all and sundry understand the rules fully (I certainly didn't on this one) - the more important debate is whether Villa were a victim here of dodgy rules, rather than VAR. I can understand Smith being angry.

We have a situation where VAR is used to show an attacking player being offside at any point during the build-up to a goal, so it isn't unreasonable to expect confusion when Rodri appears to be exactly that player, albeit in this case Mings controlling the ball 'resetting' that process and rendering Rodri onside. So Rodri 'becomes' onside, despite having clearly been offside when the ball was played forward, despite Rodri himself not moving. It's hardly clear as day and not something we see a lot of.

Nameless
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 8851
Joined: 23 Aug 2013 12:25

Re: VAR

by Nameless » 21 Jan 2021 08:45

Sanguine Rather than just piling in on Villa - and pretending all and sundry understand the rules fully (I certainly didn't on this one) - the more important debate is whether Villa were a victim here of dodgy rules, rather than VAR. I can understand Smith being angry.

We have a situation where VAR is used to show an attacking player being offside at any point during the build-up to a goal, so it isn't unreasonable to expect confusion when Rodri appears to be exactly that player, albeit in this case Mings controlling the ball 'resetting' that process and rendering Rodri onside. So Rodri 'becomes' onside, despite having clearly been offside when the ball was played forward, despite Rodri himself not moving. It's hardly clear as day and not something we see a lot of.



The ‘pile on’ so far has been on the officials. Who got it right. There seems to have been little recognition of that. Smith probably owes the officials an apology. His outburst (like all similar outbursts) was pretty poor. The officials were not going to change their decision so him calling them clowns served what purpose exactly ? It’s not their fault that he didn’t know the rule. The rule is actually quite logical as the alternative would be that a player would be offside indefinitely, there has to be a point at which a player in an offside position is no longer offside.
If post match Smith had said something like ‘I didn’t understand the rule, the ref explained it and I now understand’ all would have been good. If that happened then I’ve missed it.


User avatar
BR0B0T
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 15325
Joined: 08 Nov 2016 23:25

Re: VAR

by BR0B0T » 21 Jan 2021 08:46

Is Rodri affecting play in the position he is in?

If Rodri isn't there then Mings may/prolly have let the ball bounce through to the keeper. Rodri forces Mings to make a decision. However, you could argue he's so far away that he isn't involved with play

Is there a second phase when Mings touches the ball?

If yes, then all the above is negated and doesn't matter. It's arguable either way that there was enough time to call it a second phase. Had Rodri challenged for a header he'd have been offside.

I think by current rules Rodri is prolly onside. Wasn't affecting play (debatable) and the second phase is the moment it touches Mings

This is a grey area that needs clearing up

Nameless
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 8851
Joined: 23 Aug 2013 12:25

Re: VAR

by Nameless » 21 Jan 2021 09:07

BR0B0T Is Rodri affecting play in the position he is in?

If Rodri isn't there then Mings may/prolly have let the ball bounce through to the keeper. Rodri forces Mings to make a decision. However, you could argue he's so far away that he isn't involved with play

Is there a second phase when Mings touches the ball?

If yes, then all the above is negated and doesn't matter. It's arguable either way that there was enough time to call it a second phase. Had Rodri challenged for a header he'd have been offside.

I think by current rules Rodri is prolly onside. Wasn't affecting play (debatable) and the second phase is the moment it touches Mings

This is a grey area that needs clearing up


Mings should have let the ball go through (Rodri couldn’t get involved in any way as he would have become offside)
When Mings plays the ball Rodri becomes onside.
I think the one possible area of debate is whether Rodri deliberately runs back to tackle Mings in which case he was offside from the original move. But he doesn’t, he’s runs straight back at a jog rather than sprinting towards Mings. Mings miscontrols the ball (possibly because he knows Rodri is around, although if that’s was the case he shouldn’t have chested the ball down) and then Rodri takes possession.

Sanguine
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 24791
Joined: 27 Feb 2013 14:36

Re: VAR

by Sanguine » 21 Jan 2021 09:32

Nameless
BR0B0T Is Rodri affecting play in the position he is in?

If Rodri isn't there then Mings may/prolly have let the ball bounce through to the keeper. Rodri forces Mings to make a decision. However, you could argue he's so far away that he isn't involved with play

Is there a second phase when Mings touches the ball?

If yes, then all the above is negated and doesn't matter. It's arguable either way that there was enough time to call it a second phase. Had Rodri challenged for a header he'd have been offside.

I think by current rules Rodri is prolly onside. Wasn't affecting play (debatable) and the second phase is the moment it touches Mings

This is a grey area that needs clearing up


Mings should have let the ball go through (Rodri couldn’t get involved in any way as he would have become offside)
When Mings plays the ball Rodri becomes onside.
I think the one possible area of debate is whether Rodri deliberately runs back to tackle Mings in which case he was offside from the original move. But he doesn’t, he’s runs straight back at a jog rather than sprinting towards Mings. Mings miscontrols the ball (possibly because he knows Rodri is around, although if that’s was the case he shouldn’t have chested the ball down) and then Rodri takes possession.


It's a stupid rule. It shouldn't be up to a defender to manage the phase of play an opponent is in.

Nameless
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 8851
Joined: 23 Aug 2013 12:25

Re: VAR

by Nameless » 21 Jan 2021 09:43

Sanguine
Nameless
BR0B0T Is Rodri affecting play in the position he is in?

If Rodri isn't there then Mings may/prolly have let the ball bounce through to the keeper. Rodri forces Mings to make a decision. However, you could argue he's so far away that he isn't involved with play

Is there a second phase when Mings touches the ball?

If yes, then all the above is negated and doesn't matter. It's arguable either way that there was enough time to call it a second phase. Had Rodri challenged for a header he'd have been offside.

I think by current rules Rodri is prolly onside. Wasn't affecting play (debatable) and the second phase is the moment it touches Mings

This is a grey area that needs clearing up


Mings should have let the ball go through (Rodri couldn’t get involved in any way as he would have become offside)
When Mings plays the ball Rodri becomes onside.
I think the one possible area of debate is whether Rodri deliberately runs back to tackle Mings in which case he was offside from the original move. But he doesn’t, he’s runs straight back at a jog rather than sprinting towards Mings. Mings miscontrols the ball (possibly because he knows Rodri is around, although if that’s was the case he shouldn’t have chested the ball down) and then Rodri takes possession.


It's a stupid rule. It shouldn't be up to a defender to manage the phase of play an opponent is in.


I suspect if you changed it thenit would throw up even dafter scenarios. Once the opposition have control of the ball why should you still be offside ?


Sanguine
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 24791
Joined: 27 Feb 2013 14:36

Re: VAR

by Sanguine » 21 Jan 2021 09:49

Nameless
Sanguine
Nameless
Mings should have let the ball go through (Rodri couldn’t get involved in any way as he would have become offside)
When Mings plays the ball Rodri becomes onside.
I think the one possible area of debate is whether Rodri deliberately runs back to tackle Mings in which case he was offside from the original move. But he doesn’t, he’s runs straight back at a jog rather than sprinting towards Mings. Mings miscontrols the ball (possibly because he knows Rodri is around, although if that’s was the case he shouldn’t have chested the ball down) and then Rodri takes possession.


It's a stupid rule. It shouldn't be up to a defender to manage the phase of play an opponent is in.


I suspect if you changed it thenit would throw up even dafter scenarios. Once the opposition have control of the ball why should you still be offside ?


I think that 'controlled the ball' is somewhat disingenuous here, and that's why this rule is problematic. Rodri is measured (by the BBC) has 3.5m from Mings when the ball hits his chest. He immediately moves towards Mings before the ball has hit the floor or Mings's foot.

Nameless
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 8851
Joined: 23 Aug 2013 12:25

Re: VAR

by Nameless » 21 Jan 2021 09:59

Sanguine
Nameless
Sanguine
It's a stupid rule. It shouldn't be up to a defender to manage the phase of play an opponent is in.


I suspect if you changed it thenit would throw up even dafter scenarios. Once the opposition have control of the ball why should you still be offside ?


I think that 'controlled the ball' is somewhat disingenuous here, and that's why this rule is problematic. Rodri is measured (by the BBC) has 3.5m from Mings when the ball hits his chest. He immediately moves towards Mings before the ball has hit the floor or Mings's foot.


Is it less problematic if we’d use the phrase ‘deliberately played’ ? Using the phrase ‘hits his chest’ is disingenuous’, Mings actively plays the ball, although badly.
Last edited by Nameless on 21 Jan 2021 10:02, edited 1 time in total.

Sanguine
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 24791
Joined: 27 Feb 2013 14:36

Re: VAR

by Sanguine » 21 Jan 2021 10:01

Nameless
Sanguine
Nameless
I suspect if you changed it thenit would throw up even dafter scenarios. Once the opposition have control of the ball why should you still be offside ?


I think that 'controlled the ball' is somewhat disingenuous here, and that's why this rule is problematic. Rodri is measured (by the BBC) has 3.5m from Mings when the ball hits his chest. He immediately moves towards Mings before the ball has hit the floor or Mings's foot.


Is it less problematic if we’d use the phrase ‘intentionally played’ ?


The rule is clearer, but no less stupid since, as I said earlier, it require Mings to manage the phase of play that Rodri is in with a decision on whether to play the ball (when Rodri isn't the only variable).

Nameless
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 8851
Joined: 23 Aug 2013 12:25

Re: VAR

by Nameless » 21 Jan 2021 10:06

Sanguine
Nameless
Sanguine
I think that 'controlled the ball' is somewhat disingenuous here, and that's why this rule is problematic. Rodri is measured (by the BBC) has 3.5m from Mings when the ball hits his chest. He immediately moves towards Mings before the ball has hit the floor or Mings's foot.


Is it less problematic if we’d use the phrase ‘intentionally played’ ?


The rule is clearer, but no less stupid since, as I said earlier, it require Mings to manage the phase of play that Rodri is in with a decision on whether to play the ball (when Rodri isn't the only variable).


Might have been easier if Mings had just controlled the ball properly and avoided it even being an issue !
But it still remains that the officials were right and Smith should be big enough to say he was wrong and shoukdn’t Have been repeatedly abusive.


Sanguine
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 24791
Joined: 27 Feb 2013 14:36

Re: VAR

by Sanguine » 21 Jan 2021 10:07

I'm much less bothered about managers losing their shit (however justifiably) than I am about stupid rules.

Nameless
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 8851
Joined: 23 Aug 2013 12:25

Re: VAR

by Nameless » 21 Jan 2021 10:19

Sanguine I'm much less bothered about managers losing their shit (however justifiably) than I am about stupid rules.


How would you change the rule ?
It’s a pretty basic aspect of offside that you aren’t offside I feel the ball is last played by an opponent.

Sanguine
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 24791
Joined: 27 Feb 2013 14:36

Re: VAR

by Sanguine » 21 Jan 2021 10:22

Nameless
Sanguine I'm much less bothered about managers losing their shit (however justifiably) than I am about stupid rules.


How would you change the rule ?
It’s a pretty basic aspect of offside that you aren’t offside I feel the ball is last played by an opponent.


No idea, but there is clearly a problem where you can come from an offside position, and just 3.5m from the defender when the balls gets to him, and immediately be onside and challenge from the ball.

Nameless
Hob Nob Addict
Posts: 8851
Joined: 23 Aug 2013 12:25

Re: VAR

by Nameless » 21 Jan 2021 10:33

Sanguine
Nameless
Sanguine I'm much less bothered about managers losing their shit (however justifiably) than I am about stupid rules.


How would you change the rule ?
It’s a pretty basic aspect of offside that you aren’t offside I feel the ball is last played by an opponent.


No idea, but there is clearly a problem where you can come from an offside position, and just 3.5m from the defender when the balls gets to him, and immediately be onside and challenge from the ball.


It’s really not.
The options seem to be putting a player into a permanently offside position.
Rodri did not even attempt to move towards Mings until Mings messed up his control, he then just took the ball which had gone away from Mings.
Had Rodri actively tried to interfere even as Mings (mis)controlled the ball he could have been given offside. He was well away from Mings as Mings played the ball but reacted to Mings messing up. No reason he should be penalised for that.
Disappointed that you think the scourge of the game (ignorant and excessive displays of dissent) is less of an issue....

Sanguine
Hob Nob Legend
Posts: 24791
Joined: 27 Feb 2013 14:36

Re: VAR

by Sanguine » 21 Jan 2021 10:36

I'm disappointed that you're claiming Rodri made no movement towards Mings 'until he messed up his control'. If we're not going to stick to facts that can be clearly seen in the replays then the discussion becomes pointless.

User avatar
BR0B0T
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 15325
Joined: 08 Nov 2016 23:25

Re: VAR

by BR0B0T » 21 Jan 2021 13:37

Sanguine I'm disappointed that you're claiming Rodri made no movement towards Mings 'until he messed up his control'. If we're not going to stick to facts that can be clearly seen in the replays then the discussion becomes pointless.


'greed! It Big Sam style football...bend the rules and make it shit

User avatar
Franchise FC
Hob Nob Super-Addict
Posts: 10855
Joined: 22 May 2007 16:24
Location: Relocated to LA

Re: VAR

by Franchise FC » 21 Jan 2021 13:48

Sanguine I'm disappointed that you're claiming Rodri made no movement towards Mings 'until he messed up his control'. If we're not going to stick to facts that can be clearly seen in the replays then the discussion becomes pointless.

I'm with Sangers on this one.

1731 posts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 120 guests

It is currently 29 Mar 2024 11:00