Dogawful Officiating - Dave Coote suspended

[Cf]

8 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I agree with a caveat - you can score with your shoulder, head and chest.  So there is as much an advantage with those as with the feet.  Your hands and arms though - that shouldn’t be off, for me; only body parts from which you can score. 

 

The generally accepted purpose of the offside rule is to prevent unfair advantages for attackers by goal hanging and basically making the game dull. 

 

Is the attacker's shoulder a few cm ahead of the defender doesn't fall under that definition. 

 

Now the line has to be somewhere. But I reckon simply basing it off the position of the feet would be an excellent simplification to the rule. Removes all ambiguity, easy to explain, and easier to visualise as a fan. 

 

Take the Isak one the other day. He's basically in the same position as the defender. Yet he's leaning forward because as an attacker he's running in the direction of the goal. The defender is doing the opposite. They're both in short doing their jobs but I don't see what is "unfair" about an attacker being in an attack position. 

 

 

Edited January 4 by Cf

[NEEJ]

The current interpretation is about as anti-football as it could be. Cf's amendment would be a huge positive for the game, IMO. 

[toon25]

It's crazy it's not measured from the feet tbh. Simply don't understand the rule as it currently stands

[Pancrate1892]

1 hour ago, toon25 said:

It's crazy it's not measured from the feet tbh. Simply don't understand the rule as it currently stands

For me that should be the rule, it's the least complex and gives an advantage to the attacker like most people want to see. Things like you head being offside when you are running onto something 30 yards out rather than nodding it in from a yard out is absolutely stupid. 

[Pilko]

Can't wait to see what Pawson comes up with on Saturday. We're due some serious retribution after the last time we played there, the Coloccini red and bullshit pen and multiple pens denied for us. Probably the only time in that awful 2012/13-2015/16 run where we didn't deserve to get beat.

[DahnSahf]

No lines. Five seconds for VAR to look at a still picture (across the whole width of the pitch so they can't miss a defender near the touchline).

If it's not absolutely clear within five seconds that the player is offside, the play stands.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Maybe the 'parts you can score with' should be considered, but only if you actually score with them. 

 

For me handballs and dives for penalties are much more serious problems than offside though. 

 

 

Edited January 4 by AyeDubbleYoo

[Cf]

33 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Maybe the 'parts you can score with' should be considered, but only if you actually score with them. 

 

 

That's potentially even worse. Now you'd have reviews that are trying to work out did it hit the shoulder or chest? Precisely which bit? Now lets review the offside and try to line up those parts of the body.

 

Keep it simple. Feet.

[Tsunami]

I’d like to try that outside of the 18 yard box that you’re only offside if your foot is ahead of the defender, as you get the advantage of running or shooting, ahead of the defender.

 

Any other part of the body doesn’t matter. When was the last time you saw a goal scored by a knee, shoulder or even a header from outside the 18 yard box? 
 

Getting caught offside, 40 yards out, because your chest or top of the arm is ahead of the defender is bollocks. There’s no advantage.

[Nobody]

20 minutes ago, Tsunami said:

I’d like to try that outside of the 18 yard box that you’re only offside if your foot is ahead of the defender, as you get the advantage of running or shooting, ahead of the defender.

 

Any other part of the body doesn’t matter. When was the last time you saw a goal scored by a knee, shoulder or even a header from outside the 18 yard box? 
 

Getting caught offside, 40 yards out, because your chest or top of the arm is ahead of the defender is bollocks. There’s no advantage.

Yeah but also, stop complicating things It works fine the way it is tbh, just wish they would stop faffing about with tiny, tiny margins. If it's not an obvious mistake go with the on field decision. 

[Cf]

23 minutes ago, Nobody said:

Yeah but also, stop complicating things It works fine the way it is tbh, just wish they would stop faffing about with tiny, tiny margins. If it's not an obvious mistake go with the on field decision. 

 

Disagree. Especially for offsides.

 

I think the main thing making VAR really contentious this season is the notion of sticking with the on field decision.

 

Without VAR we can forgive a linesman for getting a close offside wrong, or even a ref giving a pen because he thought there was more contact than there was for Dubravka.  We have a little moan and then move on with our lives.

 

With the above you're accepting that officials on the pitch can get it wrong. They're only human and referring a football match is no easy feat.

 

But by the time you're stopping the game so you can look at a video replay I think the goal has to be making the right decision. It's not a "clear and obvious" mistake so stick with the on-field decision implies that we are accepting "lesser mistakes". I'm willing to bet we've had a number of incidents that even if the officials won't admit it in public, in hindsight the ref would have changed his decision had VAR been a bit more proactive in challenging the decision. I think VAR needs to ask the ref to look at the replay again more rather than the current system where being asked to look again means "you fucked up". Just let the ref use it to have another look so he can confirm he saw what he thought he saw. Time consuming? Probably. But we've decided we want to use replays to referee games so I think it's inevitable. I don't see how using replays but coming to the wrong decision anyway is sustainable.

 

As ever: I'd ditch VAR completely if given the chance.

 

 

Edited January 4 by Cf

[Tsunami]

2 hours ago, Nobody said:

Yeah but also, stop complicating things It works fine the way it is tbh, just wish they would stop faffing about with tiny, tiny margins. If it's not an obvious mistake go with the on field decision. 

Don’t think it would over complicate. In many ways it makes it easier as you know what part of the body (foot) you are drawing the line from and it also more accurately (imo) reflects if any advantage has been gained, which is the whole point really. You don’t get a false start in the 100m just because your head or shoulders are ahead of everyone else.

[Pata]

7 hours ago, toon25 said:

It's crazy it's not measured from the feet tbh. Simply don't understand the rule as it currently stands

They should have changed it when VAR arrived. Would’ve been impossible for the linesmen without VAR but would make it a lot clearer now with VAR. You only have to look at the grainy images they used at Anfield and IMO it’s impossible to tell where the hand starts from the shoulder. Much easier if they were only looking at the feet of both defenders and attackers.

 

Good posts from Cf, I’ve been saying the same for ages. ’Clear and obvious’ just unnecessarily muddles the water and the ref on the pitch should be allowed to make the decision after few replays from the screen.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I don’t see why they need to use the broadcast footage and not ultra HD pictures anyway. 

[leffe186]

1 hour ago, Pata said:

They should have changed it when VAR arrived. Would’ve been impossible for the linesmen without VAR but would make it a lot clearer now with VAR. You only have to look at the grainy images they used at Anfield and IMO it’s impossible to tell where the hand starts from the shoulder. Much easier if they were only looking at the feet of both defenders and attackers.

 

Good posts from Cf, I’ve been saying the same for ages. ’Clear and obvious’ just unnecessarily muddles the water and the ref on the pitch should be allowed to make the decision after few replays from the screen.

Goes back to what that ref said on the BBC feed a week or so ago (Clattenburg?). The teams and refs and FA need to sit down and thrash out a solution re: handball/offside and then all stick to it.

[bobbydazzla]

If it takes several minutes of VAR analysing close ups and frame by frame footage of a tight offside call in order to make a decision, then it's clearly so fucking close that the attacker will have gained fuck all advantage.

 

And how often does a trip to the VAR monitor result in the ref agreeing with what VAR have suggested ? Must be close to 99% ? The monitor visit is just theatre, it means fuck all in reality.

 

VAR has way to much involvement in football. It's so shite and ruining the game.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 5 by bobbydazzla

[The Prophet]

The offside law, as it currently stands, defeats the the entire purpose of it's creation. It was intended to prevent the attacker gaining an "unfair advantage", not prevent one of their body parts being fractionally ahead of the defender.

[Lush Vlad]

A clip popped up the other day of the Roy Carroll blunder.  The most famous non-goal I can think of in recent times in club football.  Bar that Atwell ghost goal, where he said it was a goal kick  

 

Anyway, it cut to Schmeichel and Hansen talking about video technology.  Saying it's fine for this situation.  But do we really want it looking at marginal offsides to the nth degree, or going back to look at penalties and 'grey' area decisions?!  Oh how right they were.

 

Sadly, I think it is only going to encroach further.  I'm guessing we will soon adopt that 3D offside that UEFA/FIFA use and we will be sticking with half your knee or shoulder ahead of the defender resulting in offside.  Plus after the Arsenal complaints, no doubt we will have it for is the ball out, is it a corner or a goal kick.  Even using it for yellow cards was mooted   

 

It also feels like we have gone too far with re-refereeing the game via VAR.  For us to now suddenly tone down the involvement.  It feels like dodgy handballs with the 'unnatural position' and 'there is contact' shite are just accepted these days for reasons to give penalties.

 

There are a lot of reasons why I have become less interested and passionate about football in the last few years.  I think the way VAR is used is certainly right up there as one of the main ones. 

[Lush Vlad]

 

[Lush Vlad]

What am I missing with the blatant red card. That they keep calling good defending? Has his shirt, then his arm, then falls over. Tripping him up from behind in the process. 
 

Yes Isak should have done better and either got across him to mean that he can’t make a challenge or at least got it far enough on his left for the shot. But it’s kind of irrelevant. He was fouled. 

[Pata]

It’s very close but don’t think he crossed the line with the shirt pulling or the arm lock and don’t think VAR overturns anything the onfield ref decided if it was in use.

 

Ballard seems like a player, love his physicality and pace.

[Jordan]

Another shocking one today. Can’t handle the occasion and giving everything the home crowd asks for. 

[Cf]

...the refs been fine. 

[arnonel]

Poor poor poor

[Lush Vlad]

53 minutes ago, Pata said:

It’s very close but don’t think he crossed the line with the shirt pulling or the arm lock and don’t think VAR overturns anything the onfield ref decided if it was in use.

 

Ballard seems like a player, love his physicality and pace.

Kind of irrelevant if you then fall over and trip the other player up who has the ball. No different to accidentally clipping someones’s heels. Still a foul.