Xtratime Community banner

61 - 80 of 120 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
11,711 Posts
Finally, what bunch of us have been saying all along.

IFAB:

“With VAR we see some things that are going in a direction that we may need to re-adjust,” IFAB general secretary Lukas Brud told the BBC.

“If you spend multiple minutes trying to identify whether it is offside or not, then it's not clear and obvious and the original decision should stand.

“What we really need to stress is that 'clear and obvious' applies to every single situation that is being reviewed by the VAR or the referee.

“In theory, 1mm offside is offside, but if a decision is taken that a player is not offside and the VAR is trying to identify through looking at five, six, seven, 10, 12 cameras whether or not it was offside, then the original decision should stand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,530 Posts
If you make offside a decision that could go either way you might as well roll a dice...

1mm is offside, what's so hard about that to accept? Of course the cufrent technology used does not get it right all the time (when to stop the frame and so on), but there are clearly technologies that can solve this (chips in the ball and hawkeye like cameras). That does not change the fact that 1mm offside is offside. Just like 1mm over the line is a goal.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
11,711 Posts
First of all offside is only one aspect of VAR, hand balls, fouls, deflections and even corners are contested using VAR, second of all if tech exists then use those not 10 cameras, refs, monitor side of pitch.
If you want to compare this to goal line tech then start using that so the ref can immediately see it on his watch, why even have the current VAR system at all then? By that logic the argument against the current VAR system stands and is valid.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
30,570 Posts
I think the point should be another. The VAR referee must be called when he see a clear mistake. A 1 mm offiside is a hutch when first called, since you spend several minutes to find the image that shows it to be offiside. VAR wasn't supposed to cover this.

Well, I would prefer VAR to cover every mistake, but until they point a tech that can do it fast, then no. Wait.

Then the final question is if we have tech for this ,why not using.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,530 Posts
It is wrong.
VAR HAS to check all goals. It is a rule.

So when a goal is scored they need to check for offside. Nothing to do with clear mistakes. That is a whole different rule and has nothing to do with scoring goals.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
11,711 Posts
There is only one set of rules for VAR, yes they cover goals too but there is no "different" rule. VAR has 4 conditions and one of them is 'goal/no goal'. Not sure what your point is by trying to say anything is different or not.
As far as it is implemented now it is not improving the game, it is very simple reason to be against it. How is it not improving the game? 5 minutes to not only waste time but also to deny a goal because one shoulder was offside.
There are incidents like a penalty not given cause few seconds before the penalty incident outside of the box there was a foul, a foul that VAR decided ...and now I cant find the video of it, but in any case that is pure lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,530 Posts
VAR has improved the game.

You cannot claim it has not. Maybe I cannot claim it has, but there is nothing like VAR is all bad. Just like VAR is not all good already.

And there are different rules (not rule set!). When it comes to a goal IT HAS to be checked by VAR. There is no chance not to check a goal.
That is different from the clear mistake rule, which can happen during the game at any time (red card incident for example or penalty).

A goal check has nothing to do with clear mistake rule. If a goal happens it is checked and if something happened before the goal that was illegal the goal needs to be taken back.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
30,570 Posts
Tiger, everygoal is cheeked is Step 1. Nobody is denying it. What is being argued is that Step 2 - Var should only call if there is a clear mistake. If they call an referee and spend 3,4 minutes to find the mistake it is not clear. That is the problem. Offisde does not even requires the field Referee to be consulted. He is just informed, so the whole 3,4 minutes of discussion is the problem here. If the guy on VAR cannot just call the referee and say "he is 1 mm ahead of the defender", they were calling the referee for a debate, they have no certain of the mistake, this is obviously a problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,530 Posts
I understand, BUT if a goal is scored from 1mm offside position it HAS to be checked. And also if it turns out it was offside the goal needs to be disallowed. You cannot say 1mm offside is ok but 10cm is not. If it is offside it is offside.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
30,570 Posts
Nobody is saying this. But do you agree that the offside check should be at least the most pratical and simple feature of VAR. Basically mathematical, without much room for "opinions", therefore no need of minutes of discussion. If Take 4 minutes to find a image that shows an offside while 12 others images do not show, something is inherently wrong in the way VAR is being used? And if they managed to screw time-wise offside, imagine other stuff that have room for interpretation? Just think, a referee that stops the game and takes minutes to take a decision would be considered bad, why VAR wouldn't be too? This need to be fixed and if technology is failing to address faster to some sittuations, waste budget on research to make it happen and until there, control those sittuations to be minimal. VAR change on footbal does not need to imediate, it can be an evolution or soon we will accomodate to this and will became NBA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,530 Posts
Nobody is saying this. But do you agree that the offside check should be at least the most pratical and simple feature of VAR. Basically mathematical, without much room for "opinions", therefore no need of minutes of discussion.
I agree. Problem is that technology is not yet advanced enough (or at least not installed in the stadiums yet) to achieve this.

If Take 4 minutes to find a image that shows an offside while 12 others images do not show, something is inherently wrong in the way VAR is being used? And if they managed to screw time-wise offside, imagine other stuff that have room for interpretation? Just think, a referee that stops the game and takes minutes to take a decision would be considered bad, why VAR wouldn't be too? This need to be fixed and if technology is failing to address faster to some sittuations, waste budget on research to make it happen and until there, control those sittuations to be minimal. VAR change on footbal does not need to imediate, it can be an evolution or soon we will accomodate to this and will became NBA.
I 100% agree that VAR needs to be improved. I 100% disagree that football with current VAR is worse than it was before VAR or that VAR should be removed until 100% perfect.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
30,570 Posts
Well, I like to compare with the goal line technology. It was almost flawless. VAR in other hand still had too much dependency on human factor and seemed a bith rushed to apply, so the results are nowhere as smooth (does not help that handbal rule is itself a problem). Perhaps they should have started with offside only and agressions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
17,530 Posts
In retroperspective things could have changed, sure. But we cannot turn back the wheel. It is here and nobody is going to do anything about that. The only thing we can and should hope for is fast improvements.

Though to be honest there are quite a number of things that are positive about it as well.
 

·
1st Tier Poster
Joined
·
49,682 Posts
Discussion Starter #75
I was against it from day 1 because I predicted all the difficulties in implementing it properly and also that it will add pointless minutes to each game.

But l barely watch football these days so tbh I don't care anymore about VAR.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42,725 Posts
I only watch highlights, and this goes for all sports. Basketball, cricket, Aussie Rules, tennis etc. I don't feel like investing hours into a single match like I used to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,361 Posts
VAR is great for football. No longer will history be made with illegal plays, actions, and bad calls.

Though, VAR still has a ways to go. It should instantaneous. The ref having to rule to use VAR, then going to the VAR box, and then the VAR crew looking at the play, etc. seems like overkill. It just seems some steps can be skipped.

The ref has a microphone. There's a bunch of people in the VAR booth reviewing the play already. Just alert the ref when he or she made the incorrect call; tell them the correct call, and get on with it.

So at the moment, it still does had empty minutes to a game. Personally, it doesn't bother me. I usually watch a game when I have downtime on a Saturday or Sunday. An extra 5 minutes isn't going to kill me. Some might say this can change games by giving players a moment for a breather. But players already used fake injuries/cramps to buy breathers for decades. That being replaced by VAR isn't a big deal.

Technology is improving everything. Get over it.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66,401 Posts
VAR supporters trying to convince themselves now that it doesn't suck balls.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
25,359 Posts
Pathetic, the players arm is in a natural position becoz he jumped and now descending, backwards to the ball too

Like the portuguese journalists commenting live on the game told: if this is a pk, players need to have their arms cut
 
  • Like
Reactions: Reza
61 - 80 of 120 Posts
Top