England

[Wullie]

It is the point of the rule now though

 

The offside rule is there for a different reason now? I don't think so. It's just policed far too rigorously, and that is solely because camera technology has improved and TV now controls the game in a way it didn't before. TV used to be there to show the game, not to referee it.

 

Are you saying VAR shouldn't be used for offsides?

 

I wouldn't use it for anything, I hate it.

[Unbelievable]

That said, ideally offside would be tracked real time somehow and a decision made immediately and send to the linesman’s watch to put their flag up. Maybe it can be like that in the future with more advancement in camera and body tracking technology.

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

From my understanding of VAR, the purpose was to correct clear and obvious errors. Lingard being a millimetre offside, according to a derived line dependent on the TV angle is not a clear and obvious error imo, especially given that it would be impossible for the naked human eye to detect. Are we even sure that the technique being used to discern these sorts of marginal offsides decisions is correct in the same way that goal line technology or the hawkeye system in tennis are? I do not see how it could be possible. In theory you would need a directly overhead angle and there is no fixed line or object to use as reference for offsides.

 

The NFL has had replay for decades it is still only used for egregious errors generally. Football has had VAR for two years or so and we are already reviewing at finer margins. I am not sure it makes sense.

[Shearergol]

From my understanding of VAR, the purpose was to correct clear and obvious errors. Lingard being a millimetre offside, according to a derived line dependent on the TV angle is not a clear and obvious error imo, especially given that it would be impossible for the naked human eye to detect. Are we even sure that the technique being used to discern these sorts of marginal offsides decisions is correct in the same way that goal line technology or the hawkeye system in tennis are? I do not see how it could be possible. In theory you would need a directly overhead angle and there is no fixed line or object to use as reference for offsides.

 

The NFL has had replay for decades it is still only used for egregious errors generally. Football has had VAR for two years or so and we are already reviewing at finer margins. I am not sure it makes sense.

 

Good post

[ponsaelius]

The sport has completely jumped the shark with VAR like. The whole thing is a fucking nonsense as far as I'm concerned.

[Yorkie]

From my understanding of VAR, the purpose was to correct clear and obvious errors. Lingard being a millimetre offside, according to a derived line dependent on the TV angle is not a clear and obvious error imo, especially given that it would be impossible for the naked human eye to detect. Are we even sure that the technique being used to discern these sorts of marginal offsides decisions is correct in the same way that goal line technology or the hawkeye system in tennis are? I do not see how it could be possible. In theory you would need a directly overhead angle and there is no fixed line or object to use as reference for offsides.

 

The NFL has had replay for decades it is still only used for egregious errors generally. Football has had VAR for two years or so and we are already reviewing at finer margins. I am not sure it makes sense.

 

Thank you, this was the point I forgot to make. How was the decision to give that goal, in any way, a 'clear and obvious error'?

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Surely it’s an obvious error if the replay shows the guy to be offside?

 

Assuming the computer display of the offside line is right.

[Yorkie]

Surely it’s an obvious error if the replay shows the guy to be offside?

 

Assuming the computer display of the offside line is right.

 

How do you work that out? How can he OBVIOUSLY be a millimetre offside? There's nothing obvious about it, we're dealing with the finest of fine margins.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Well he was offside, he was called on. That’s an obviously error by the referee.

 

I’m presuming they put absolute faith in the offside line on the TV, so it’s more like a goal line decision than a matter of judgement. If not then I dunno.

[triggs]

Well he was offside, he was called on. That’s an obviously error by the referee.

 

I’m presuming they put absolute faith in the offside line on the TV, so it’s more like a goal line decision than a matter of judgement. If not then I dunno.

 

Don't like the clear and obvious thing anyway. Just get the right decision

[AyeDubbleYoo]

FWIW I don’t know the actual system. I’m just assuming that offside on the replay = offside. No matter how close.

[Yorkie]

I interpreted an 'obvious error' as being one in which the official has made a total balls up or completely missed the infringement. There's no way he could have deduced, with his naked eye, that Lingard was offside last night, therefore it wasn't an obvious error.

 

By the letter of the law, he was offside, so I suppose my issue is really with the rule itself. VAR exposes the flaw, I guess: as Wullie says, the purpose of offside was to prevent unfair advantages, not stifle perfectly good attacking play.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Yeah I see what you’re saying, I’m just guessing they treat the offside replay as absolutely black and white.

 

It’ll be a mess next season anyway, nobody from players to fans to pundits will understand what the rules actually are.

[Unbelievable]

The "clear and obvious error" reason for VAR is incomplete:

 

Operating under the philosophy of "minimal interference, maximum benefit"[2][3], the VAR system seeks to provide a way for "clear and obvious errors"and "serious missed incidents" to be corrected.

 

I would suggest an offside position from which the player scores a potential game deciding goal and that was missed by the linesman and referee is such a serious missed incident.

[Unbelievable]

I interpreted an 'obvious error' as being one in which the official has made a total balls up or completely missed the infringement. There's no way he could have deduced, with his naked eye, that Lingard was offside last night, therefore it wasn't an obvious error.

 

By the letter of the law, he was offside, so I suppose my issue is really with the rule itself. VAR exposes the flaw, I guess: as Wullie says, the purpose of offside was to prevent unfair advantages, not stifle perfectly good attacking play.

 

Again, how can an offside goal be perfectly good attacking play. By how far offside do you draw the line if not by even a marginal call? It's a sliding scale. But let's move away from the VAR element of it and assume the linesman got the decision right and put up his flag. Would that have been more acceptable for you or would you have argued that although he did get the marginal decision right there was no way for the linesman to be certain at the speed it happened?

[Fugazi]

Absolutely no need for a 3rd/4th place playoff

[Sho Time]

Y£s th£r£ is

[morla84]

Delph ??‍♂️

[Guest chopey]

Goals in this game

[toon25]

Delph ??‍♂️

 

It’s absolutely laughable, like.

[54]

Beyond this game and going into the next euros, what do people think our best team would be?

 

Thinking something like:

 

                                      Pickford

 

Alexander-Arnold        Stones      Gomez        Chillwell

 

                    Madison    Rice      Foden

 

Sterling                                                          Sancho

 

                                  Kane

[triggs]

Surely Maguire is ahead of Stones

[Gallowgate End]

Can’t wait to watch us try play through Erik Dier playing 1000000 passes across our own box again

 

Total football more like total rubbish.

[54]

The Swiss national anthem is worse then ours, somehow

[54]

Would have been class from Kane if that had went in.