Bamford offside

[Clevedon Red]

58 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

TBH the problem is not the cameras, but the way they are used and the way the officials scrutinising them interpret them. 

I used to be in favour, but it's clear there is zero common sense applied, so you might as well scrap the system.

Wouldn’t it be nice if they had to explain the decision afterwards.....nah it’ll never happen.

[Tinmans Love Child]

“...Your Scientists Were So Preoccupied With Whether Or Not They Could, They Didn’t Stop To Think If They Should.”
 

Dr Malcolm....on VAR not Jurassic Park

[Juan Domingo Roldan]

2 hours ago, Numero Uno said:

I would keep the goal line technology and scrap VAR the way things are going just as it is in the EFL. Certainly by the way the law SHOULD be intended Bamford was onside end of story. However anything involving Mike Dean ends up all being about Mike Dean......

Nail on head there.

God awful bloke who actually 'celebrates' when he awards a penalty.

[Super]

Maybe when they sort the offside they can look at the handball. 2 shockers again today.

[Mr Popodopolous]

14 hours ago, Alex_BCFC said:

There was but it was so tight that it was hardly clear and obvious - so I wouldn’t want VAR in the game to decide that. It was just before half time at 0-0 - not sure if it was his arm or not. 

Should the benefit not go to the attacker or has that all shifted? I can accept that given how tight it was as you say, but the penalty later in the game was a bit of a disgrace- you can accept one against you with no tech to rely on, but both??

[Alex_BCFC]

13 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Should the benefit not go to the attacker or has that all shifted? I can accept that given how tight it was as you say, but the penalty later in the game was a bit of a disgrace- you can accept one against you with no tech to rely on, but both??

Yeh it should I think but obviously now it’s all done with lines to make sure no ones nostril is offside.

And yes that was a poor pen from memory they got given. I can accept both - some games you get them some you don’t. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

6 minutes ago, Alex_BCFC said:

Yeh it should I think but obviously now it’s all done with lines to make sure no ones nostril is offside.

And yes that was a poor pen from memory they got given. I can accept both - some games you get them some you don’t. 

Maybe, maybe not- in terms of acceptance- I still find both hard to swallow. there was also the terrible Semenyo red card v Derby a week or 2 later, yet quite sure Huddlestone did similar in first half.

[Alex_BCFC]

49 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Maybe, maybe not- in terms of acceptance- I still find both hard to swallow. there was also the terrible Semenyo red card v Derby a week or 2 later, yet quite sure Huddlestone did similar in first half.

You get decisions go for you but I don't think these are generally noted as much - just the way it is. We always love to moan more about the ones we don't get or we feel are wrong (when sometimes they are right anyway). Generally games don't have clear and major errors that affect the outcome, the outcome is based on how the teams play and certainly is over a season. 

I do think goal line technology though has a been a good thing despite not being convinced it was needed. So maybe if they could sort VAR out dramatically it might be OK but I think most football fans would vote for it to disappear (me included).

[Coxy27]

2 hours ago, Super said:

Maybe when they sort the offside they can look at the handball. 2 shockers again today.

Don't think the Gomez one can be described as a "shocker". 

That's probably a handball under most rules over the past couple of decades. 

Whether it 'should' be is a different question though. 

[downendcity]

The phrase “ if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” could have been created for  football pre-VAR. I'm probably going to mention what others have done already - if so apologies.

Goal line technology is a no brainer, as it using technology to measure a clear cut situation and there is absolutely no problem with it, but see below•. The problem is that once the administrators got involved they merely transferred one persons interpretation ( the onfield referees) to that of a penal sitting in a remote studio, Not only that but the administrators also tampered with the laws of the game  - particularly handball - making it ever more prescriptive.

Then there is the notion that VAR is there to correct “clear and obvious” mistakes by referees. That would be well and good but as far as I can see, so far VAR has missed as many clear and obvious errors as it has corrected. All it seems to have done is transfer the ire of managers , pundits and fans fro the referee to the VAR panel.

The only glaring mistake has been to let VAR in essence usurp the referee, so that increasingly I feel that referees will not make contentious decisions, preferring to rely on VAR picking it up and making whatever decision it decides, removing the referee from the firing line. In my opinion, the first step should have been to allow/direct a referee to the pitch side monitor to review the tv evidence that VAR provides so that he can either stick with his original decision or correct it, if he has made an obvious error.

• Goal line technology does, however, throw up one problem. The Sheff Utd “goal” last season against Villa demonstrates the danger of technology overriding human judgement and the shortcomings of VAR. The ball clearly crossed the line, but the ref did not get a buzz from his watch, so believed that it had not. Despite all the tv evidence VAR did not correct was the most blatant “clear and obvious” error. It would have taken the ref a matter of minutes to review the footage pitch side, but he is now dependant on VAR making that judgement for him! 

 

 

 

[Davefevs]

The comparisons with cricket’s system are inevitable, and that has evolved into a very good system.

The problem football experiences is that play doesn’t stop after the “event”, so in the event of offside, if a linesman gives offside and the ref blows for it, everyone stops.  If subsequently it turns out to be wrong, you can’t then see the situation continue to unfold.

As a result you get linesman not giving stuff and then the attack continues....and then it gets over-turned.  By playing on there is a risk that injury could occur, e.g. keeper comes flying out.

So we really don’t have a situation where one way works better or fairer than another.

They've changed the rules to fit to VAR and introduced more problems.  Until they can come up with a genuinely reasonable system, take it out.

 

[Sir Geoff]

All these penalties are just making each game a lottery rather than the best team winning. Penalties used to be quite rare over the course of a set of fixtures now we are getting an average of one every other game.

Why not spare us all the anguish and forget the 90 minutes of football and just have a penalty shoot out to decide the winner.

These ridiculous decisions are turning me away from watching any Premier league football.

[MarcusX]

On 07/11/2020 at 20:37, Lanterne Rouge said:

VAR is shite and should have been destroyed at the start. It`s one of the factors that make me think I`m not too bothered about getting to the Premier League.

It's not VAR that's the issue. It's the rule

[downendcity]

2 hours ago, Sir Geoff said:

All these penalties are just making each game a lottery rather than the best team winning. Penalties used to be quite rare over the course of a set of fixtures now we are getting an average of one every other game.

The problem is compounded because players now know that, with VAR reviewing every contentious incident in the penalty area, with umpteen angles and super slo-mo, it is even more “worth their while” looking for some sort of contact if they can. Not just that, but modern players seemed to have become ever more adept at making the most of even the slightest contact, including leaving a leg out hoping for contact from a defender, all of which is reinforced by today’s pundits continually spouting “there was contact - he’s entitled to go down”.

You are right in saying that penalties used to be rare . This is even more glaring when you consider the physicality in the game back in the 70s and 80s, before players were “protected” by referees but when skilful players were capable of riding even severe tackles rather than going down like they were shot! Players like Francis Lee attracted flack for “diving” back in the day, but that was only because they stood out as the exception.

These days there is not one premier league team that does not have at least one player that is more than capable of simulation but I think this is a chicken and egg situation. The way the game is officiated, and the naivety of on and off field officials,  opens the door for questionable fouls to be given and it therefore follows that questionable fouls in the penalty area are more likely to be given, thereby encouraging more players to take advantage.

 

[The Bard]

They'll get nowhere until the conversations are broadcast live.

That will see quick improvements like it did in Rugby. 

[The Bard]

19 hours ago, Davefevs said:

The comparisons with cricket’s system are inevitable, and that has evolved into a very good system.

The problem football experiences is that play doesn’t stop after the “event”, so in the event of offside, if a linesman gives offside and the ref blows for it, everyone stops.  If subsequently it turns out to be wrong, you can’t then see the situation continue to unfold.

As a result you get linesman not giving stuff and then the attack continues....and then it gets over-turned.  By playing on there is a risk that injury could occur, e.g. keeper comes flying out.

So we really don’t have a situation where one way works better or fairer than another.

They've changed the rules to fit to VAR and introduced more problems.  Until they can come up with a genuinely reasonable system, take it out.

 

You can only come up with s good system through trial and error.

 

Trouble for me is it's secretive. We can't hear the conversations between the VAR people and the ref. Hear them and the football world will be able to add value to the process. At the moment it's purely reactive 

[Super]

On 08/11/2020 at 19:40, Coxy27 said:

Don't think the Gomez one can be described as a "shocker". 

That's probably a handball under most rules over the past couple of decades. 

Whether it 'should' be is a different question though. 

He is clearly trying to get his arm out of the way?

[Coxy27]

1 hour ago, Super said:

He is clearly trying to get his arm out of the way?

That's irrelevant though isn't it. 

If my arms were above my head then the ball came towards me I'd try to move them out of the way too. 

The way the law is set up (rightly or wrongly) I think that's a penalty. I'm not saying I like it but I think it is. He's got time to react and his arms are away from his body. 

He's trying to move his arm because he knows it's in the wrong position. 

[Super]

1 hour ago, Coxy27 said:

That's irrelevant though isn't it. 

If my arms were above my head then the ball came towards me I'd try to move them out of the way too. 

The way the law is set up (rightly or wrongly) I think that's a penalty. I'm not saying I like it but I think it is. He's got time to react and his arms are away from his body. 

He's trying to move his arm because he knows it's in the wrong position. 

Its not really in a wrong position you cant really run back with your hands behind your back!

[Coxy27]

1 hour ago, Super said:

Its not really in a wrong position you cant really run back with your hands behind your back!

The argument really is, do you think Gomez's arm has made his body 'unnaturally bigger'? As that's the official ruling. 

It's clear you believe it hasn't. I'd probably agree as I don't see any intent to handball so therefore his body position is probably natural for him tracing back. 

However, I'm just saying the way the direction is to referees at the moment, and has been for some time now, most referees seeing that on video would give it. 

[Alex_BCFC]

They need to change the rule asap. There was no intention to handball it and naturally his arms would be out from running. It's a nonsense.

[wayne allisons tongues]

Last night, the ref gave a free kick and VAR then overturns it after 2 minutes. Referee doesn’t look at the screen for VAR say it was a factual decision. 
 

Why can’t VAR just stick to clear and obvious instead of refereeing every single decision on the pitch.

[Numero Uno]

13 minutes ago, wayne allisons tongues said:

Last night, the ref gave a free kick and VAR then overturns it after 2 minutes. Referee doesn’t look at the screen for VAR say it was a factual decision. 
 

Why can’t VAR just stick to clear and obvious instead of refereeing every single decision on the pitch.

Agreed, if you need 15-20 views in order to overturn a decision (and it was at least that number on that penalty award last night) or if you need a PHD in mathematics to work out whether the forward's left testicle is in an offside position how the hell can it be a clear and obvious error? My gut feel having seen it 56 times is that the foul started outside the box and continued into the box which I understand should be awarded as a penalty but there is no way I would bet my house on it. It's one of those 50:50 decisions that should not be reversed and you just have to accept that the manager on the receiving end will have a bit of a moan afterwards and furthermore if it happens to be Klopp then happy days as you can watch him totally lose his shit. In cricket for LBW decisions they have "Umpires Call" where a decision could be given either way and they stick with the on field decision - where is "Referee's Call" in football? Are the rule makers in football either that thick that they haven't looked at other sports or that arrogant that they think they can do it better? Different sports, yes, but the principle of supporting the umpire/referee on a 50:50 decision should be the same and that penalty claim last night is exactly the type of decision where the referee should be supported. Either way they are literally ruining the game with the only winners being the media parasites who thrive on the controversy.

[Portland Bill]

People wanted the ‘perfect’ game, referees can’t give you that, because just like players they make mistakes.

Now you have tv cameras making decisions, isn’t it what people wanted!

Football is slowly dying, many of us said this would happen with var, but were shouted down.

You wanted it. You know have it, hope your happy! 

[Street red]

Simple answer bin VAR it does'nt belong in our game.That decision is just plan pathetic if bamford was fully ahead of that line then it's clear and obvious to the linesman. What's the point of a linesman's if decisions like that are being made I would rather a linesman make a mistake it's gone to far now. 

[Numero Uno]

11 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

People wanted the ‘perfect’ game, referees can’t give you that, because just like players they make mistakes.

Now you have tv cameras making decisions, isn’t it what people wanted!

Football is slowly dying, many of us said this would happen with var, but were shouted down.

You wanted it. You know have it, hope your happy! 

Unfortunately as more money has infiltrated football in the shape of both mega-rich owners who are used to getting everything their own way in their normal lives and executive type "Prawn Sandwich" supporters paying significant amounts for executive boxes as "footy" became the "in thing" there has been an increased clamour for everything to be perfect, almost businesslike you might say. I would suggest that the more "traditional" football fan called VAR for what it was a long time ago and many people including players have voiced their view that it should be scrapped with only goal line technology (which is clearly a sensible addition to the game) being retained. However, with FIFA in charge, you can forget that and it is here to stay like it or not.

[Midred]

Watching Gloucester v Harlequins on Sunday. Ref decides not to give a penalty try to Glos then awards two trys to Quins that were scored after a player was offside! Wasn't just by a toenail either. 

The technology is there, it's still all down to human error or (mis)interpretation.

Do referees favour the "big" teams in rugby as well?