DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 14221--------------------------------------------------
Re: VAR - Spurs vs. Brighton
DIR By: Matt
Date: December 29, 2019, 3:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: They Are Getting Worse link ---
>
> [quote author=bmb link=topic=1260.msg14180#msg14180
date=1577593217]
> [quote author=They Are Getting Worse
link=topic=1260.msg14178#msg14178 date=1577578925]
> Ok so clear & obvious does not apply to offside, why are all
of these good goals being ruled out by VAR then? Their
imaginary lines, where a hand or hair molecule is offside,
magnifying in to mm to see anything that's offside, spending 2-3
minutes to decide, then inevitably ruling the goal out. What
exactly is being achieved here? Fans hate it, assistant
referees hate it, it's against the spirit of the game, and good
goals are being ruled out because whilst their bodies are
invariably onside, a part of their body such as a hand or a hair
molecule isn't!
>
> It's not football anymore.
>
--- End Quote ---
Just being pedantic, their hand can be offside all day long & it
not make a jot of difference - it's only parts of your body that
you can legally score a goal with that count as to whether it's
offside or not. Other than that I agree with the sentiment!
If VAR is to be used to determine offside then perhaps IFAB need
to rewrite Law 11 in order to find a better compromise (not sure
that's the word I'm looking for but it will have to do) between
upholding the spirit of the game & following a strict
interpretation of the LOTG if that makes sense - if not tough, I
know what I mean! ;D
[/quote]
But they're ruling goals out when a hand is offside. You have
to give the benefit with the attacker were it's too close to
call. Graeme Souness came up with an interesting point - if any
part of your body is onside, rule should be re-written to allow
the goal, might this work better, quicker and easier to spot?
[/quote]
Well it's clearly not. It's being disallowed because a goal
scoring part of your body is offside.
*edited to fix the quote thingamajigga!
#Post#: 14240--------------------------------------------------
Re: VAR - Spurs vs. Brighton
DIR By: RCG
Date: December 30, 2019, 1:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It does seem with offside we have returned to the 70s/80s where
'level' was offside. Then we were told we needed to see a
"clear" part of the attacker to give offside through to the
early 2000s instruction of 'daylight' between players and the
benefit of doubt to favour the attacking side. All these changes
encouraged attacking play.
Too many goals are being disallowed by margins that cannot be
seen to the naked eye, so will not be picked up in any other
circumstances. Is this where we have ended up?
#Post#: 14291--------------------------------------------------
Re: VAR - Spurs vs. Brighton
DIR By: Shy Talk
Date: December 30, 2019, 1:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Matt link ---
>
> CLEAR AND OBVIOUS DOESN'T APPLY TO OFFSIDE
>
--- End Quote ---
Oh really?
Lukas Brud, general secretary of the International Football
Association Board, said: "With VAR we see some things that are
going in a direction that we may need to re-adjust."
He said the body would reissue guidance on VAR's use after its
annual general meeting in February.
"If you spend multiple minutes trying to identify whether it is
offside or not, then it's not clear and obvious and the original
decision should stand," he said.
He added: "What we really need to stress is that 'clear and
obvious' applies to every single situation that is being
reviewed by the VAR or the referee.
#Post#: 14306--------------------------------------------------
Re: VAR - Spurs vs. Brighton
DIR By: Matt
Date: December 30, 2019, 4:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Shy Talk link ---
>
> [quote author=Matt link=topic=1260.msg14136#msg14136
date=1577483104]
> CLEAR AND OBVIOUS DOESN'T APPLY TO OFFSIDE
>
--- End Quote ---
Oh really?
Lukas Brud, general secretary of the International Football
Association Board, said: "With VAR we see some things that are
going in a direction that we may need to re-adjust."
He said the body would reissue guidance on VAR's use after its
annual general meeting in February.
"If you spend multiple minutes trying to identify whether it is
offside or not, then it's not clear and obvious and the original
decision should stand," he said.
He added: "What we really need to stress is that 'clear and
obvious' applies to every single situation that is being
reviewed by the VAR or the referee.
[/quote]
Well clearly IFAB are at disagreement with PGMOL.
#Post#: 14312--------------------------------------------------
Re: VAR - Spurs vs. Brighton
DIR By: RCG
Date: December 31, 2019, 1:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Not for the first time
Surely the law makers and world governing body have the "right"
to insist on how a system is used? (Subject to the usual trials)
There is very little difference with how TMO is used in rugby -
in England they do chat a little more in running conversation
with the refs, but in terms of language used, situations used
for etc its all the same
#Post#: 14315--------------------------------------------------
Re: VAR - Spurs vs. Brighton
DIR By: Toprefm
Date: December 31, 2019, 4:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50944416
Seems the IFAB think PL being too forensic
#Post#: 14320--------------------------------------------------
Re: VAR - Spurs vs. Brighton
DIR By: bmb
Date: December 31, 2019, 6:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Toprefm link ---
>
>
HTML https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50944416
>
> Seems the IFAB think PL being too forensic
>
--- End Quote ---
Something we all seem to agree on!
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page