Don't tell me that the VAR Thread is still going?

I'll repeat:
- the offside rule exists to prevent the attacking team getting an unfair advantage.
- the way VAR is used, defenders are now given an unfair advantage since an attackers being deemed to have an advantage in situations where they obviously do not. case in point above.

VAR is making an ass of the offside rule.

 

So why should the linesmen call off side at all - especially on anything close? In the case of TAA - they took away a good chance...I'm sure that is not the first, nor will it be the last...if they don't raise the flag, and a player is off, and it results in a goal...it'll get called back...if it doesn't result in a goal...just keep playing...(but then you raise the issue of how far back do you go to reset the play...)

 

these are silly comments. I get the impression you've never played the game. do you know what "goal hanging" is? ever played a game with no ref / linesmen ?

I'm talking about the intent of the rule, which is self-evident - the rule book doesn't state why the rules exist. examples:
- does the rulebook state that a team gets an advantage if they deliberately kick an opponent, so fouls aren't allowed? (no)
- does it explain why a goalie can't use his hands outside the box? (no)
- does it say why there is a rule about the shape of the pitch? (no)
I'll stop now ....

 

You have to have a rule. I would rather it be objective and unarguable than purely subjective.

 

1, so you're OK with the rule now giving a patently unfair advantage to defenders (as opposed to the original intent, to attackers)?

2. you're saying VAR offsides = some kind of science? it's human beings deciding the EXACT PRECISE millisecond that the ball was passed and hitting a stop button (which itself takes time ). a bunch of ppl reviewing that segment of the action would almost never agree on it.

some ppl watch too much CSI.

 

It was a penalty - i think it conforms to the test of: if it had been called no-one would have argued with it. Least of all the guy doing the fouling.
That was a joke call, and an unwillingness on the part of the outside refs to countermand the guy on the field.

 

The rule hasn't changed!!!!!!!

 

99.9% of the time, they will be able to do that very accurately. For the remaining 0.1%, yes maybe too close to call. In which case, give benefit of the doubt to the attacker. It's assisted by science but certainly not rocket science!

 

You clearly don't like the rule, which is OK.

But blame the rule not the enforcer!

 

I know that ffs. re-read what I've written.

let's try it again ....
VAR now gives a patently unfair advantage to defenders (as opposed to the original intent, to attackers). and you're OK with that.

 

nice try delay

a) "99.9% of the time" really? you have no idea how often they are accurate in judging the ball leaving the passer, do you? you're just making that number up to bolster your viewpoint. how many games have shown the pass and the positioning of the attacker, in split screen, to show that VAR froze the action at precisely the right split second ? I've not seen it once.

b) who's giving benefit of doubt to the attacker. that's not in any rule, anywhere. did you make that up, too? for someone who bangs on about the rules being sacrosanct, you're really making stuff up now.

c) no it's not rocket science, in fact it sure as shyte isn't science at all.

 

If the rule is the same, logically how can VAR have changed anything except to enforce (as far as possible) the pre-existing rule???

 

Insert whatever number you want. What I am 100% sure of is that offside calls are more accurate with VAR than without. Do you dispute this?

 

I'm making a suggestion for VAR offside reviews that are too close to call even with stop-frame video reviews.

 

Call it science or not, it's video review. Way more accurate for offside than any human on-field referee. Do you dispute this?

 

It's very easy to do. Have synchronised time stamps on all cameras. Identify time when ball leaves foot to accuracy of 0.01 seconds. Scroll forward on other cameras to that exact time. It is very possible to be extremely accurate 100% of the time.

 

what's needed is chips in each player's boots. they are in the balls already for goalline tech, so why not.

won't eliminate headed passes but would be big step forward.

 

not in boots at present.