Mex Martillo
10:12 Sun Jan 17
Re: Solving the offside issue.
|
Can someone remind me why they now let play continue after an obvious offside. It is just crap and a waste of time.
I was shouting at the TV that the long pass in the buildup to Cresswell’s heeled in goal was offside. Then had a minute or 2 worrying that perhaps incredibly they were not going to give disallow the goal.
What is that all about?
I cannot see any point to it?
|
andyd12345
9:49 Mon Nov 9
Re: Solving the offside issue.
|
Historically players have been worth more if they’ve got a left foot. Now they’ll be worth mor if they’ve got small feet
|
Full Claret Jacket
9:42 Mon Nov 9
Re: Solving the offside issue.
|
There is no longer any notion of being level which would normally see advantage given to the attacker. To be honest if you have timed your run that well that visually it is hard to determine then it should be let go and not be determined by imaginary lines and technology that was never meant to be that accurate. Scrap the line drawing and dotted lines. Use your eyes to decide like a linesman would.
The interfering with play thing is another bugbear of mine. As a 'once upon a time' defender, part of the art of defending was knowing when to step up and play offside however this is negated now by an opinion of whether the attacker in an offside position are interfering or not.
Easiest would to be to say if anyone from the opposition team is visually offside then it doesn't count.
They will have an effect even if not near the ball as every players position impacts what the defenders are doing and where their focus is.
|
Grumpster
9:31 Mon Nov 9
Re: Solving the offside issue.
|
The Bamford one the other day was the worst one ive seen.
Absolutely fucking ridiculous.
Football is run by cunts who have never played the game (even as kids as probably too shit to get a game) and only care about money, so it's fucked forever now unfortunately.
|
jack flash
9:26 Mon Nov 9
Re: Solving the offside issue.
|
It's all getting ridiculous and very few people understand the rules or rather how they're being applied
As said it's incredibly easy to solve the problem with simple technology
A chip in the players boots or sewn into the players shirt monitored by sensors along the touch line would immediately show whether or not the player is offside
If the player is offside, he's offside regardless as to whether or not the officials think he's interfering with play or not
Haller was offside against Fulham, Mane was offside for Liverpools winner against us
Bamfords goal should definitely have stood
It shouldn't come down to the players arm, nose or teeth being over an imaginary line made up by VAR
|
Mr Anon
8:33 Mon Nov 9
Re: Solving the offside issue.
|
I agree vexed by even if you give that margin, they'd be spitting hairs over whether it was within that margin or not. Back to square one. That's why I think they either need to scrap it, or throw more technology at at to remove human interpretation, like goal line tech.
|
Vexed
3:45 Mon Nov 9
Re: Solving the offside issue.
|
They need to factor in a margin of error, like in cricket so that only clear and obvious errors are reversed. If there's been a goal and it's within, say, ten or twenty centimetres of being offside then it's a goal. Over that distance it's a clear error and the goal should be ruled out.
Getting a goal disallowed because somebody has their fucking toenail in an offside position is fucking ridiculous. That bamford one was absurd. The Ayew goal against us last season was fucking outrageous.
Similarly the handball rules are a joke, last season especially. However the Liverpool one the other day was a clear pen, despite what the selection of cunts thought in the studio.
The penalties given are a joke too, our last two games we've had disgraceful decisions for pens. Neither were pens, both were dives. Rewarded dives.
Football is fucking shit now isn't it?
|
geoffpikey
3:28 Mon Nov 9
Re: Solving the offside issue.
|
I'm waiting for the day that every corner kick taker can be immediately declared: Offside! The law makers are idiots.
|
-[Rasta]-
3:08 Mon Nov 9
Re: Solving the offside issue.
|
Get rid, cant stand it would rather shout at ref/linesman and you can celebrate a goal without fear of it being chalked off, VAR out....
|
Hermit Road
2:29 Mon Nov 9
Re: Solving the offside issue.
|
“ Take the idiots in the remote van out of VAR. One challenge, per team, per half, to be made within say 15 seconds of the incident. A team uses it's review and just the ref, looks at a pitch side monitor. Then you have a clear understanding of when a review is used. Review kept, if decision changed. Reviews would mostly be used for perceived obvious errors. You may of course, get a spurious review in the 45th or 90th minute, if one left and nothing to lose by using it.”
I think that would be a much better way of applying VAR than what they’ve come up with
|
Fifth Column
2:00 Mon Nov 9
Re: Solving the offside issue.
|
Bamford's goal was correctly ruled out by VAR based on the current rules. It's not the refs' fault that the rules are now ridiculous.
|
JayeMPee
1:57 Mon Nov 9
Re: Solving the offside issue.
|
Bamford's disallowed goal makes a mockery of VAR and any official involved in the decision making. No idea what idiot ref was in the var 'hut/room' but hopefully that's the last time he does it.
I personally hate var but I guess we are stuck with it if only because it makes 'theatre' for the pundits and I guess money for the channels. For most true fans it is destroying what was once a great game.
|
Westside
11:35 Mon Nov 9
Re: Solving the offside issue.
|
Other sports have implemented technology really well, but it now complements the sport instead of dictating it. It works in tennis as it’s tracking the real movements of one ball.
I don't think many people would dispute Goal Line technology has been a success in football. Just the one cock up (Villa - Sheffield United), since the introduction of it. Tracking/predicting one ball, is a lot easier than deciding on, whether an incident is a foul or not.
Take the idiots in the remote van out of VAR. One challenge, per team, per half, to be made within say 15 seconds of the incident. A team uses it's review and just the ref, looks at a pitch side monitor. Then you have a clear understanding of when a review is used. Review kept, if decision changed. Reviews would mostly be used for perceived obvious errors. You may of course, get a spurious review in the 45th or 90th minute, if one left and nothing to lose by using it.
|
Alfs
2:33 Mon Nov 9
Re: Solving the offside issue.
|
Sniper -
"VAR should draw attention to any possible wrong call by alerting the ref. But The call should be made by the ref looking at a screen without lines being drawn and with a timer counting down. If the mistake is clear and obvious it shouldn’t take long to overturn, otherwise, the original onfield decision stands."
Excellent idea. Give the ref 2 minutes max to make his call.
|
Sniper
2:00 Mon Nov 9
Re: Solving the offside issue.
|
The powers that be have repeatedly tinkered with interpretations of offside using terms like ‘interfering’, ‘active’ and ‘phases of play’ and all it ever does is make it more complex and open to abuse than it needs to be. Remember when Bolton started getting players to stand on the goal line and run away from goal when they had. An attacking free kick because you weren’t offside then if you were running that way?
Bamford was inside yesterday
Mane was offside last week
Haller was offside yesterday
If the ball is played forward by an attacking team in the direction of a player who is in an offside position, it should be called as offside (see mane/haller). That would also solve the other ridiculous issue you can get where a balm can be played to a player who is onside, whilst another player who was offside at the time can loiter around until they are onside and have the balls played to them to score (see Harry Kane’s first against us a few years ago when we lost 3-2 at home under bilic)
If a player is inside the 6 yard box and in a offside position, they are offside
From the point of view of var, what they need is a clear directive to say what the margin is for offside. It should either be the torso, not a limb or a head or it needs to say there should be daylight between defender and attacker.
VAR should draw attention to any possible wrong call by alerting the ref. But The call should be made by the ref looking at a screen without lines being drawn and with a timer counting down. If the mistake is clear and obvious it shouldn’t take long to overturn, otherwise the original onfield decision stands.
Other sports have implemented technology really well, but it now complements the sport instead of dictating it. It works in tennis as it’s tracking the real movements of one ball. It works in cricket because they allow a margin of error with their predicting (you don’t know 100% if the ball will continue down a certain path, so they have umpires call for that grey area, and the infield decision stands). In rugby they look for a reason to go against the infield decision.
But with VAR there is no consistent approach, no consistent outcome and the changes in interpretation of the laws that have come in alongside it mean that VAR never stood a chance - whether it’s stupid handballs last season against attacking teams or this season against defending teams or nonsense offsides, they can’t even do those things consistently. It needs simplifying, control given to onfield refs (even if they’ve missed something, VAR should be saying ‘x hit y off the ball there’ and the ref checks the monitor and sends x off), linos actually feeling like they can make a call again and a level of common sense that seems to deplete massively every season.
It should be helpful, but right now it’s ruining every game
|
ornchurch ammer
12:30 Mon Nov 9
Re: Solving the offside issue.
|
Other sports generally get the technology right as they are judging yes or no issues. Football must be the only sport that uses technology to make opinion based decisions so there is so much inconsistency.
Additionally it isn't used in all situations. An incorrectly awarded corner or throw in can lead to a goal being scored unfairly but those decisions are never looked at.
|
Alfs
9:49 Sun Nov 8
Re: Solving the offside issue.
|
Sorry, Anon. Indeed you did.
Yes, I think that could work.
|
Far Cough
7:46 Sun Nov 8
Re: Solving the offside issue.
|
How can tennis, cricket, NFL and Rugby get the technology right but not fucking football?
|
Sven Roeder
7:07 Sun Nov 8
Re: Solving the offside issue.
|
Penalty against Liverpool
FMOB
Never a pen
Except under the current nonsense rules where you can’t run unless with your arms by your sides
Should have used a Panenka , Kev
|
zico
6:58 Sun Nov 8
Re: Solving the offside issue.
|
Which manager said that if you were on the pitch you were interfering with play, Clough? Shankly?
Bamford's goal/no goal will make it difficult for a striker to point where he wants it without being deemed offside now. Whilst "technically correct" it's a decision that is ridiculous. I am sure that with VAR there is a case for the "daylight" rule they tried a few years ago or if a decision by VAR can't be reached within 30 seconds the original decision stands.
You could of course really complicate matters and only look at an offside depending on which part of the body scores the goal. So if say a players scores with his right foot but it's a tight decision, VAR can only look at whether his right foot was offside. Same with left foot, head, buttock, whatever. If he scores with his left foot but his shoulder and head are offside but his left foot is onside the goal stands. Told you it was complicated!
|
Sven Roeder
6:52 Sun Nov 8
Re: Solving the offside issue.
|
As I and several others have said go back to the rule that requires daylight between the last point of the attacker & the furtherest forward point of the defender to be offside.
If a line has you a cm offside you can’t really complain has you have had a whole body width to keep behind the defender
|
| 
