by Winston Biscuit » 03 Jul 2019 10:58
StrandedSilver Fox Another bad night for VAR last night, White's goal should have been given, there has to be a margin of error and the advantage given to the attacker when it's that close, the pictures and frame speed literally aren't available to definitively say she was offside there.
As for the penalty, absolutely crazy that there's nearly five minutes between the "foul" and the penalty actually being taken for an incident that was hardly definitive.
It's going to ruin the football watching experience
Disagree it was a bad night for VAR.
What VAR has shown is that the offside rule is pehaps no longer fit for purpose given the update in Tech. Did White really gain an advantage by being a toe ahead of the defence, if VAR is here to stay then the rule probably needs to be revisited - i.e. maybe a player needs to half a metre ahead for them to be offside or all of a players body needs to be off rather than just half a foot.
As for the foul - agreed the time was stupid but there was also a substitution in that time. No reason why the ref couldn't have viewed the replays whilst that was taking place - 4th official can control the sub. Also, it was clear from the first replay that White's foot was caught by the USA defender's knee - so why they wasted time showing other inconclusive angles, I'll never know.
by Silver Fox » 03 Jul 2019 12:07
by The Enfield Royal71 » 03 Jul 2019 12:08
SanguineStrandedSilver Fox Another bad night for VAR last night, White's goal should have been given, there has to be a margin of error and the advantage given to the attacker when it's that close, the pictures and frame speed literally aren't available to definitively say she was offside there.
As for the penalty, absolutely crazy that there's nearly five minutes between the "foul" and the penalty actually being taken for an incident that was hardly definitive.
It's going to ruin the football watching experience
Disagree it was a bad night for VAR.
What VAR has shown is that the offside rule is pehaps no longer fit for purpose given the update in Tech. Did White really gain an advantage by being a toe ahead of the defence, if VAR is here to stay then the rule probably needs to be revisited - i.e. maybe a player needs to half a metre ahead for them to be offside or all of a players body needs to be off rather than just half a foot.
As for the foul - agreed the time was stupid but there was also a substitution in that time. No reason why the ref couldn't have viewed the replays whilst that was taking place - 4th official can control the sub. Also, it was clear from the first replay that White's foot was caught by the USA defender's knee - so why they wasted time showing other inconclusive angles, I'll never know.
Agree on both points - I think we're likely to see a 'refinement' of the offside rule to fit the accuracy of the tech.
I've gone into the VAR 'process' on here repeatedly so won't again but the time it takes can be massively reduced if it is used only based on strict protocols.
by John Madejski's Wallet » 03 Jul 2019 20:37
Sanguine I've gone into the VAR 'process' on here repeatedly so won't again but the time it takes can be massively reduced if it is used only based on strict protocols.
by The Enfield Royal71 » 03 Jul 2019 21:36
SanguineStrandedSilver Fox Another bad night for VAR last night, White's goal should have been given, there has to be a margin of error and the advantage given to the attacker when it's that close, the pictures and frame speed literally aren't available to definitively say she was offside there.
As for the penalty, absolutely crazy that there's nearly five minutes between the "foul" and the penalty actually being taken for an incident that was hardly definitive.
It's going to ruin the football watching experience
Disagree it was a bad night for VAR.
What VAR has shown is that the offside rule is pehaps no longer fit for purpose given the update in Tech. Did White really gain an advantage by being a toe ahead of the defence, if VAR is here to stay then the rule probably needs to be revisited - i.e. maybe a player needs to half a metre ahead for them to be offside or all of a players body needs to be off rather than just half a foot.
As for the foul - agreed the time was stupid but there was also a substitution in that time. No reason why the ref couldn't have viewed the replays whilst that was taking place - 4th official can control the sub. Also, it was clear from the first replay that White's foot was caught by the USA defender's knee - so why they wasted time showing other inconclusive angles, I'll never know.
Agree on both points - I think we're likely to see a 'refinement' of the offside rule to fit the accuracy of the tech.
I've gone into the VAR 'process' on here repeatedly so won't again but the time it takes can be massively reduced if it is used only based on strict protocols.
by Royal Rother » 03 Jul 2019 22:06
John Madejski's WalletSanguine I've gone into the VAR 'process' on here repeatedly so won't again but the time it takes can be massively reduced if it is used only based on strict protocols.
But it won't be.
It's use will be perpetually expanded, these things are always thin edges of a web. I remember when they first started talking about goal line tech and pundits and officials rubbishing the idea that it would be used outfield and that would be ridiculous. But once the tech is there, people will feel aggrieved if they lose a game and there was a minor incident that wasn't VAR'd
by Whore Jackie » 04 Jul 2019 12:31
Sanguine Agree on both points - I think we're likely to see a 'refinement' of the offside rule to fit the accuracy of the tech.
I've gone into the VAR 'process' on here repeatedly so won't again but the time it takes can be massively reduced if it is used only based on strict protocols.
Silver Fox Refining the existing laws to make VAR work is just admitting that VAR doesn't work
Sanguine Wasn't quite my point re protocols, so I'll repeat what I've written in earlier posts - DD actually makes a good point for one, if a referee can't make their mind up after a minute or so, then a 'clear and obvious error' has not occurred.
Whore Jackie Still think the interpretation of 'clear and obvious error' is the fundamental flaw in VAR. IMO, the VAR official should only contact the referee if either of these clearly definable issues has arised:
– goal should be overruled if an offside offence has occurred
– player sending off or booking should be overruled for mistaken identity
Everything else should be solely down to the on-field referee, bar goal-line technology.
Hoop BlahSanguine Wasn't quite my point re protocols, so I'll repeat what I've written in earlier posts - DD actually makes a good point for one, if a referee can't make their mind up after a minute or so, then a 'clear and obvious error' has not occurred.
As I said months, or maybe years, ago, clear and obvious is a massive grey area and is totally subjective.
SanguineHoop BlahSanguine Wasn't quite my point re protocols, so I'll repeat what I've written in earlier posts - DD actually makes a good point for one, if a referee can't make their mind up after a minute or so, then a 'clear and obvious error' has not occurred.
As I said months, or maybe years, ago, clear and obvious is a massive grey area and is totally subjective.
Yep. Not to the extent you suggest, but broadly I agree. A trip in the box, not noticed by the referee, is a clear and obvious error. A dive not picked up is a clear and obvious error. You seem to broadly support more definitive technology like goal-line cameras, but even they have a margin of error of 5mm. But I remain confused why people feel so negative about something that, at worst, gives officials more time and evidence by which to make those subjective decisions, whilst at the same time ensuring that the real howlers get noticed and corrected.
by John Madejski's Wallet » 06 Jul 2019 21:16
tmesis One of the reasons it seems so negative as its most common use seems to be to disallow goals, or maybe to see saved penalties retaken. It's cancelling out moments of excitement. It's not really giving much.
Goal-line technology is completely different. It's instant, and seems to resulting in goals being given where previously the defence would have got the benefit of the doubt. I really don't get anyone against it.
by The Enfield Royal71 » 06 Jul 2019 21:59
by Snowflake Royal » 07 Jul 2019 01:22
Silver Fox Another bad night for VAR last night, White's goal should have been given, there has to be a margin of error and the advantage given to the attacker when it's that close, the pictures and frame speed literally aren't available to definitively say she was offside there.
As for the penalty, absolutely crazy that there's nearly five minutes between the "foul" and the penalty actually being taken for an incident that was hardly definitive.
It's going to ruin the football watching experience
by Snowflake Royal » 07 Jul 2019 01:28
John Madejski's Wallettmesis One of the reasons it seems so negative as its most common use seems to be to disallow goals, or maybe to see saved penalties retaken. It's cancelling out moments of excitement. It's not really giving much.
Goal-line technology is completely different. It's instant, and seems to resulting in goals being given where previously the defence would have got the benefit of the doubt. I really don't get anyone against it.
That's pretty spot on tbf
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 92 guests