Play offs

billythekid said:
Didn’t see the game yesterday, but going back to our play-off game and that penalty, do you think the Brentford manager would have been happy to have VAR decide the Kelly handball which the pundits said was harsh?

VAR could have disallowed the penalty and changed the course of the game.

Brentford manager wanted VAR for the play-offs, but JW didn’t.

Would you have preferred VAR for all the play-off games or referee decision?
Click to expand...

Although VAR would probably have given Brentford a penalty for Smith's challenge in the first game.

I'm glad we haven't had VAR this season, but I'd imagine when there is a travesty (Henry's handball against Ireland anyone?) then fans of the ill-treated team will be up in arms. In an ideal world we would work out a system where it was only used to overturn howlers - Maradona's goal in 86 being another prime example.

GLT (when switched on!!!) seems to be accepted. I was showing my son videos of Lampard to improve his knowledge of midfield runs, and that 'goal' against Germany in 2010 came on.....
 
VAR is nearly perfect for the offside rule as it stands. Problem is, the offside rule as it stands is outrageously ****************. When they first came up with the rule, I’d imagine it was to prevent something like obvious goal hanging. It was never meant to be this granular and pedantic and crippling for the game.

Keep VAR, change the offside rule; what about going back to just your legs being counted offside for a start. The art of shaping your body to get around offside traps and starting a run forward is almost impossible now because your armpit is off.

Or maybe that, and also you will only be adjudged offside if you actually touch the ball or score with the bit that’s offside? Headers from crosses etc. I don’t think in the 20s anyone would have thought goals would be disallowed for your hair follicles being past a shoddily chunky pixelated line, so it needs changing if VAR is going to stick around.
 
NWCherries98 said:
VAR is nearly perfect for the offside rule as it stands. Problem is, the offside rule as it stands is outrageously ****************. When they first came up with the rule, I’d imagine it was to prevent something like obvious goal hanging. It was never meant to be this granular and pedantic and crippling for the game.

Keep VAR, change the offside rule; what about going back to just your legs being counted offside for a start. The art of shaping your body to get around offside traps and starting a run forward is almost impossible now because your armpit is off.

Or maybe that, and also you will only be adjudged offside if you actually touch the ball or score with the bit that’s offside? Headers from crosses etc. I don’t think in the 20s anyone would have thought goals would be disallowed for your hair follicles being past a shoddily chunky pixelated line, so it needs changing if VAR is going to stick around.
Click to expand...
Agree. Instead of applying modern millimetre perfect technology to rules which were never conceived for this application, we need to open the rules up a bit for modern times. Then we'll know how to apply the technology correctly and the whole thing might be less contentious. VAR would probably still be disliked ( because it will continue to ruin the immediate joy and excitement of the game for many ) but at least it might actually start to become useful in ensuring a fair result, which presumably was the intention.

Applying the technology to the letter of the current laws has been a disaster.
As you say, maybe we need to look at redefining the laws for modern times rather than blaming the technology, which in theory could still be a positive for the game of football, particularly these days where in certain matches so much is at stake.
 
NWCherries98 said:
VAR is nearly perfect for the offside rule as it stands. Problem is, the offside rule as it stands is outrageously ****************. When they first came up with the rule, I’d imagine it was to prevent something like obvious goal hanging. It was never meant to be this granular and pedantic and crippling for the game.

Keep VAR, change the offside rule; what about going back to just your legs being counted offside for a start. The art of shaping your body to get around offside traps and starting a run forward is almost impossible now because your armpit is off.

Or maybe that, and also you will only be adjudged offside if you actually touch the ball or score with the bit that’s offside? Headers from crosses etc. I don’t think in the 20s anyone would have thought goals would be disallowed for your hair follicles being past a shoddily chunky pixelated line, so it needs changing if VAR is going to stick around.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. The technology is not the problem, its the way in which it's been applied- primarily the rules to which it is applied. VAR works brilliantly in Rugby and in the main does not disrupt the flow or ruin the entertainment.

If we're using VAR for offside then it needs to be assessed against something which the players (both defenders and attackers) can make a judgment on, not be left to complete luck. I think if they allowed you to be up to a yard (or a given distance) offside when measured down to the micropixel then even this would improve things.

Also if we're hellbent on using VAR to make every key offside call then we need to look at changing the role of linesmen. At the moment it's crap when they keep their flags down but it gets overruled in a building 200 miles away.

IMO VAR also needs to be used for more off the ball decisions to stamp out more of the cheating aspects (diving, shirt pulling etc.). This is a disappointing aspect of the game that still persists despite the numerous camera angles available.

As well as the offside rule, the deliberate handball rule needs fine tuning to make all this work.
 
AFCBfan said:
I've wondered before if there's any possibility of Offside technology, similar to the way Goal-line technology works. Turns out there is, and it may not be far away:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...stant-imagery-game-changer-offside-calls.html
Click to expand...
This is evidence why you have to not give in when progress gets tough.

The thing about offside that no-one mentions is that it's judged when the ball is played. Therefore, it's always been the case that assistant ref has to
a) keep up with play
b) watch the ball
c) react from looking at the ball to looking across the line, nearside and farside in the same instant.

It's a near impossible job to get right. It's also a mechanical process, just by a organic machine. Letting the technology improve though will mean we get a better machine factoring in the same information, that can look in 2 directions at the same time, think quicker, build in rules on when to play on or just notify the refs ear.

Fundamentally you can't replace people with machines, but you can replace mechanistic tasks.
 
Red Sky said:
I agree with this. The technology is not the problem, its the way in which it's been applied- primarily the rules to which it is applied. VAR works brilliantly in Rugby and in the main does not disrupt the flow or ruin the entertainment.

If we're using VAR for offside then it needs to be assessed against something which the players (both defenders and attackers) can make a judgment on, not be left to complete luck. I think if they allowed you to be up to a yard (or a given distance) offside when measured down to the micropixel then even this would improve things.

Also if we're hellbent on using VAR to make every key offside call then we need to look at changing the role of linesmen. At the moment it's crap when they keep their flags down but it gets overruled in a building 200 miles away.

IMO VAR also needs to be used for more off the ball decisions to stamp out more of the cheating aspects (diving, shirt pulling etc.). This is a disappointing aspect of the game that still persists despite the numerous camera angles available.

As well as the offside rule, the deliberate handball rule needs fine tuning to make all this work.
Click to expand...
Your sort of describing a long jump board style offside. Yet doesn't matter if it's a yard, a foot or an inch, one millimetre either way would still be controversial. A yard though would change the game and how everyone defends for the better, a bit like when there was an experiment with the offside line, that was about 18 yards from goal (Scotland).

If we want more goals and excitement, just make the goals bigger.
 
billythekid said:
Didn’t see the game yesterday, but going back to our play-off game and that penalty, do you think the Brentford manager would have been happy to have VAR decide the Kelly handball which the pundits said was harsh?

VAR could have disallowed the penalty and changed the course of the game.

Brentford manager wanted VAR for the play-offs, but JW didn’t.

Would you have preferred VAR for all the play-off games or referee decision?
Click to expand...

true but the first leg the smith challenge was a pen . I also think the solanke challenge on Toney first half of second leg was clumsy and could have been a pen.

the second half against Brentford we never looked capable of scoring another , and decided to play our part in going down too easily .
The pen wasn’t the game changer it was the red card in my opinion
 
We must not ' learn' anything more from the Continent...the Dutch invented VAR !
.with, I daresay, some help from Tennis.. '£√cking Tennis..and Yanks !

No no..we invented this game.

Crap Refs are part of the game for all clubs...as are crap players...mistakes are made by all people on the pitch...and players cheat.

Going back to the Dutch..they also introduced goal - line tech....where almost the whole ball can be over the line except a tiny sliver of plastic...disallowed.

You wanna take the game to another f√cking Planet ? ....Be my guest...I'll keep my shirt tucked in...thank yo' very much Wilbur, Elmer and Abner !
 
ChampagneCherry said:
Your sort of describing a long jump board style offside. Yet doesn't matter if it's a yard, a foot or an inch, one millimetre either way would still be controversial. A yard though would change the game and how everyone defends for the better, a bit like when there was an experiment with the offside line, that was about 18 yards from goal (Scotland).

If we want more goals and excitement, just make the goals bigger.
Click to expand...

Size does matter (so I’m told). Would it be as controversial if you could see that the attacker was clearly a yard or more offside, even if that were measured to a pixel on the striker's armpit? If a striker was within that yard zone, even by a toenail, could you really argue as a defender that you had skilfully judged it to play him offside? Really that should not be sufficient distance to give a striker a significant advantage if the defender has anticipated his run properly. Defenders would adjust to this anyway when deliberately playing strikers offside.

The difference between a yard and a millimeter is massive in terms of human judgement and perception. After all this should be a game played by humans and not machines.
 
Red Sky said:
Size does matter (so I’m told). Would it be as controversial if you could see that the attacker was clearly a yard or more offside, even if that were measured to a pixel on the striker's armpit? If a striker was within that yard zone, even by a toenail, could you really argue as a defender that you had skilfully judged it to play him offside? Really that should not be sufficient distance to give a striker a significant advantage if the defender has anticipated his run properly. Defenders would adjust to this anyway when deliberately playing strikers offside.

The difference between a yard and a millimeter is massive in terms of human judgement and perception. After all this should be a game played by humans and not machines.
Click to expand...
A get that, what I meant was , the controversy will still occur if you are a millimetre over or under your yard, because the effect on a game is so big.

Agree played by humans, but enabled by all manner of machines, from the most basic stopwatch to the complex goal line technology.
 
[QUOTE="Matt Stevenson, post: 512838, member: 6657%]

GLT (when switched on!!!) seems to be accepted. I was showing my son videos of Lampard to improve his knowledge of midfield runs, and that 'goal' against Germany in 2010 came on.....[/QUOTE]
While going in for half time at 2-2 might have changed the course of the game I think overall that German team were the best side in the tournament. Then again so we’re we in 1990 and it means s** all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;