Cov v Man Utd

[Robin101]

Meanwhile I see Rangers set up a Scottish cup final with Celtic. Shock. 

Football is increasingly very boring. 

Edited April 21 by Robin101

[Markthehorn]

Rotten luck for Coventry .

Man U fortunate .

[Chrizzler]

& another thing, I do hope they didn't allow the United 'fans' that left when they thought they'd lost back in for the penalties!

[sh1t_ref_again]

Watching the replay of the offside, the 2 lines drawn were red and blue, if the red was to signify man u and blue Coventry he is onside as the red line was closer to the goal, 

[LondonBristolian]

33 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

It was the correct decision?! How is that ruining football? 

For me, it's the fact that VAR allows for a level of fussiness you (rightly) could not get with the naked eye.

Offside was ultimately created to stop players gaining an advantage by just hanging around the goal waiting to score. Pre-VAR,  a player needed to be far enough offside to gain an advantage in order for a decision to be correctly given. Otherwise the referee or assistant simply could not possibly see it, and there was a clear rule the attacking team was given the benefit of the doubt if it was not obvious.

Now you've got several minutes of studying camera angles to establish a player was marginally ahead in a way that

a) could not possibly confer an advantage to the attacking player

b) an attacking player could not be expected to notice and correct themselves against. 

 

I agree that, by the letter of the law, Haji Wright was offside. I do not believe anyone could possibly argue that Wright gained any kind of advantage by being offside or that, had he been onside, the goal would not have bene scored. I also don't think anyone could claim Wright was at fault for being offside to such a fractional degree that he could not possibly have noticed and corrected without the aid of a replay and video cameras. So what you get in practice is a player who has made no correctable error and gained no possible advantage getting penalised for an infraction that nobody could have been expected to notice without watching multiple replays of the decision.

By the letter of the law, it's the correct decision but I don't see how anyone could argue it's a decision that makes football better or a fairer game. I think the whole "a play is offside if his right testicle is fractionally ahead of the defender" is a nonsensical law, especially once you apply cameras and slow things down to check the testicular configurations. To my mind, the only way to make offside and VAR compatible with the spirit of the game is either to

a) only correct decisions that the Assistant or Referee could reasonably have spotted

b) change the law so a player's whole body needs to be ahead of the defender for an offside to occur. 

Edited April 21 by LondonBristolian

[Super]

Says it all they were embarrassed to celebrate. Safely say the manager is done.

[Dastardly and Muttley]

9 minutes ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

You surely haven't just worked that out. VAR had done nothing to enhance the game, made worse by the fact it's now being used for incidents beyond its remit. It's purpose was to correct CLEAR AND OBVIOUS ERRORS, not to pick up all and sundry. It should be scrapped or at least be limited to clear and obvious errors viewed in real time and decided upon within 2 minutes.  If you can't decide within 2 minutes it ain't clear and obvious. 

The offside rule has to be one of clear air, it shouldn't be determined on the size of someone's footwear. 

However, wherever you draw the line, there will always be situations where a player is an inch over. Every if you added a buffer, decisions could be an inch outside of that. Offside’s a factual thing; you either have VAR to help call it or rely on the eyes of the assistants.

3 minutes ago, sh1t_ref_again said:

Watching the replay of the offside, the 2 lines drawn were red and blue, if the red was to signify man u and blue Coventry he is onside as the red line was closer to the goal, 

No, red line means offside. If he was on, the line would have been green.

[redkev]

12 minutes ago, Rob said:

You must be one of our younger supporters!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coventry_City_2–2_Bristol_City_(1977)

I was there as a 15 year old who bunked off school , drew 2-2 with Coventry doesn’t mean I have a soft spot for them , I have a soft spot for no one - Bristol city that’s it  xxxx everyone else - sorry that’s just me 

[The Gasbuster]

Hope Man C stuff them in the final.

[ChippenhamRed]

9 minutes ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

You surely haven't just worked that out. VAR had done nothing to enhance the game, made worse by the fact it's now being used for incidents beyond its remit. It's purpose was to correct CLEAR AND OBVIOUS ERRORS, not to pick up all and sundry. It should be scrapped or at least be limited to clear and obvious errors viewed in real time and decided upon within 2 minutes.  If you can't decide within 2 minutes it ain't clear and obvious. 

The offside rule has to be one of clear air, it shouldn't be determined on the size of someone's footwear. 

“Clear air” doesn’t help, that just moves the line. It just becomes a forensic decision in a slightly different way.

At the end of the day, we need to decide if the need to get every decision precisely correct at all times matters more than the joy of the fan experience. Essentially it’s about whether we view football as science or art. Personally I would rather accept the possibility of human error if that’s what is necessary to preserve the joy. If we can’t truly celebrate those moments and absolutely lose ourselves in the rush of pure adrenalin, then I don’t see the point of all this any more.

[maxjak]

Frigging Man U..........i hate them with Enormous relish.... and i don't mean chutney Ha!   Their luck will run out in the Final, I hoping for 6-0?

[Henry]

38 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Would absolutely love to let my hands go on him tbh 

[BrizzleRed]

4 minutes ago, maxjak said:

Frigging Man U..........i hate them with Enormous relish.... and i don't mean chutney Ha!   Their luck will run out in the Final, I hoping for 6-0?

I’ve got no love for Man City, but after seeing that today, I hope they totally humiliate United in the final.

Absolutely gutted for Coventry.  They can hold their heads high, but to go out like that is so cruel and another example of technology killing the spirit of football.

[Tinmans Love Child]

21 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

For me, it's the fact that VAR allows for a level of fussiness you (rightly) could not get with the naked eye.

Offside was ultimately created to stop players gaining an advantage by just hanging around the goal waiting to score. Pre-VAR,  a player needed to be far enough offside to gain an advantage in order for a decision to be correctly given. Otherwise the referee or assistant simply could not possibly see it, and there was a clear rule the attacking team was given the benefit of the doubt if it was not obvious.

Now you've got several minutes of studying camera angles to establish a player was marginally ahead in a way that

a) could not possibly confer an advantage to the attacking player

b) an attacking player could not be expected to notice and correct themselves against. 

 

I agree that, by the letter of the law, Haji Wright was offside. I do not believe anyone could possibly argue that Wright gained any kind of advantage by being offside or that, had he been onside, the goal would not have bene scored. I also don't think anyone could claim Wright was at fault for being offside to such a fractional degree that he could not possibly have noticed and corrected without the aid of a replay and video cameras. So what you get in practice is a player who has made no correctable error and gained no possible advantage getting penalised for an infraction that nobody could have been expected to notice without watching multiple replays of the decision.

By the letter of the law, it's the correct decision but I don't see how anyone could argue it's a decision that makes football better or a fairer game. I think the whole "a play is offside if his right testicle is fractionally ahead of the defender" is a nonsensical law, especially once you apply cameras and slow things down to check the testicular configurations. To my mind, the only way to make offside and VAR compatible with the spirit of the game is either to

a) only correct decisions that the Assistant or Referee could reasonably have spotted

b) change the law so a player's whole body needs to be ahead of the defender for an offside to occur. 

[eardun]

35 minutes ago, johnbytheriver said:

WHERE WAS KP?

Got booked for running on the pitch when they scored the winner in the previous round so was suspended today  

‘The in-form Sky Blues’ playmaker was booked for encroaching onto the pitch to celebrate Haji Wright’s winning goal that stunned Premier League Wolves in the 110th minute of a pulsating quarter-final clash at Molineux. It was Palmer’s second yellow card in the competition, having picked up a caution in the 1-1 fourth round draw at Sheffield Wednesday in January.’

[ralphindevon]

24 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

For me, it's the fact that VAR allows for a level of fussiness you (rightly) could not get with the naked eye.

Offside was ultimately created to stop players gaining an advantage by just hanging around the goal waiting to score. Pre-VAR,  a player needed to be far enough offside to gain an advantage in order for a decision to be correctly given. Otherwise the referee or assistant simply could not possibly see it, and there was a clear rule the attacking team was given the benefit of the doubt if it was not obvious.

Now you've got several minutes of studying camera angles to establish a player was marginally ahead in a way that

a) could not possibly confer an advantage to the attacking player

b) an attacking player could not be expected to notice and correct themselves against. 

 

I agree that, by the letter of the law, Haji Wright was offside. I do not believe anyone could possibly argue that Wright gained any kind of advantage by being offside or that, had he been onside, the goal would not have bene scored. I also don't think anyone could claim Wright was at fault for being offside to such a fractional degree that he could not possibly have noticed and corrected without the aid of a replay and video cameras. So what you get in practice is a player who has made no correctable error and gained no possible advantage getting penalised for an infraction that nobody could have been expected to notice without watching multiple replays of the decision.

By the letter of the law, it's the correct decision but I don't see how anyone could argue it's a decision that makes football better or a fairer game. I think the whole "a play is offside if his right testicle is fractionally ahead of the defender" is a nonsensical law, especially once you apply cameras and slow things down to check the testicular configurations. To my mind, the only way to make offside and VAR compatible with the spirit of the game is either to

a) only correct decisions that the Assistant or Referee could reasonably have spotted

b) change the law so a player's whole body needs to be ahead of the defender for an offside to occur. 

Agree, well put. How anyone can think what happened there is fine for the game I don’t know.

If you can’t see an obvious error within seconds of seeing a replay then on field decision stands. Officials would obviously have to go back to decision making instead of just waiting for VAR

[Kid in the Riot]

5 minutes ago, Henry said:

You been on a Sunday sess, Henry? 

[eardun]

18 minutes ago, ChippenhamRed said:

“At the end of the day, we need to decide if the need to get every decision precisely correct at all times matters more than the joy of the fan experience. Essentially it’s about whether we view football as science or art. Personally I would rather accept the possibility of human error if that’s what is necessary to preserve the joy. If we can’t truly celebrate those moments and absolutely lose ourselves in the rush of pure adrenalin, then I don’t see the point of all this any more.

I agree. I’m not looking forward to VAR if we ever get to the PL. When we score, we won’t know for sure whether it counts or not - we’ll have to wait for the check. It’s bound to impact the celebration and the joy of the moment.

[Kid in the Riot]

28 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

For me, it's the fact that VAR allows for a level of fussiness you (rightly) could not get with the naked eye.

Offside was ultimately created to stop players gaining an advantage by just hanging around the goal waiting to score. Pre-VAR,  a player needed to be far enough offside to gain an advantage in order for a decision to be correctly given. Otherwise the referee or assistant simply could not possibly see it, and there was a clear rule the attacking team was given the benefit of the doubt if it was not obvious.

Now you've got several minutes of studying camera angles to establish a player was marginally ahead in a way that

a) could not possibly confer an advantage to the attacking player

b) an attacking player could not be expected to notice and correct themselves against. 

 

I agree that, by the letter of the law, Haji Wright was offside. I do not believe anyone could possibly argue that Wright gained any kind of advantage by being offside or that, had he been onside, the goal would not have bene scored. I also don't think anyone could claim Wright was at fault for being offside to such a fractional degree that he could not possibly have noticed and corrected without the aid of a replay and video cameras. So what you get in practice is a player who has made no correctable error and gained no possible advantage getting penalised for an infraction that nobody could have been expected to notice without watching multiple replays of the decision.

By the letter of the law, it's the correct decision but I don't see how anyone could argue it's a decision that makes football better or a fairer game. I think the whole "a play is offside if his right testicle is fractionally ahead of the defender" is a nonsensical law, especially once you apply cameras and slow things down to check the testicular configurations. To my mind, the only way to make offside and VAR compatible with the spirit of the game is either to

a) only correct decisions that the Assistant or Referee could reasonably have spotted

b) change the law so a player's whole body needs to be ahead of the defender for an offside to occur. 

Agree with some of what you say, however a line has to be drawn somewhere regards the offside rule. 

You are bringing things like interpretation of intent by the forwards into the equation. You seem to be suggesting that if a forward tried to be onside, but then accidentally finds himself in an offside position, then that would be a reason to not be offside? That's going to create even more uncertainty and suspicion amongst fans. 

For the record, I think the offside rule should go back to there being "clean air" between defender and attacker. 

Maybe even "limbs" being offside should not count as offside. Take the line from feet. 

[Super]

3 minutes ago, eardun said:

I agree. I’m not looking forward to VAR if we ever get to the PL. When we score, we won’t know for sure whether it counts or not - we’ll have to wait for the check. It’s bound to impact the celebration and the joy of the moment.

Now I always look at ref then lino to see if its a goal in the Prem none of that matters.

[transfer reader]

52 minutes ago, RoystonFoote'snephew said:

You surely haven't just worked that out. VAR had done nothing to enhance the game, made worse by the fact it's now being used for incidents beyond its remit. It's purpose was to correct CLEAR AND OBVIOUS ERRORS, not to pick up all and sundry. It should be scrapped or at least be limited to clear and obvious errors viewed in real time and decided upon within 2 minutes.  If you can't decide within 2 minutes it ain't clear and obvious. 

The offside rule has to be one of clear air, it shouldn't be determined on the size of someone's footwear. 

Especially when the VAR usage was questionable 

 

They drew the line over AWB's foot, but at the end of the Cov player's foot!

[Markthehorn]

Semi automated offside calls might make a difference in the quality and consistency of the decision making?

[luke_bristol]

Rashford has surely played himself out of the Euros, been rotten all season. 

[LondonBristolian]

30 minutes ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Agree with some of what you say, however a line has to be drawn somewhere regards the offside rule. 

You are bringing things like interpretation of intent by the forwards into the equation. You seem to be suggesting that if a forward tried to be onside, but then accidentally finds himself in an offside position, then that would be a reason to not be offside? That's going to create even more uncertainty and suspicion amongst fans. 

For the record, I think the offside rule should go back to there being "clean air" between defender and attacker. 

Maybe even "limbs" being offside should not count as offside. Take the line from feet. 

It's not about "intent" but "ability to learn and avoid".

Generally in any situation where there are rules - be it a sport, the workplace or the legal system - you can only be penalised for infringing a rule if you could have reasonably taken steps to avoid doing so. That might mean you broke it on purpose but it might also mean you were careless or negligent. Either way, you being penalised is a corrective step to discourage the rule-breaking and to encourage you to be careful and follow the rules in the future. 

If you take a foul, for example, a player might not always mean to foul a player but a player who commits a foul will always have made an error in the timing or speed of a challenge, which they can learn from in the future. Historically this has bene the case with offside too. A kid playing as a forward for the first time will regularly find themselves offside until they learn to time their runs and part of the joy of watching a quick forward - such as Michael Owen or Ian Wright - was their ability to time their run to get ahead of the defender without being offside. In training, a player would work on their timing and work out the exact moment to get forward.

However, a player on a training pitch does not have access to VAR. In fact, I'm pretty sure Haji Wright's entire experience of playing with VAR in his career before today has been one start and three sub appearances at the last World Cup and the FA Cup Quarter Final at Wolves. Whilst Wright has undoubtedly - like any other forward - worked on timing his runs in training, I do not see how he could possibly have been able to learn how to avoid being offside to the degree of fractionality that VAR picks up on. Without the ability to learn from an error, or avoid it in the future, I don't see how it is fair to penalise someone for an infringement. 

[Midred]

Recently there appear to be been a number of questionable or clear and obvious errors in the VAR's decision making, can that be challenged. The alternative is the rugby way where the referee asks for specific points to be checked or if dangerous play has been missef.

[Malvern Red]

1 hour ago, LondonBristolian said:

I think the whole "a play is offside if his right testicle is fractionally ahead of the defender" is a nonsensical law, especially once you apply cameras and slow things down to check the testicular configurations.

Yep it’s fractionally incomplete b*ll*cks

[awbb]

VAR should be used for a clear and obvious errors, and that only.
 

I also think VAR should be challenge based. 20 seconds for opposing manager to request a challenge to the 4th official. At next stoppage, VAR takes a look but only for clear and obvious errors.
 

Today, for example, if Ten Haag challenged the 4th goal, VAR takes a look and says for the offside it is close and therefore not clear and obvious. Officials decision stands. No lines needed, 10 seconds is all it would take.
 

We could get in to how many challenges and whatnot, I like 1. Use it and get it wrong you lose it. Get it right you keep it.

[BCFCGav]

Vintage Sunday afternoon entertainment that. Do feel for Coventry - went through the emotional wrangle about 10 times today. 

[Markthehorn]

9 minutes ago, awbb said:

VAR should be used for a clear and obvious errors, and that only.
 

I also think VAR should be challenge based. 20 seconds for opposing manager to request a challenge to the 4th official. At next stoppage, VAR takes a look but only for clear and obvious errors.
 

Today, for example, if Ten Haag challenged the 4th goal, VAR takes a look and says for the offside it is close and therefore not clear and obvious. Officials decision stands. No lines needed, 10 seconds is all it would take.
 

We could get in to how many challenges and whatnot, I like 1. Use it and get it wrong you lose it. Get it right you keep it.

But would teams accept their appeal being rejected if they really thought it a  foul etc ?

Still be relying on the subjective view of the ref and VAR.

 

And what if something is missed that gets brought up after the game that teams might have appealed .

[Kid in the Riot]

19 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

It's not about "intent" but "ability to learn and avoid".

Generally in any situation where there are rules - be it a sport, the workplace or the legal system - you can only be penalised for infringing a rule if you could have reasonably taken steps to avoid doing so. That might mean you broke it on purpose but it might also mean you were careless or negligent. Either way, you being penalised is a corrective step to discourage the rule-breaking and to encourage you to be careful and follow the rules in the future. 

If you take a foul, for example, a player might not always mean to foul a player but a player who commits a foul will always have made an error in the timing or speed of a challenge, which they can learn from in the future. Historically this has bene the case with offside too. A kid playing as a forward for the first time will regularly find themselves offside until they learn to time their runs and part of the joy of watching a quick forward - such as Michael Owen or Ian Wright - was their ability to time their run to get ahead of the defender without being offside. In training, a player would work on their timing and work out the exact moment to get forward.

However, a player on a training pitch does not have access to VAR. In fact, I'm pretty sure Haji Wright's entire experience of playing with VAR in his career before today has been one start and three sub appearances at the last World Cup and the FA Cup Quarter Final at Wolves. Whilst Wright has undoubtedly - like any other forward - worked on timing his runs in training, I do not see how he could possibly have been able to learn how to avoid being offside to the degree of fractionality that VAR picks up on. Without the ability to learn from an error, or avoid it in the future, I don't see how it is fair to penalise someone for an infringement. 

You think that by playing with VAR a player can time their movement so as to avoid being offside by a margin of a matter of centimetres? Come on. 

Again, the line needs to be drawn somewhere, doesn't it? 

I don't think "he hasn't played in games with VAR so he doesn't know if he's going to be off" really cuts the mustard as an excuse. 

This said, I'm still not a big fan of VAR. However it's here to stay so the rules and implementation of it need to improve.