Ultimate nail in the coffin?

[Port Said Red]

 In over 50 yrs of watching football I have seen a lot of changes to the game that have made me fall slightly out of love with the game. 

Each time I have either got used to them or they have been changed back or I have actually been proved wrong and they have been for the good of the game.

Watching the England match tonight I saw a glimpse of the future. A beautiful goal created from front to back, given offside because a players toe was deemed to be in advance of the defender. 

To be completely fair, it’s not entirely the fault of VAR , why the offside rule that required “clear daylight” between players was ever changed, I don’t know. VAR just makes it easier to see any tiny misdemeanours and therefore every goal celebration from now on will be tinged with doubt. I think games will be become more boring, defenders will work even harder to get players offside, attackers will have to check runs to an even greater degree. Less chances taken, equals less chances created.

Technology has clearly been a boon in certain sports, cricket and tennis both come to mind, but it has been implemented in a far more sensible way in both cases. 

I would approve of each team having a couple of referrals to play or best of all, a version of “umpires call” that allows the instant on field decision to have more prominence. 

I have always been a great believer in “ just because you can doesn’t mean you should”. Yes you can make technology the great arbiter of the game, but should we?

I really hope that the feeling of depression I am feeling right now about where the game is going with this, will be lifted. But I have little faith in the authorities making the necessary changes to make this a positive addition to the game.

[054123]

I agree to some extent.

The imminent change to the handball rule is worrying.

The handball rule exists so as to define football from rugby, I.e you cannot use arms or hands to deliberately play or control the ball.

All this shit about silhouettes is ridiculous.

[A Horse With No Name]

There was an instance very late in the game tonight where a Dutch player was played through and was very clearly offside, but the flag stayed down and they played on just in case a goal was scored and VAR could rule it out  BUT the ball rolled into the box and Pickford came tearing out to tackle the striker. What if one of them had been seriously injured chasing a ball that would never result in a goal. A sensible, early flag would have brought play to a stop. Marginal decisions, maybe let it go but instances where the player is yards offside is just dangerous.

[Smokey]

3 minutes ago, The Horse With No Name said:

There was an instance very late in the game tonight where a Dutch player was played through and was very clearly offside, but the flag stayed down and they played on just in case a goal was scored and VAR could rule it out  BUT the ball rolled into the box and Pickford came tearing out to tackle the striker. What if one of them had been seriously injured chasing a ball that would never result in a goal. A sensible, early flag would have brought play to a stop. Marginal decisions, maybe let it go but instances where the player is yards offside is just dangerous.

I think they have decided to wave the flag in those situations next season when VAR is used in this country

[Curr Avon]

When you mention whether VAR will make attacking teams fearful of the offside rule I'm reminded of a quote from the late, great Bill Shankly on this very subject:

To Ian St John - 'If you're not sure what to do with the ball, just pop it in the net and we'll discuss your options afterwards.'

[A Horse With No Name]

I think I preferred it as it was in the World Cup, whereby the ref calls for a VAR review and then runs to the touchline telly to watch it again himself, before making a call. At least the ref is still in charge, rather than someone in a studio somewhere.

[Southport Red]

I agree about the offside rule (and not because of tonight). Lingard’s toe was ahead of the defender and that is offside so no goal. The decision to disallow was correct according to the rules but the rules (with apologies to Charles Dickens), is an ass. It used to be, as @Port Said Red said, ‘clear daylight’ which was better. Lingard got no advantage from being a half inch closer to the goal than the last defender. I agree, the rule changes seem bound to discourage goal scoring (which is theentire point of the game. 

[Olé]

VAR is a well meaning nightmare visited on proper football. It has existed in league football in Portugal for a season or two already and watching it unfold no longer do you have moments you have incidents pending a referee review - and you may as well be watching the national lottery. No skill, no moment of class, no quality, just an artificial delay for a decision.

The whole storyline and atmosphere of games has already gone full on comical in Portugal, which goes into meltdown as it is about match officiating. The refs are already spectacularly bad, VAR has just given them a chance to destroy artificial decisions rather than conventional ones.

Would have been an amazing England goal and on the scale with Switzerland's VAR penalty yesterday it was far less of a reach to have just given it, although there was also the Dutch player 10-15 into the second half who attacked from the right wing and was cut down off the ball, small miracle that never even warranted VAR.

That's the frustration - add in the fun last night - and I think you need a 'team appeal' which is explicit and limited, and a foul or set piece for getting it wrong. No more of the random asks from a faceless crew in a box, to overturn real football. Football should contrive it's own outcome wherever possible. 

[wayne allisons tongues]

Thing that annoys me is VAR are taking it from one camera and when they think the ball is played. Look at another angle player may well be on, if camera is fixed then it’s not inline.

[formerly known as ivan]

VAR will kill the game, simple as

[Welcome To The Jungle]

So I was cynical when goal line technology was introduced. TBH I was dead against it. However the fact that the referee gets a near instant message, it makes no difference whether as fans you watch the referee, or previously the lino waving his flag or not. I was, pleasantly surprised. However, the way VAR saps games of their intensity. They rob fans of that jubilation as it may be disallowed in a minutes time, but also that added spice when an official gets it wrong and the crowd turns. Many a hour I've spent moaning or debating decisions with friends and it is part of it. Sadly, with so much money in the game, there cannot be room for error at the top as far as FIFA and UEFA are concerned. Money ruins it...again! 

[TBW]

If it's offside, it's offside. Get over it.

32 minutes ago, formerly known as ivan said:

VAR will kill the game, simple as

Bet it doesn't.

[pillred]

36 minutes ago, TBW said:

If it's offside, it's offside. Get over it.

Bet it doesn't.

As a spectacle it will, for one minute tonight I thought we were in the final, any time before var we would have been, rightly or wrongly now every time I watch a game and we score my first instinct will be but is it really a goal.

[Bar BS3]

32 minutes ago, pillred said:

As a spectacle it will, for one minute tonight I thought we were in the final, any time before var we would have been, rightly or wrongly now every time I watch a game and we score my first instinct will be but is it really a goal.

But s goal will only be disallowed if a rule is breached. i.e: a foul, offside etc. 

Without VAR you usually know if there is a debatable occurrence. This will just clear it up so that the correct decision is made. The vast majority of goals are perfectly within the laws of the game, so will not be disallowed. They shouldn’t/won’t even be checked. It’s only if there is a debate over a situation. 

I’m not sure if it’s a good thing or not, yet - but it’s certainly not going to kill the drama or excitement of your team scoring a goal. Unless it shouldn’t have been allowed anyway, of course..! 

[TBW]

38 minutes ago, pillred said:

As a spectacle it will, for one minute tonight I thought we were in the final, any time before var we would have been, rightly or wrongly now every time I watch a game and we score my first instinct will be but is it really a goal.

If it was the other way around you'd be less biased.

[pillred]

2 minutes ago, TBW said:

If it was the other way around you'd be less biased.

No I wouldn't and that's being as honest as I can be, there are untold games I have watched and will in the future, they don't have to include teams I have a vested interest In. ANY game I watch if VAR is at that game I will always doubt what I have seen and act accordingly, which is a shame don't you think?

[pillred]

9 minutes ago, Bar BS3 said:

But s goal will only be disallowed if a rule is breached. i.e: a foul, offside etc. 

Without VAR you usually know if there is a debatable occurrence. This will just clear it up so that the correct decision is made. The vast majority of goals are perfectly within the laws of the game, so will not be disallowed. They shouldn’t/won’t even be checked. It’s only if there is a debate over a situation. 

I’m not sure if it’s a good thing or not, yet - but it’s certainly not going to kill the drama or excitement of your team scoring a goal. Unless it shouldn’t have been allowed anyway, of course..! 

Sorry don't agree, you should have been in the pub with me tonight the disappointment was on everyone's face, that was a marginal decision at best and in future it will be human nature to always think was that a goal, we as the watching public usually see the game through our own teams eyes and are not privy to slo mo and multiple angles, so sorry you may say the vast majority of goals will fall inside the laws of the game, but in the split second the goal is scored if you have to wait to get it confirmed it will kill the spontaneity of the game. certainly as a viewer anyway, and I heard that a lot tonight so it's not just me that thinks it.

[harvey54]

Or you could just not bother watching.

Ambulance was good last night

[Mad Cyril]

Given the farce of VAR delayed offside decisions, would the game benefit if they simply got rid of the linos and diverted 2 match fees for pointless officials into grassroots football?!

[Alessandro]

The other side of the coin is how often do we have a thread on here complaining about referees? Weekly?

VAR is supposed to be making the refs jobs ‘simpler’ I guess, but agree we need to limit and control it before it takes over. Like Hawkeye in cricket were virtually every decision is now checked, because they can.

The problem in football now I guess is the money/stakes/competition is so high it’s unviable for major games to swing on incorrect decisions, that we see were wrong at home on the replay 10 seconds after it happens.

[bcfc01]

31 minutes ago, harvey54 said:

Or you could just not bother watching.

Ambulance was good last night

I watched until the second VAR incident then switched off.

Another one like that and the telly would have been through the window.

Goal line technology - yes, instant decision no problem.

This VAR takes too long and takes too much out of the game for me.

[archie andrews]

43 minutes ago, harvey54 said:

Or you could just not bother watching.

Ambulance was good last night

i'll raise you with 63 up...…..

[ciderwithtommy]

Although we got to the right decision, it was marginal. However, my question is this; there was a goal scored last night, neither the ref or linesman gave a decision, so I am guessing the VAR team review to ensure no rules have been broken. How long do they roll back? If that was a 60 pass move would everything be reviewed? If the move started from a throw in, do we review for a foul throw? Once we start saying it’s black and white, no room for error then everything is open to review, if not it is subjective and therefore no better then where we are now - just my thoughts. 

[Port Said Red]

A thoughtful debate on OTIB, just goes to show how important fans think this is.

Regarding the time taken, the commentators on ESPN were surprised that 7 minutes were added on. They mentioned injuries, but seemed to have forgotten the time taken for a review, but also when the referee is waiting for the all clear on any incident, like the “double no handball” check.

Players will be out there for long periods in some games, and it’s also going to make football even harder for schedulers on mainstream tv channels, with increasingly hard to predict endings.

and thanks to @Olé for a great phrase which I will credit you with when I use it in future, “A well meaning nightmare”.

[dunsteral]

i will probably get pelters for this, but i have said for ages offside causes too many disagreements/arguments.

Even worse now with VAR, so why have it. Scrap it altogether.

Just my opinion.

[Steve Watts]

8 hours ago, Olé said:

That's the frustration - add in the fun last night - and I think you need a 'team appeal' which is explicit and limited, and a foul or set piece for getting it wrong. No more of the random asks from a faceless crew in a box, to overturn real football. Football should contrive it's own outcome wherever possible. 

Initially I thought this was a great idea.  Unfortunately as VAR comes into play only when the ball goes out of play, the receiving team will already have a free kick, so the attacking team will appeal at will, knowing that if they win it then great and if they don't it's a case of "as you were".

[Keith Welch]

Will it get to the point where players/fans don't bother celebrating goals which are potentially offside? 

Might not matter in the grand scheme of things, but for me football is all about raw emotions and celebrating those big goals as the ball hits the net. It sometimes happened anyway if a flag went up, but it would be a few seconds and didn't leave the players and fans celebrating for a full minute.

I like VAR in theory, but the anti-climax of Sterling's CL goal against Tottenham and England's last night leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

As football fans we crave those moments of pure joy and adrenaline. I'm worried that VAR might affect this.

[numbeast]

VAR is in its infancy at the moment and as such it needs to be tweaked. The offside laws are confusing as it is and open to interpretation by the officials but with VAR it's going to get even more confusing.

If we went back to the older, more simple offside rule then the video ref system would be a good thing. FIFA need to look at the game and fine tune the laws to better fit the tech that's being used.

Cricket has adapted to video technology well but it has taken time, but even with the tech errors are still made as the West Indies found to their cost. Chris Gale got out to a ball that should have been a "free hit " but the umpire  missed the no ball the previous delivery. 

To my mind rugby has the video official down to a fine art where by the ref asks a specific question and only get other advice when the TMO has spotted something the ref has missed such as off the ball incidents.

Once everyone gets used to it and the laws refined to maximise the effect without spoiling the excitement VAR will be a godsend, but until then we just have to get used to emotionless clinical adherence to the letter of the law. 

[Spud55]

I don't mind VAR for offside decisions, they certainly need to speed up the process, but as it's a fixed decision, you are either off or on and that's it. 

But everything else is still a matter of opinion, who decided not to review Chilwells fould on the Dutch player in the box? Didn't get the ball got the man, so should have been a penalty, so VAR has totally failed to irradicate a poor decision there, and even if it does then you will still have debate about the decision. 

They way it has been implemented serves only to further undermine referees, as thins are looked at in super slow mo and picked apart for ages when the ref gets a split second. 

VAR reviews for anything except offside should be looked at only at full speed and if its not obvious the ref decision stands. 

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

As someone said earlier, the problem with VAR and the offside rule is the marginality of it.  The easy solution is to make a player offside only if there is no overlap with any player.  Doesn’t necessarily have to be clear daylight, just no overlap. I don’t think anyone would argue with a VAR decision based on that.

Doing away with offside altogether would be too radical and would alter the shape of play negatively.  It would encourage the long ball game and we don’t want that (except when England are defending and the ball needs to be hoofed downfield...).