And the problem with 'offside' is that we are going to be subject to decisions of toenails and armpits being deemed offside. Without a change to this key part of the law, all this technology is just lipstick on a pig.
Both feet of the attacker have to be behind both feet of the 2nd to last defender. Advantage to the attackers.
Well, yeah. I mean I get where you're coming from. But this is a rules problem, VAR is just a tool used to uphold the rules as they currently exist. You're really impacting defending in an overall way by requiring this... but I mean, maybe a large majority of supporters would prefer this? Honestly not sure. I wouldn't, personally. I think this has potential to really ******** up defending -- in this example you have attackers lunging and almost fully "behind" the back line, but their trailing foot is slightly overlapping with the 2nd to last defender's shin, and so that's deemed "onside" and thus defined as the attacker gaining no advantage? That feels worse than toenail offsides, to me. But I admit I could very well be in the extreme minority overall on that one.
The difference is that up to now VAR was just a tool for use by a referee in a room somewhere. The decisions were still subject to human interpretation. This automates the process. Which means at least the decision is made on a 100% consistent basis every time. Do not confuse this with a dislike of the offside rule itself - I expect the technology could be easily amended to accommodate any of the floated changes to the law (eg only judge by players feet; whole body must be offside; etc etc).
IMHO not a good idea. Very few defenders are going to catch an attacker that has both a one yard head start and momentum. At first glance you might think that would mean more goals and more excitement? (Note: personally not sure if I want 10-7 score lines to be the norm). However, I think in practice it would be the end of the offside trap. Which would mean all teams defending deep. Resulting in less excitement?
Anyone see the VAR penalty awarded against Rangers in Europe during the week? Defies belief. A colossal blow to Rangers! 😬After a VAR review, a penalty is awarded against Connor Goldson for hand ball and Union double their lead 🖐️ pic.twitter.com/2uNWAHNOjI— Premier Sports (@PremSportsTV) August 2, 2022
Feel like Mitrovics could have been overturned. But at the same time - I can sort of see why it was given.
Virg flicked a foot in and any time a defender does that a seasoned forward like Mitrovic will try and make the most of it. I think it was soft .
I thought it was stone cold. The fact M wanted it doesn't really make a difference imo. How often is Virgil that imprecise.
no, the ball. if the defender knocks the ball away and the player runs into his leg, often (not always of course) the foul/pen isn't given. in this case I couldn't see him touch the ball, but M-whatsit did make contact with his leg so it looked like a trip.
He didn’t, but to me the bigger issue was that Mitrovic had already pushed the ball wide and it was clear that TAA would beat him to it. So when he dove, he was no longer in control of the ball and didn’t have a viable way to get to it. So even if contact with VvD occurred, it was irrelevant. To be honest, though, it was a bang-bang play, and could have been called either way depending on what you saw first, the ball going wide, or Mitrovic diving over VvD’s leg.
Pen. We’da been howling if it was in the other box. The suggestion seems to be that it wasn’t the initial contact of VVD’s right foot, but rather knee on knee.
It's soft. But he hung his leg out, and there was contact. Attacker was essentially 1 on 1 with Virg. Unfortunately that's getting called the vast majority of the time. Feel like they would have won if not for that, so it's tough. But VAR is never going to overturn the ref on calls like this -- there was no doubt in my mind, and there was very little hesitation by the ref, and as soon as VAR sees those knees bump together the review is effectively over.
I have to agree that once van Dijk dangled his leg, and from the referee's angle, it was going to be given. Not clear and obvious.
And I’d concur that that cuts both ways-I think if Madley hadn’t given it on the field, VAR would have upheld that call. Ultimately VvD put himself in position to give that call way by sticking his leg out. Just a poor day at the office for nearly everyone.
Yeah, very soft, Speke. Surely, a marjin of ref's 'clear' error should include the var observer's bloody opinion of whether or not it was extremely unlikely that the attacker would gain next control of the ball. In this case short of Alexander Armstrong being in an episode of Star-Trek and being beamed out at that moment this was impossible. Mitrovitch gave the ball away and then got a penalty. Utter rubbish. (Meanwhile in kooky-ville the Wolves keeper almost kills a Leeds player whilst missing the ball by a couple of feet and ...Voila-Var ... no foul.... To anyone defending that particular call, I would ask, is that now the position - a goalkeeper can crack your head without getting to the ball? Either that's the case or that VAR ref should be fired....
Hobo, his leg is only hanging out in slow-motion. It's surely a good-reactive move to take only that long to get it started coming back, once you've been jinked of the ball's path and you are in the player's way if he wants you to be. I think, for refs in the past, that was always a hard call to make and they'd get conned in real time, but a VAR ref should be able to spot this, just as I can; and for them it should be spotted in the full knowledge that it now must be their 50-50 view of what happened, not their 50-50 assessment of whether the ref (who can;t see it in slow motion) decided had happened. If you jink a defender in the box ala Messi or Neymar or Salah and that happens, it's usually a penalty because you do it with control possibility of the ball. That's the problem with this. If Mitrovitch had lashed the ball 40 yard out to the corner flag and pulled the same move would they have given him a penalty? Probably not. Yet, as far as a slow-motion camera is concerned, it's effectively the same thing with TAA standing where he was. A bit of looking for th eobvious would go a long way with these remote refs....
Exactly! Spot-on-imo!! It was 50-50 and COULD have been called either way .. But ....in real time... VAR refs are not looking at it in real time. They are looking at it to see what happened. Yet, due to some semantics of the VAR rules they are not (apparently) looking at these situations to see and adjudicate what happened that actually mattered, which is in this particular case what you said, that the whole play had by that point become irrelevant.... Thye can see this, so why are they persisting in giving a penalty then??? It's insane- it's like some Soviet-era application of rules for the words in the rules's sakes, not the effect or outcome's sake....
I guess my question/.gripe is, why does it matter so much that the ref with the lesser view called it first? Why is he anointed more godlike that the ref with better tools who can see the totality of possible reasons for not calling it. Humans .. baffling creatures....
The answer is because in the absence of clear and obvious evidence of something being missed, the protocol of VAR is to uphold the authority of the head ref in questions of whether or not a foul/pen occurred. There's no evidence in the replay, whether slo-motion or not, that what the ref called the pen for (knee contact) didn't happen. That's why it wasn't overturned. But if the ref had said "I saw Virgil elbow the attacker in the head, so I called a pen"... VAR would have overturned the pen.