VAR

[StellaPlease]

It's the way they check every goal. They are only mea t to come in if there has been a clear and obvious mistake but now you can't celebrate till about 30 seconds after the goal goes in.

VAR has gaids.

[Silver Fox]

Today’s VAR question arises from yesterday’s Liverpool v Arsenal game.

Aubamayang goes through on goal, offside and proceeds to stand around in the box waiting for Matip to tackle him, the ball going out for a corner. As it happens the Arse fail to score from the set piece but if they had would the initial break have been reviewed as the line-o had seemingly followed the new plan of doing fvck all? I’m guessing not but happy to be proved wrong

[Snowflake Royal]

Today’s VAR question arises from yesterday’s Liverpool v Arsenal game.

Aubamayang goes through on goal, offside and proceeds to stand around in the box waiting for Matip to tackle him, the ball going out for a corner. As it happens the Arse fail to score from the set piece but if they had would the initial break have been reviewed as the line-o had seemingly followed the new plan of doing fvck all? I’m guessing not but happy to be proved wrong

It seems unlikely to me that VAR would review the reason a set piece was given if a set piece was scored from.

The time to review it would be before it's taken. So presumably that was down to ref/assistant's interpretation of active and therefore not a 'clear and obvious error'.

[Franchise FC]

Today’s incidents have put the final nail in the coffin of VAR for me.

David Silva clearly trodden on, which is a foul, but no penalty given.

Harry Kane taken out even more clearly , but no penalty given. Can’t even see why Mike Dean didn’t give it on first viewing.
Law states “trips or attempts to trip” - says nothing at all about intentional, so they’re both pens and VAR has failed to dliver

[genome]

If VAR isn’t going to overturn rugby tackles in the box then I think we should all just go home.

[The Enfield Royal71]

You know what I'm gonna say....

[Ascotexgunner]

Today’s incidents have put the final nail in the coffin of VAR for me.

David Silva clearly trodden on, which is a foul, but no penalty given.

Harry Kane taken out even more clearly , but no penalty given. Can’t even see why Mike Dean didn’t give it on first viewing.
Law states “trips or attempts to trip” - says nothing at all about intentional, so they’re both pens and VAR has failed to dliver

Yeah but it has given some of us a win, win result.
The media darlings Spurs lose at home to a shit team, which is funny....and
The scummy deluded fickle Newcastle fans watch their hated manager Stevie Bruce gives master class in tactics and win their first match in only three games when it took their beloved Spanish waiter til November.
Then of course there's the 40 million quid signing their fans have been scoffing at......he looked a 40 million quid player today. Made their fans look proper mugs today.

[Franchise FC]

And that justifies the crap VAR decision how ?

Kane could’ve missed the pen for your scenario

[The Enfield Royal71]

I think var was spot on today looking at motd

[tmesis]

Law states “trips or attempts to trip” - says nothing at all about intentional, so they’re both pens and VAR has failed to dliver

Isn't "tripping somebody", by definition, a conscious act? Tripping over somebody isn't the same as being tripped by them.

Of course, these days it's common for any form of contact to be enough, but is that really why the law was brought in?

Similarly, with the offside rule. It was surely invented to stop people just goalhanging, or loitering behind the defence, to get an advantage. It wasn't there to stop people being 2 cm offside, yet that's what VAR is doing, and it shouldn't be. They are reviewing too much. It should be like cricket or tennis where teams get one or two reviews per match.

[Franchise FC]

Not a fan of having a number of reviews per team.

That would supply a means of stopping the opposition from attacking, or could contravene the ‘must be within the last 15 seconds’ view of Neil Swarbrick if the ball is allowed to stay in play and have the review when it goes out.

[Snowflake Royal]

Law states “trips or attempts to trip” - says nothing at all about intentional, so they’re both pens and VAR has failed to dliver

Isn't "tripping somebody", by definition, a conscious act? Tripping over somebody isn't the same as being tripped by them.

Of course, these days it's common for any form of contact to be enough, but is that really why the law was brought in?

Similarly, with the offside rule. It was surely invented to stop people just goalhanging, or loitering behind the defence, to get an advantage. It wasn't there to stop people being 2 cm offside, yet that's what VAR is doing, and it shouldn't be. They are reviewing too much. It should be like cricket or tennis where teams get one or two reviews per match.

If I trip over a chair, I'm pretty sure it's not a conscious act on the part of the chair.

It's quite easy to trip someone without intending to if you're both close to each other or you don't look where you're going.

The laws are to prevent people getting an unfair advantage, and the only way to (try to) consistently and fairly enforce them is to (try to) have clear and well defined criteria to award them.

[Sanguine]

That's the crux of it really, isn't it. I'm not really seeing or feeling any 'pain' from VAR. It's not visibly or audibly affecting the stadium experience, the Premier League's version of it is proving for the most part swift and decisive, and amongst the subjective stuff it is making correct decisions on marginal calls, mainly around offsides.

What's your criteria for "visibly and audibly affecting the stadium experience"?

Does it extend to Wolves fans chanting "oxf*rd VAR"?

My point was concerning incidents as they happen - I've seen no evidence of a stadium not going absolutely bananas when a goal goes in 'in case VAR disallows it'.

[tmesis]

Law states “trips or attempts to trip” - says nothing at all about intentional, so they’re both pens and VAR has failed to dliver

Isn't "tripping somebody", by definition, a conscious act? Tripping over somebody isn't the same as being tripped by them.

Of course, these days it's common for any form of contact to be enough, but is that really why the law was brought in?

Similarly, with the offside rule. It was surely invented to stop people just goalhanging, or loitering behind the defence, to get an advantage. It wasn't there to stop people being 2 cm offside, yet that's what VAR is doing, and it shouldn't be. They are reviewing too much. It should be like cricket or tennis where teams get one or two reviews per match.

If I trip over a chair, I'm pretty sure it's not a conscious act on the part of the chair.

Indeed. Would you say the chair tripped you in that case...i.e. would you blame the chair?

The laws are to prevent people getting an unfair advantage

Would you say an accidental collision would give one person an unfair advantage?

, and the only way to (try to) consistently and fairly enforce them is to (try to) have clear and well defined criteria to award them.

Unfortunately, that's where it falls down.

It's like the new law about handball, where a goal now has to be ruled out if it touches somebody's arm. Why? The whole point of the handball law is to stop people controlling the ball with their hands. If a shot brushes somebody's arm on the way into the goal, so what?

[Snowflake Royal]

Isn't "tripping somebody", by definition, a conscious act? Tripping over somebody isn't the same as being tripped by them.

Of course, these days it's common for any form of contact to be enough, but is that really why the law was brought in?

Similarly, with the offside rule. It was surely invented to stop people just goalhanging, or loitering behind the defence, to get an advantage. It wasn't there to stop people being 2 cm offside, yet that's what VAR is doing, and it shouldn't be. They are reviewing too much. It should be like cricket or tennis where teams get one or two reviews per match.

If I trip over a chair, I'm pretty sure it's not a conscious act on the part of the chair.

Indeed. Would you say the chair tripped you in that case...i.e. would you blame the chair?

The laws are to prevent people getting an unfair advantage

Would you say an accidental collision would give one person an unfair advantage?

, and the only way to (try to) consistently and fairly enforce them is to (try to) have clear and well defined criteria to award them.

Unfortunately, that's where it falls down.

It's like the new law about handball, where a goal now has to be ruled out if it touches somebody's arm. Why? The whole point of the handball law is to stop people controlling the ball with their hands. If a shot brushes somebody's arm on the way into the goal, so what?

In order:

1 No, because I don't ascribe blame to inanimate objects for my error. But just because you didn't mean to trip someone doesn't mean it isn't your fault you've tripped them. It's usually through trying to get close to the player and getting it wrong.
2 Potentially, the player with the ball who is tripped is disadvantaged which therefore advantages their opponents.
3 I disagree. It brings handball more in line with other offences where intent isn't really considered. It's a work in progress and could be better but it's a really difficult area that's hard to judge.

[John Madejski's Wallet]

Law states “trips or attempts to trip” - says nothing at all about intentional, so they’re both pens and VAR has failed to dliver

Isn't "tripping somebody", by definition, a conscious act? Tripping over somebody isn't the same as being tripped by them.

Of course, these days it's common for any form of contact to be enough, but is that really why the law was brought in?

Similarly, with the offside rule. It was surely invented to stop people just goalhanging, or loitering behind the defence, to get an advantage. It wasn't there to stop people being 2 cm offside, yet that's what VAR is doing, and it shouldn't be. They are reviewing too much. It should be like cricket or tennis where teams get one or two reviews per match.

If I trip over a chair, I'm pretty sure it's not a conscious act on the part of the chair.

It's quite easy to trip someone without intending to if you're both close to each other or you don't look where you're going.

The laws are to prevent people getting an unfair advantage, and the only way to (try to) consistently and fairly enforce them is to (try to) have clear and well defined criteria to award them.

The chair didn't trip you.
You tripped over the chair. You're the one at fault.

A 'trip' is by definition intentional

[Snowflake Royal]

Isn't "tripping somebody", by definition, a conscious act? Tripping over somebody isn't the same as being tripped by them.

Of course, these days it's common for any form of contact to be enough, but is that really why the law was brought in?

Similarly, with the offside rule. It was surely invented to stop people just goalhanging, or loitering behind the defence, to get an advantage. It wasn't there to stop people being 2 cm offside, yet that's what VAR is doing, and it shouldn't be. They are reviewing too much. It should be like cricket or tennis where teams get one or two reviews per match.

If I trip over a chair, I'm pretty sure it's not a conscious act on the part of the chair.

It's quite easy to trip someone without intending to if you're both close to each other or you don't look where you're going.

The laws are to prevent people getting an unfair advantage, and the only way to (try to) consistently and fairly enforce them is to (try to) have clear and well defined criteria to award them.

The chair didn't trip you.
You tripped over the chair. You're the one at fault.

A 'trip' is by definition intentional

Nope. I have absolutely tripped people unintentionally and been tripped by people unintentionally.

Push my chair out to get up from my desk at work, someone happens to be walking past at the time and it trips them. Not intentional.


Player gets ahead of me and runs across me, I get too close and clip their heel, they're tripped. Not intentional. Foul.

[Hoop Blah]

So, another few weeks on and we're seeing plenty of goals disallowed for questionable offsides and a lack of decisions being overturned.

Current impressions of VAR?

I still don't think it's worth the time, effort and impact it's having on the game. How decisions like Lascelles vs Matip aren't reviewed as clear and obvious I don't know. Similarly, some of these marginal offsides that are being ruled as factual just don't stack up for me either and I don't like the non-decision making effect it has on the officials.

Nothing I've seen so far is winning me over to VAR.

[Hendo]

The Spurs goal v Leicester was super harsh. There is no way that Son gained an advantage from that and I don't think people would've been debating that goal if there wasn't VAR, people would've just written it off as level.

Also, there was a very bad tackle from Damari Grey which, for me, could've easily been a red card, but remained a yellow.

[Stranded]

So, another few weeks on and we're seeing plenty of goals disallowed for questionable offsides and a lack of decisions being overturned.

Current impressions of VAR?

I still don't think it's worth the time, effort and impact it's having on the game. How decisions like Lascelles vs Matip aren't reviewed as clear and obvious I don't know. Similarly, some of these marginal offsides that are being ruled as factual just don't stack up for me either and I don't like the non-decision making effect it has on the officials.

Nothing I've seen so far is winning me over to VAR.

About the only thing I'd question in your post, though I tend to like VAR, all the offsides given have been correct by the law - if VAR is showing anything it is that the law may no longer fit for purpose but with VAR there will always be this issue - if they change the rule there will always be a point at which the on/offside decision has to be made and if VAR rules they are off by half a centimetre it doesn't really matter where that line is.

Perhaps the best way forward is if a goal is scored, a quick word to the assistant ref - "Any chance he was offside?" - assistant ref's job then is to make a judgement call on narrow offsides but maybe keep the flag down - if goal sored and he thinks there may have been a tight one then it is referrred.

This of course may mean that a number of tight offsides are not called but as often mentioned, the attack often gets no real advantage so could be an agreeable middle ground and games see less stops for offside.