• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

VAR: Sponsored by Chelsea

Gazza Dazzla said:
If Bamford was in any way offside based on the current rules of the game then it’s a complete joke. The rules would not have had him offside (or even close to it) before VAR, so that still comes under the VAR fudge up umbrella for me.
Click to expand...
He wasn’t offside under the old rules as his sleeve area wasn’t deemed to be one you could play the ball with
But that rule change isn’t a var one, it’s just that they use var to detect it
It’s more to do with changes to handball weirdly that means that certain parts of the “arm” are ok and others not

E5B5E358-A182-49D0-9A12-3735E36E581A.jpeg
 
Bedfordspurs said:
He wasn’t offside under the old rules as his sleeve area wasn’t deemed to be one you could play the ball with
But that rule change isn’t a var one, it’s just that they use var to detect it
It’s more to do with changes to handball weirdly that means that certain parts of the “arm” are ok and others not

View attachment 9938
Click to expand...
2 years ago, before VAR, Bamford is not flagged for offside, not even close. The rules of the game 2 years ago would not have said he was offside either.
 
Legohamster said:
Only the 4 woeful VAR calls this weekend

Bamford/City Pen/ Leicester Pen/ Villa goal
Click to expand...
They weren't VAR calls, they were referee calls. The referee went and looked at the monitor for three of those decisions.
Again, blaming VAR is the easy call when it's only a tool helping to implement the rules. The referee still made the decision
and the right decisions under the current handball and offside law (I'm not arguing that the laws are not stupid, because they are).
 
Gazza Dazzla said:
If Bamford was in any way offside based on the current rules of the game then it’s a complete joke. The rules would not have had him offside (or even close to it) before VAR, so that still comes under the VAR fudge up umbrella for me.
Click to expand...

I don't know how to use the like button, it amazes me that they are still a few who try and defend VAR.
 
I dont think VAR is the problem, it's the implementation that's the problem, if the ref or adjudicator cannot tell immediately without 4 or 5 reruns then it's not a clear error and play should stand. Changing the rules to make the system work is a classic case of putting the cart before the horse. I'm surprised the terrible Lookman penalty did not have to be retaken as to my eyes the keeper had one foot off the line and about 5 players encroached into the area.
 
Bedfordspurs said:
Yeah I think your agreeing with me?
Click to expand...
If you are saying that it’s a VAR fudge up then yes? the powers that be changed the rules to simplify it for VAR and have allowed these situations to occur. All comes under the VAR not fit for purpose banner as far as I’m concerned.
 
Gazza Dazzla said:
If you are saying that it’s a VAR fudge up then yes? the powers that be changed the rules to simplify it for VAR and have allowed these situations to occur. All comes under the VAR not fit for purpose banner as far as I’m concerned.
Click to expand...
No I was saying it wouldn’t have been offside in the old way as the Lino you hope wouldn’t have flagged
But var now is just technology, it’s not the rules. The rule change has been made as they have var but only for handball... and they have by default had to then apply it to offside (if you can score with that part of the arm then it’s offside)
Changing rules to suits tech can be ok, but not now
Their correcting decisions they got right most of the time, but now by mm with tech that doesn’t work in mm
 
Gazza Dazzla said:
If you are saying that it’s a VAR fudge up then yes? the powers that be changed the rules to simplify it for VAR and have allowed these situations to occur. All comes under the VAR not fit for purpose banner as far as I’m concerned.
Click to expand...
They haven't changed the handball rules for VAR. The rules are constantly being changed and at a ridiculous rate since Elleray became head of IFAB, I can't remember the number of changes but it's the better part of 200 in the 4 years he's been in charge.
The changes in the handball rule are supposed to make things simpler for refs and to take out the individual interpretation to make it more consistent, nothing to do with VAR. Instead, it has led to overly harsh decisions and tinkled everyone off, refs included.
 
What I don't understand is why plain common seense isn't being applied. The referee has to make all manner of judgement calls on fouls every few minutes of every game. Why cannot he be allowed to make a judgement about marginal offside calls? When it comes to decisions like the Bamford one, the simple question he should ask himself is, did the player gain an undue advantage from the position he was in when the ball was kicked? The logical answer in tight situations like that is no, so I'm guessing that would have been the universal reaction to that and similar tight calls.

But whatever his decision, it's his conclusion that matters just as it does for the majority of decisions he makes.

I think I could live with that.
 
the handball rule wasn't changed because of VAR, it was changed because the football world last its mind when arsenal scored a goal that deflected in off of koscielney's arm
 
Spur of the moment said:
What I don't understand is why plain common seense isn't being applied. The referee has to make all manner of judgement calls on fouls every few minutes of every game. Why cannot he be allowed to make a judgement about marginal offside calls? When it comes to decisions like the Bamford one, the simple question he should ask himself is, did the player gain an undue advantage from the position he was in when the ball was kicked? The logical answer in tight situations like that is no, so I'm guessing that would have been the universal reaction to that and similar tight calls.

But whatever his decision, it's his conclusion that matters just as it does for the majority of decisions he makes.

I think I could live with that.
Click to expand...

because common sense is inconsistent

inconsistency leads to accusation of corruption, fear, anger, hatred, the dark side
 
The offside rule should simply be.....

Feet taken into consideration ONLY and there has to be daylight (whether that's measured in 1mm,5mm,10mm) between the attackers foot that is furthest from the goal and the defenders foot that is nearest to the goal.

Favours attackers for sure but goals are the name of the game.
 
Baleforce said:
because common sense is inconsistent

inconsistency leads to accusation of corruption, fear, anger, hatred, the dark side
Click to expand...

Are you saying you're happy with the way things are at present? If not, what changes would you make instead?

There will always be arguments but refs are making decisions based on how they see things all the time. This would be just another one out of a many every game. I really don't see the problem.
 
Spur of the moment said:
Are you saying you're happy with the way things are at present? If not, what changes would you make instead?

There will always be arguments but refs are making decisions based on how they see things all the time. This would be just another one out of a many every game. I really don't see the problem.
Click to expand...

I’m not, but this a stage we have to get through.

I’m not happy with the game being officiated on what the referee thought they saw, I want the game officiated on what actually happened.
 
ricky2tricky4city said:
The offside rule should simply be.....

Feet taken into consideration ONLY and there has to be daylight (whether that's measured in 1mm,5mm,10mm) between the attackers foot that is furthest from the goal and the defenders foot that is nearest to the goal.

Favours attackers for sure but goals are the name of the game.
Click to expand...
What if the defender's foot is obscured by the camera angle, as it was in the Bamford case? :confused:

I'd argue it comes back to my starting point. Common sense dictates that if it's not clear and obvious that the attacker is gaining an advantage, it's not offside.

What could be simpler?
 
Spur of the moment said:
What if the defender's foot is obscured by the camera angle, as it was in the Bamford case? :confused:

I'd argue it comes back to my starting point. Common sense dictates that if it's not clear and obvious that the attacker is gaining an advantage, it's not offside.

What could be simpler?
Click to expand...
I'm sure they have access to more than just one camera angle?

If you limit it to feet only being considered, there is less lining up of body parts and stupid lines.

In my version of offside, anyone falling foul of it would almost always be gaining an advantage as I've adjusted the rule to give maximum favour to attackers.

Offside is one of the rules that tech can remove any subjectivity from. Applying Common sense is subjective and in short supply it would appear.
 
I’ve just heard the talk form the ref ad VAR from the CL final.... they didn’t even check the handball with VAR as the VAR guy said it was a clear penalty straight away ... I mean the biggest game in the world and they don’t check key decisions. It’s pure arrogance
 
Bedfordspurs said:
I’ve just heard the talk form the ref ad VAR from the CL final.... they didn’t even check the handball with VAR as the VAR guy said it was a clear penalty straight away ... I mean the biggest game in the world and they don’t check key decisions. It’s pure arrogance
Click to expand...

I still struggle with accepting that decision. Ruined the game after just 20 seconds.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1328620187655024640
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back