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

When I were a lad, way back in the distant mists of time, when there wasn’t electricity everywhere, this question came up. (Maybe it was earlier in this thread?).

The point was made that no matter what distance was set at, there’d always be an argument. If the distance was 150cms, there’d be people arguing that 149 gave an unfair advantage or that 151 was too stringent.

There is no perfect distance, unless it’s zero. Now getting VAR to be that precise is the problem. I think they’re getting there, but I suspect it’ll never be perfect.

 

Clubs happy with VAR, it stays, with a few small adjustments.

 

would you just answer my question?

 

it's not hypothetical at all ffs. attacker has back to goal.

you can score if the ball bounces off your bum, ergo if it's closer to goal than the last defender, you can be called offside. same as Bobby being called off coz of his armpit or the Sheffield player coz of his big toe.

stop avoiding the question, like delay.

 

Seems all the arguments are all about offside and it's VAR interpretations. Calls as close as a nose hair. That is not going to change until the offside law is "somehow" amended.
Don't ask me.

Back, way back when I was as young as Samakand. Offside in one of it's forms was "if you were beyond the last defender when the ball was played forward." Regardless were you were on the pitch , or interfering with the play. You could be 70 yards away just standing watching.
BUT the same argument applied then as it does now. The only call again was the linesmans.

Offside in it's early stages was: when you "received the ball" Not when it was played." Same problem though. Same 2mm calls. Or 1/16th inch.

My bigger concern until they come up with a "fix" for the 2mm or armpit hair call.
Are those blatantly bad calls for fouls and PKs (or no calls) by the ref on the pitch, obvious to all those with aTV. Then those calls supported by the Referee watching VAR because he doesn't want to make the ref on the pitch look like a fool. Yeah, he'll be on the pitch next week with someone watching him.

Until all these items get sorted. Until VAR stops being the 5 page post match discussion. Rather than a celebration of wonderfully played 3-1 victory. Then it sucks hairy balls.

 

VAR's evolution in LaLiga, Bundi, Ligue1, SerieA -- initial problems, changes made etc.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/50392207

 

Legue 1:
VAR success rating: 3/10

To me it's the analog brain vs the digital.
The people who like the human game that flows fairly seamlessly.

Then the gamers. Who like minutiae and don't mind the nit picking and delays if a desision can be tracked down to an armpit hair.
People who have all the DVDs of transformers and Matrix movies.

 

I did in #798

 

I agree with all of that except the last sentence. VAR is currently fulfilling its function in some situations but not others. Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water!

 

Right now this baby is an ugly hairless evil monster like Gollum. It needs to be hidden away until a way can be found to help it grow into a handsome prince.
It's going to take some pounding with ugly sticks until then though.

 

This question has been asked a couple of times without a proper/correct answer. I've just read this.

Hence a series of amendments, often referred to as for the 'Good of the Game', which were designed to help promote attacking football. They began with the offside law in 1990. The advantage was now given to the attacking team. If the attacker was in line with the penultimate defender, he was now "onside."

Now what do we consider "in line?"

 

Still letting my fingers do the walking.
I've mentioned a couple of times that American Sawker experimented with the Hockey Blue Line offside. Mainly because the low scores in soccer was too boring for Americans. (Not my words) So seriously could some bones be picked out of this mess.

Or are we still stuck with the problem we have now. The crossover between attacker and defender with the added equation of were they where when the ball was kicked.

Have Fun, we don't have a game for another week.
******+******
What if we changed the offside rule in soccer to mirror the offside rule in hockey? In the game of hockey, an offside play is when a player on the attacking team enters the attacking zone (crosses the blue line) before the puck itself enters the attacking zone.

So what we’d need is to designate the “attacking zone” on the soccer field, much like the blue line in hockey. How about between midfield and the penalty box? We could paint a dotted line across the field, marking the attacking zone.



If a player on the attacking team enters the attacking zone before the ball itself enters the attacking zone, the player will be considered offside.

This might actually help linesmen accurately call an offside! Right now, they have to keep an eye on where the attacking player is in relation to the last defender at the time the ball is kicked. As we have all seen, there’s a lot of room for error!

With the use of the dotted line marking the attacking zone, linesmen will only need to concentrate on an attacking player being in the zone before the ball. There’s no longer a need to watch the last defender. To be honest, linesmen could actually be on the field now, instead of running the sidelines. With three referees on the field monitoring play, this could increase the accuracy of fouls being called, leading to more free kicks and more goal scoring opportunities.

Once play has successfully entered the attacking zone, no player is considered offside. This is where the potential for increased goal scoring is inevitable. Even with corner kicks, because you’re still considered within the attacking zone, you cannot be called offside. Again, the potential for increased goal scoring is there.

The other option is if the offside rule was completely removed from the Laws of the Game, much like in indoor soccer. That may be a bit more drastic, but definitely opens the game up to increased scoring chances.

 

that was a response to my post, not an answer to a question.

not difficult, just yes or no is all that's needed. hobo answered it. what's the problem?

 

The problem with the hockey analogy is that the hockey goal is 4' x 6', so one goalie can cover the net, even when players are right in front of him and the puck is out at the blue line. If there were no offside once the football was in the attacking zone, defenders would have to maul attacking players to keep them from simply deflecting balls hit to them near the posts, just as it is in hockey.

I don't need more goals to make football interesting, and I'm an American.

 

I wuz just bored.
But that was exactly what happened when they tried it.

 

The NASL tried that in 1972, with a 35 yard offside line. As best I remember, pretty much everyone had problems with it, not least of whom was FIFA.

What it delivered was players waiting on the line and then general mayhem once the ball got inside the 35 yard area. The biggest impact it had was allowing aging forwards to only need the legs to run 35 yards tops and the defenders who only waited around the 35 yard line clogging these ancient attackers. Changed the dynamic of the game with all the action happening in the middle 3rd, so to speak.

 

where's my rep???

 

There's two for ya. Enjoy.

 

I have always interpreted this as "if it's too close to call", then it is onside. Same principle can be used for VAR offside reviews (eg the Firmino armpit incident).

 

I understand the question was whether a certain scenario gave an advantage to an attacker. However, you effectively only specified the location of the attacker and one defender.

So with incomplete information on the scenario, it's not a yes/no question.

"It depends", as I attempted to explain.

By way of clarification, there is miniscule advantage in terms of the static physical location of the attacker. However, depending on other variables such as the location of other players and their speed and direction of movement, this location might be advantageous.

As a way of illustrating that static physical location is not always a good indicator of "actual" advantage:

delaynomo is playing centre forward and standing 5 yards inside the opponents half. My GK, Allison, launches a perfect ball over my head to run onto. VvD is the furthest back defender, standing on the halfway line. I am fairly sure 99% of the time VvD takes the ball off me before I can get inside the penalty area. So, despite being 5 yards offside, I have no actual advantage. So the offside should not be called?

 

now you're being plain silly. by "defender" I mean the last defender, obviously. we're talking about offside here.

yes it is, but for some weird reason you're bending over backwards to avoid answering it.

 

Yes, you obviously meant the last defender. However, whether or not there is a practical advantage depends on other facts such as the location of other defenders (and other variables).

If you are solely talking about static physical positioning, there is clearly no discernible advantage based on that criteria alone.

If we are to take into consideration all the other variables, the answer is clearly "it depends".

Hope this answers your question. If not, agree to disagree (although I don't really think we are in disagreement).

 

Question: Let's assume a case where there was no practical "advantage", but the goal scoring player was technically a foot offside (under whatever the rules are at that time). Should the goal stand?