VAR

[Sanguine]

On Son's tackle, it wasn't aggressive at all, in fact you could watch Son's foul without seeing Gomes' injury. A simple slide and flick of the boot to trip Gomes, which unfortunately saw him tumbling out of control into a collision with Aurier. The original point I made was that Atkinson was perfectly entitled, within the laws of the game, to reassess Son's actions within the totality of what occurred (i.e. his collision and injury were a direct result of Son's trip) and to make the decision that he did, that his tackle was reckless.

[Sanguine]

On offsides, I can't help but think that the rule needs to be simplified to referring only to the feet. Essentially Firmino was offside under the current rules because Mings was trying to play offside - that is whilst his feet were ahead of Firmino's, he was leaning away from goal, whereas Firmino was leaning towards it, putting his armpit (lol) offside. And I can't really understand a rule that punishes players for leaning. Thinking of another example, you could have a player 'offside' because, running stride for stride with a defender, the attacker happens to have his knee bent at a more acute angle, pushing it out 'in front' of the defender. It's nuts.

[Hendo]

On offsides, I can't help but think that the rule needs to be simplified to referring only to the feet. Essentially Firmino was offside under the current rules because Mings was trying to play offside - that is whilst his feet were ahead of Firmino's, he was leaning away from goal, whereas Firmino was leaning towards it, putting his armpit (lol) offside. And I can't really understand a rule that punishes players for leaning. Thinking of another example, you could have a player 'offside' because, running stride for stride with a defender, the attacker happens to have his knee bent at a more acute angle, pushing it out 'in front' of the defender. It's nuts.

Part of me really thinks there needs to be a margin of error with offsides, because something like this really shouldn't be offside.

[Sanguine]

On offsides, I can't help but think that the rule needs to be simplified to referring only to the feet. Essentially Firmino was offside under the current rules because Mings was trying to play offside - that is whilst his feet were ahead of Firmino's, he was leaning away from goal, whereas Firmino was leaning towards it, putting his armpit (lol) offside. And I can't really understand a rule that punishes players for leaning. Thinking of another example, you could have a player 'offside' because, running stride for stride with a defender, the attacker happens to have his knee bent at a more acute angle, pushing it out 'in front' of the defender. It's nuts.

Part of me really thinks there needs to be a margin of error with offsides, because something like this really shouldn't be offside.

As I said, base it on the feet. Taken to a silly extreme, Ade Akinfenwa always needs to be a couple of inches behind his opponent, because his chest and legs are so fcuking big.

[Stranded]

On offsides, I can't help but think that the rule needs to be simplified to referring only to the feet. Essentially Firmino was offside under the current rules because Mings was trying to play offside - that is whilst his feet were ahead of Firmino's, he was leaning away from goal, whereas Firmino was leaning towards it, putting his armpit (lol) offside. And I can't really understand a rule that punishes players for leaning. Thinking of another example, you could have a player 'offside' because, running stride for stride with a defender, the attacker happens to have his knee bent at a more acute angle, pushing it out 'in front' of the defender. It's nuts.

Part of me really thinks there needs to be a margin of error with offsides, because something like this really shouldn't be offside.

Put simply it should be has he got an advantage. If Firminio's armpit has been 0.5cm back from where it was, he would still have scored so he hasn't gained any advantage at all.

[Hendo]

On offsides, I can't help but think that the rule needs to be simplified to referring only to the feet. Essentially Firmino was offside under the current rules because Mings was trying to play offside - that is whilst his feet were ahead of Firmino's, he was leaning away from goal, whereas Firmino was leaning towards it, putting his armpit (lol) offside. And I can't really understand a rule that punishes players for leaning. Thinking of another example, you could have a player 'offside' because, running stride for stride with a defender, the attacker happens to have his knee bent at a more acute angle, pushing it out 'in front' of the defender. It's nuts.

Part of me really thinks there needs to be a margin of error with offsides, because something like this really shouldn't be offside.

Put simply it should be has he got an advantage. If Firminio's armpit has been 0.5cm back from where it was, he would still have scored so he hasn't gained any advantage at all.

Thats what I am thinking, there was a Spurs one at Leicester a few weeks ago and I think Son's toe was offside - no advantage at all.

[Whore Jackie]

Premier League managers will meet with Mike Riley, manager of the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL), on Thursday to discuss the video assistant referee (VAR) system. Riley, who heads the body responsible for the country’s leading referees, will meet the top flight’s northern-based managers after sharing views with southern managers last week. The meetings had been planned months ago, it is understood, but following the latest VAR controversies the meeting on Thursday will include discussion of whether match officials should be allowed to consult pitchside monitors. Referees in all other competitions that currently use the VAR system are allowed to consult these monitors but those taking charge of Premier League matches are not.

Thought the consensus was that refs weren't looking at the pitchside monitors due to time constraints etc, not that they were forbidden to. Why exactly did they install them at every ground?

[Old Man Andrews]

Premier League managers will meet with Mike Riley, manager of the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL), on Thursday to discuss the video assistant referee (VAR) system. Riley, who heads the body responsible for the country’s leading referees, will meet the top flight’s northern-based managers after sharing views with southern managers last week. The meetings had been planned months ago, it is understood, but following the latest VAR controversies the meeting on Thursday will include discussion of whether match officials should be allowed to consult pitchside monitors. Referees in all other competitions that currently use the VAR system are allowed to consult these monitors but those taking charge of Premier League matches are not.

Thought the consensus was that refs weren't looking at the pitchside monitors due to time constraints etc, not that they were forbidden to. Why exactly did they install them at every ground?

Its a complete farce. If the monitors are there then use them, quite simple. VAR imo should be that the VAR ref simply alerts the referee to something that may need a second look, the ref then goes for said second look. The VAR ref shouldn't lead the investigation they should just point out that the ref may wish to see something.

[Hoop Blah]

On offsides, I can't help but think that the rule needs to be simplified to referring only to the feet. Essentially Firmino was offside under the current rules because Mings was trying to play offside - that is whilst his feet were ahead of Firmino's, he was leaning away from goal, whereas Firmino was leaning towards it, putting his armpit (lol) offside. And I can't really understand a rule that punishes players for leaning. Thinking of another example, you could have a player 'offside' because, running stride for stride with a defender, the attacker happens to have his knee bent at a more acute angle, pushing it out 'in front' of the defender. It's nuts.

Part of me really thinks there needs to be a margin of error with offsides, because something like this really shouldn't be offside.

Put simply it should be has he got an advantage. If Firminio's armpit has been 0.5cm back from where it was, he would still have scored so he hasn't gained any advantage at all.

Isn't that just making it more subjective though?

The rule states that it's any part of the body you can score with, which makes perfect sense. If the forwards head is 3 feet offside because he's in the middle of a diving header then he should be offside.

The issue I have here is that we're talking about changing the rules for the sake of VAR when the tech used to make the judgment just isn't accurate enough to make calls as precise as they making out.

[Hoop Blah]

Premier League managers will meet with Mike Riley, manager of the Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL), on Thursday to discuss the video assistant referee (VAR) system. Riley, who heads the body responsible for the country’s leading referees, will meet the top flight’s northern-based managers after sharing views with southern managers last week. The meetings had been planned months ago, it is understood, but following the latest VAR controversies the meeting on Thursday will include discussion of whether match officials should be allowed to consult pitchside monitors. Referees in all other competitions that currently use the VAR system are allowed to consult these monitors but those taking charge of Premier League matches are not.

Thought the consensus was that refs weren't looking at the pitchside monitors due to time constraints etc, not that they were forbidden to. Why exactly did they install them at every ground?

That was apparently the official line with the journo's and pundits had their media briefing at the start of the season. The decision was that they didn't want to keep going to the pitch side screens as it would cause too much of a delay to the game.

it seems pointless having it there if you're never going to use it, and the delays are happening anyway because the team at Stockley Park take so long to review them anyway.

[6ft Kerplunk]

Not sure that tinkering with it mid-season is the greatest idea. You've got to have a standard set of procedures for the whole season otherwise pundits will bleat on about stuff getting given that wasn't before.

[Stranded]

Part of me really thinks there needs to be a margin of error with offsides, because something like this really shouldn't be offside.

Put simply it should be has he got an advantage. If Firminio's armpit has been 0.5cm back from where it was, he would still have scored so he hasn't gained any advantage at all.

Isn't that just making it more subjective though?

The rule states that it's any part of the body you can score with, which makes perfect sense. If the forwards head is 3 feet offside because he's in the middle of a diving header then he should be offside.

The issue I have here is that we're talking about changing the rules for the sake of VAR when the tech used to make the judgment just isn't accurate enough to make calls as precise as they making out.

The diving header example would be one where he has looked to gain an advantage by flinging himself at a ball that hasn't been kicked - so yes offside.

I am really talking about making it subjective in the case of very tight calls. The offside rule is already objective in that it talks about players being passive/active and seeking an advantage. If two players are standing next to each other and the only reason one is offside is that their legs have different stride patterns or the defender is leaning slightly back in their stride then no advantage exists and no offside should be given in my view.

Changes to offside rules have always been made to aid the attacking side of the game - by using VAR to measure to the mm if a player is offside complete goes against the point of changing the offside rule and we might as well go back to the days of offside is offside and offside traps gallore.

I know that will be appealing to many but will frustrate a lot of fans.

[Hoop Blah]

Put simply it should be has he got an advantage. If Firminio's armpit has been 0.5cm back from where it was, he would still have scored so he hasn't gained any advantage at all.

Isn't that just making it more subjective though?

The rule states that it's any part of the body you can score with, which makes perfect sense. If the forwards head is 3 feet offside because he's in the middle of a diving header then he should be offside.

The issue I have here is that we're talking about changing the rules for the sake of VAR when the tech used to make the judgment just isn't accurate enough to make calls as precise as they making out.

The diving header example would be one where he has looked to gain an advantage by flinging himself at a ball that hasn't been kicked - so yes offside.

I am really talking about making it subjective in the case of very tight calls. The offside rule is already objective in that it talks about players being passive/active and seeking an advantage. If two players are standing next to each other and the only reason one is offside is that their legs have different stride patterns or the defender is leaning slightly back in their stride then no advantage exists and no offside should be given in my view.

Changes to offside rules have always been made to aid the attacking side of the game - by using VAR to measure to the mm if a player is offside complete goes against the point of changing the offside rule and we might as well go back to the days of offside is offside and offside traps gallore.

I know that will be appealing to many but will frustrate a lot of fans.

I agree it's a big shift from the mentality of trying to give the attacker the advantage but my point about the diving header was more aimed at comonurz' suggestion that it should only be the feet that count.

In terms of there being an element of 'gaining an advantage', I think that's already in the law isn't it?

[Sanguine]

Not sure the diving header analogy works. If a player has already launched themselves two feet ahead of the defender when the ball is played, then there's an infinitely small chance that he has timed his jump correctly for a header.

[stealthpapes]

Not sure that tinkering with it mid-season is the greatest idea. You've got to have a standard set of procedures for the whole season otherwise pundits will bleat on about stuff getting given that wasn't before.

or we could just ignore most of them?

[Hoop Blah]

Not sure the diving header analogy works. If a player has already launched themselves two feet ahead of the defender when the ball is played, then there's an infinitely small chance that he has timed his jump correctly for a header.

Not if it's wet and they slide it in...

Regardless, the rule as it is makes sense, any part of your body that you can score with should be onside. It's just tinkering because VAR can't be applied.

On top of that, as I've said before, the tech can't be accurate enough to be making judgements on such small margins. It's potentially not accurate to more than about 25cm.

[tmesis]

As predicted, VAR isn't really solving any of the issues video technology was supposed to address.

At the same time it's created it's own issues, slowed down the game at times, impacted on the way referees appear to be making decisions, and it's starting to have a negative effect on the joy of watching a game.

I was in favour of VAR at first, but I think it's having a very negative impact on the game. All it seems to be used for is to rule out goals because a player was half an inch offside.

On this front, it is because there's been a very large shift in the benefit of the doubt back towards defenders. VAR allows for the positions at the moment of the pass to be compared and, if any part of the body that can be used to score is ahead, then its offside.

The staus quo ante was not as tight - it couldn't hope to be. In fact, the old 'daylight' comment was never a rule, it was guidance to linesmen to help them make the calls in an increasingly fast paced game.

The rule is now being implemented perfectly correctly. We're just used to it being implemented somewhat slackly.

That would be ok if linesmen didn't still flag tight decisions, because if they are wrong in favour of the defence, VAR never gives players that chance of scoring back.

It would also probably be ok if the offside decisions were more or less instant, rather than taking a minute or two.


I'd also add that while the decisions are correct (although you could argue about what actually constitutes being offside) it's creating a situation that is out of step with why the rule was introduced. It was brought in to stop goalhanging and players gaining an advantage by being ahead of the defender. It wasn't to stop somebody having a toe inadvertently half an inch ahead.

[Snowflake Royal]

The answer seems simply to be that they introduce a specific distance to be beyond the defender now.

In the past that's never been possible because it's eyesight of the official. They make a judgement about whether they think the attacker was definitely ahead of the defender. Millimetres were irrelevant because you couldn't see it.

So now you've got technology that 'appears' to be able to tell to that limit, but actually can't, just say the tech has to show they were at least the equivalent of an inch offside. Instantly rules out all these barely perceptible ones that just 'feel' wrong. Alternatively, just a simple, if a human can't tell clearly from a still, it isn't off.

As for the rest of it, the PL has made a total pigs ear of implementation. In order to not see officials undermined they've set the bar to award penalties etc way too high, whilst the bar to disallow goals too low, and in fear of slowing the game down too much have rejected the use of monitors and therefore taken more decisions out of refs hands and put them with people solely focused on tech rather than what's happening live in normal sight.

It very much looks like the refs and video refs don't really understand the tech they're using, and aren't allowed to use it in the most effective way anyway.

Like someone wants it all to fail.

[Hoop Blah]

Like someone wants it all to fail.

Or like it doesn't really work very well in such a fluid sport?

I know it was deemed to have worked ok at the World Cup, but did it really? I remember a number of decisions that weren't given England's way when I think they should've been and it just wasn't given much attention because we won and were riding the crest of wave of positivity as a result. There wasn't analysis on both sides of the coin like there are in a Premier League game because ITV/BBC were purely focused on England's perspective.

The use of the pitch screens at the WC was alright, admittedly, but it still slowed the games down more than I'd like them to. With a tournament of 64 games, spread over a short amount of time it just doesn't give the same level of exposure and [over]analysis that we get with the Premier League.

Same goes for the CL, to an extent, but we've still seen controversy during last years CL campaign.

For me it just doesn't work.

As a side note, I don't think its the PL who have decided how it's been implemented, it's the PGMOL, or whatever they call themselves, isn't it? They were all for it, so I'm not sure they're conspiring to see it fail. Could be wrong though.

[URZZZZ]

Like someone wants it all to fail.

Or like it doesn't really work very well in such a fluid sport?

This is it really. In a sport such as cricket or rugby where the game doesn't flow as quickly, it's more acceptable. Constantly stopping the game to judge decisions and then take a couple of minutes each time to decide ruins it for me

In a game where the enjoyment is being sucked out of it gradually due to the nature of the non-contact it is becoming, VAR is further sucking the enjoyment out of it. You want supporters to feel the emotion of scoring a last minute winner. Not having to worry about a possible offside which happened some time before

Just let the linesmen and ref do what they're paid to. Why should they get the benefit of video technology? They've spent years and years training and practising as a ref FFS. Let them use their judgement