It didn’t need var for the handball and that offside was obvious before it went in. The linesman should have called that. Whiners !!!
Automated offsides will still give the same problem. No-one (you and a few other strange observers excepted) WANTS to see an FA Cup 85th minute tying goal disallowed for being a few millimetres offside. No-one wants to WATCH THAT! is the problem. Not the getting it right. So, they need to change the rule to (as I suggested daylight measured in millimetres, and allow for immediate flagging in these cases, by the linesman once the goal is in) or whatever else will give the viewer the sense that the attacker is prob going to be ruled off.
You could make the same argument for goal line tech... and you have. So once again you're clearly wrong, as no one is upset at goal-line tech for the most part and it stands to reason no one will be that upset if offside calls happen almost immediately, even if they are very close. Same exact logic applies to both situations.
No it doesn’t and people will be upset. You make this up as you go, speaking for other folk as if it’s true.
Then neither can anyone else. Immediate automatic offside calls eliminate the element of VAR zaq has most often bitched about. So that's relevant when he suggests that element being eliminated in won't improve anything.
I'm sure Hobo will pop up soon to educate us all on how (a) this article can't possibly be true or (b) the people polled don't really understand VAR and/or the rules of the game or (c) if they don't like it they should stop watching the game or (d) well, he knew it all along. but for everyone else -- probably little of surprise in this: https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...-thumbs-down-by-fans-for-premier-league-study Only 26% of fans support the use of VAR in football, according to damning research that will form part of a Premier League study into the refereeing technology. The English top flight is currently running a consultation across the game in the hope of improving VAR next season. But with little room to manoeuvre, the results of a study conducted by the Football Supporters’ Association will make for challenging reading.
This result has been a forgone conclusion for months and months now. It's pretty obvious why, the prem has handled this very poorly in an overall way. Automatic offside calls/tech will take away the largest pain which seems to be affecting people's enjoyment of the game -- delayed goal satisfaction. Since they are fine with GLT, so it says in that poll, the closer the offside decisions get to that point, a near-immediate decision the ref can check on his watch, the better it will be for everyone. This similar kind of poll was nearly the complete opposite post-WC 2018, before the prem bungled the implementation and communication behind the VAR change.
Nobody in the world believes that a player with an armpit or toenail 'offside' should be judged to be offside (other than you and a few idiots at IFAB). It's in no way in the spirit of the rules, which is to keep attacking players from gaining an advantage by hanging in spaces behind defenders, which such decisions show the players to clearly not be doing. Goal line technology is near instantaneous and it's a no-judgement type call - either the ball is over or on the line. There will be no "instant offside" as it will be impossible to implement and be no more effective than the current system. Go back to the time pre-use of infinitesimal lines and VAR, if you take the close 'offside' goals disallowed by those systems, I'd reckon 90% of them would be said to be 'good' goals using solely stop motion technology. That's the disconnect you simply don't understand.
I've never argued against that point, and in fact agree with it. So I'm not sure what you're talking about. They still should uphold the rules as they currently exist. As they currently exist, someone can be flagged offside by their toenail. I've said many many times they should change the law and then move forward in a way which eliminates toenail offside calls from ruling out goals. Until they do, they need to uphold the law as equally across the board as possible. That doesn't mean I don't understand why people don't like toenail offside calls ruling out goals -- I don't like when they rule out these goals either, but I understand they are merely upholding the current laws in a way that applies to everyone.
And an "instant" offside system, which is coming in a couple years, purports to work very similar to GLT. That would, by definition, do a lot to reduce the big issue that seems tied to people's problems with VAR as listed in that very article posted here -- it would do a better job to preserve the excitement that comes with a goal.
All depends on how 'good' the technology actual is. If they're going to be still deciding down to millimeter distances then that technology needs to be much better than it currently is . It must super accurately log both when the ball is played forward and simultaneously the location of the intended ball receiver.
Yeah, I agree. This may eventually prove to be a mistake, but for the sake of the argument since we're comparing to GLT, I'm presuming that it's something that is delivered on that level -- a high-caliber piece of tracking technology akin to GLT. So that's my jumping off point. And for the record, that's pretty much what they are saying this tech will deliver -- very quick calls for offside, tech which will be able to deliver that to the ref in a way that almost completely mitigates the complaints about delaying goal celebrations. That's the bar. If they don't meet it, it will be very clear where that failure is, and it's probably something we will all agree isn't good enough. If they do meet that bar, then I think there will be many fewer complaints in general about VAR. Especially the offsides.
The Euro comp will have an added VAR just for offside decisions. sounds like a plan. I mean there are a LOT of retired refs around who would like a new job. soon we can look forward to: - "The VAR for foot offsides" - "The VAR for armpit offsides" - "The VAR for nose offsides" - "The VAR for elbow offsides" - plus of course "The VAR for asscheek offsides". https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...roject-admits-europes-top-refereeing-official Europe’s most senior refereeing official has admitted VAR is a “dangerous project” as Uefa commits extra resources to the technology for this summer’s European Championship. A third VAR official, with the responsibility purely for checking offside decisions, and a dedicated VAR hub in Switzerland will be part of plans to ensure the delayed Euro 2020 goes smoothly. Speaking before the tournament, however, Roberto Rosetti also pointedly observed that the VAR can work only if its interventions are kept to a minimum. “Uefa believes in [VAR],” Rosetti, Uefa’s chief refereeing officer, said. “We really believe it is an important help for the referees. Not only for the referees but an important help for football. “Of course we need to use this project in the correct way; it can also be a dangerous project. We need to be careful, we need to be clear. We need to follow the principles of the laws of the game. We want to continue to use VAR only for clear and obvious mistakes.”
I am fine with that...the sticky part becomes what is "clear and obvious"... For me, when multiple lines need to be drawn, and timing of the when the ball was played, and the lines are redrawn based on the foot, the sleeve, the nose, the hand...the "armpit"...well - that is not "clear and obvious" in my mind... Another official needed - I don't agree with that...just keep it simple...
VAR applies the offside check/tech according to the rules and makes a decision on the binary state -- it doesn't have to be "clear and obvious" in that the attacker has to be clearly and/or obviously offside. "Clear and obvious" does not apply in that way to offside calls. Same for positional penalty calls, like the Fabinho pen conceded right on the very edge of the area. It's a non-subjective binary decision, according to the rules.
What I said is pretty clear. The way the prem and PGMOL have handled informing people is what's causing the confusion, if anything. Either way, there's nothing subjective about an offside decision. By definition. It's binary. It always will be. Whether they measure that to the very last half-centimeter or not, that's the nature of that category of law. And by the current laws/protocol, for better or worse, that is how closely they measure it.
ah, what the hell, I'm bored ... - to what parts of each player's kit will this remarkable technology be attached? - what about bare skin eg short-sleeved shirts? - will it be attached to the ball also? if so, what part? could it affect the ball's balance / rotation / weight / predictability?
It doesn't chip the players, I don't believe -- it uses limb detection. https://www.espn.com/soccer/blog-fi...fside-why-arsene-wenger-thinks-it-can-fix-var