Chris Wood (now playing for Nottingham Forest)

[Superior Acuña]

47 minutes ago, WillingtonMag said:

Would happily scrap VAR for everything  not even being able to properly cebrate a goal Is fucking ridiculous tbh, even worse for the fans In the stadium who haven't got a clue what's going on.

 

 

 

Yeah it's the goal thing for me. I don't have any principled objection to tech in football, and I'm not really arsed when VAR intervenes for red cards and penalties, but it's the impact it has on the uncertainty of a goal really counting (boring to have this debate with others again who disagree). (And I suppose you can't really can't have it for the red cards and that without also having it affect goals). For me for all the damaging effects money has had on the competition, the introduction of VAR is by far the single worst thing to happen to the game because it's soured the very best thing about football in a way nothing else could.

 

Like others, I've no issue with goalline tech and if something like that can ever exist for offsides, I'd take that, but til then I'd much prefer accepting human error is part of the game. Sadly I see no chance of a rollback, and honestly I'm really gutted.

 

 

Edited April 11, 2022 by Inferior Acuña

[morpeth mag]

Very soon offside will be a computer check in real time. Just like the ref getting an alert that the ball has crossed the line there will be an alert saying offside. Technology being trialled in junior tournaments already.

[madras]

43 minutes ago, morpeth mag said:

Very soon offside will be a computer check in real time. Just like the ref getting an alert that the ball has crossed the line there will be an alert saying offside. Technology being trialled in junior tournaments already.

Nah, there's still an element of subjectivity with some offsides, interfering with play etc.

[huss9]

ffs, how can they call the exact moment the ball is played forward?

 

think VAR should have to judge offsides by the naked eye only - no lines allowed.

then it would be only the clear and obvious that got called.

[Jackie Broon]

20 minutes ago, huss9 said:

ffs, how can they call the exact moment the ball is played forward?

 

think VAR should have to judge offsides by the naked eye only - no lines allowed.

then it would be only the clear and obvious that got called.

 

A sensor in the ball that can tell when it is kicked?

 

The problem is that officials have shown themselves totally incapable of making those judgements in a consistent and unbiased way.

[McDog]

59 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

A sensor in the ball that can tell when it is kicked?

 

The problem is that officials have shown themselves totally incapable of making those judgements in a consistent and unbiased way.

 

Yes it can, the question is can it tell where everyone is on the pitch at that moment and display that information in a digestible format they can use?

[Happinesstan]

4 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

A sensor in the ball that can tell when it is kicked?

 

The problem is that officials have shown themselves totally incapable of making those judgements in a consistent and unbiased way.

This could be interesting actually. I was going to question whether it could detect when the ball leaves the foot, but this would give the attacker a fraction of an advantage.

[Guest]

16 hours ago, ManDoon said:

Whatever happened to that “daylight” rule? Does anyone remember that? Like there had to be clear daylight between attacker and defender.

Think it was more a guideline but they should change the offside law to this for me.

[morpeth mag]

8 hours ago, madras said:

Nah, there's still an element of subjectivity with some offsides, interfering with play etc.

Of course there will still be reviews for complex decisions but incidents like the Sterling offside goal on Sunday will be called within seconds.

[Pata]

On 11/04/2022 at 15:41, ponsaelius said:

 

Saying that offsides can't be judged by human eyes ignores that:

 

1. They have been for 100+ years

2. The offside rule was never, ever intended to be measured to the Nth degree 

 

The point of the offside rule was to stop players goalhanging. Changes to the rule over time have always been to do with adjusting that basic principle (three player to two, own half not offside etc) based on the game as it has evolved.

 

If an attacker is broadly level with a defensive line then that should be absolutely fine. If it's close enough that the video needs pausing and lines drawn on a frame to measure then in my opinion it is not a clear advantage and should be allowed. Chasing perfection is a disingenuous and incorrect interpretation of the rule that has only came about owing to the existence of universal TV coverage and HD cameras.

 

 

 

We also got by with horses for thousands of years but most people use a car nowadays.

[80]

26 minutes ago, Pata said:

We also got by with horses for thousands of years but most people use a car nowadays.

But 10s of millions of people own, ride, watch, bet on and paint horses for recreation. Which is what football is, recreation. Watch engineering videos on YouTube if you're looking for the frontier of precision measurement.

[Pata]

4 minutes ago, 80 said:

But 10s of millions of people own, ride, watch, bet on and paint horses for recreation. Which is what football is, recreation. Watch engineering videos on YouTube if you're looking for the frontier of precision measurement.

I don’t watch football to see how VAR works, I just want correct decisions and don’t see the romance in incompetent officiating.

[Fantail Breeze]

4 minutes ago, Pata said:

I don’t watch football to see how VAR works, I just want correct decisions and don’t see the romance in incompetent officiating.

 

We’re not getting correct decisions.

[morpeth mag]

11 hours ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

We’re not getting correct decisions.

We are getting more correct decisions. Any change takes time to become properly effective. The problem here, and elsewhere, isn't the technology but how to develop a set of new procedures that make best use of that technology. I would suggest that a common fault is that technology is added to an existing process rather than creating a brand new process and this is what we have in football now.

[Fantail Breeze]

48 minutes ago, morpeth mag said:

We are getting more correct decisions. Any change takes time to become properly effective. The problem here, and elsewhere, isn't the technology but how to develop a set of new procedures that make best use of that technology. I would suggest that a common fault is that technology is added to an existing process rather than creating a brand new process and this is what we have in football now.

 

I won’t go over it again, but those offside decisions aren’t accurate.

 

We’re also getting decisions made because the rules have been adapted to fit VAR’s purpose. That disallowed Chelsea goal last night should never be disallowed. It was, because of VAR. Because handball doesn’t need to be intentional anymore, because of VAR. A marker down for a ‘correct decision’, but also a marker down for a shite experience and incorrect match result.

 

Also to throw in all of the random decisions made when VAR is used for fouls, red cards etc. 

 

We might be getting 5% more correct than previously, but that’s nowhere near worth implementing this system into our game and ruining it. 

[thomas]

if anything the VARccine deniers should only be surprised the monied interests in the sport took this long to be fed up with duff human officiating and seek better alternatives.

 

edit: to be clear for the slow kids, I'm not even saying VAR is necessarily better. I'm saying it's them seeking better.

 

 

Edited April 13, 2022 by thomas

[Groundhog63]

Did VAR not pick up the fact Rudiger scored from a corner that wasn't a corner?

[The College Dropout]

Tbf I don't mind the handball rule. When a ball strikes the hand in the lead up to a goal, it often helps the player "control" the ball before shooting / passing. Even if totally unintentional.

[Shearergol]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

Tbf I don't mind the handball rule. When a ball strikes the hand in the lead up to a goal, it often helps the player "control" the ball before shooting / passing. Even if totally unintentional.

 

But on the flip side, an accidental handball can prevent a goal too. Should that be a penalty every time then?

[Guest neesy111]

It's ridiculous you can have a seperate rule for when the incident leads up to a goal.

 

Either all handballs are penalised or back to the old rules.

[RodneyCisse]

Can we update chris’ name on the thread title for the Woods lot?

[The College Dropout]

37 minutes ago, Shearergol said:

 

But on the flip side, an accidental handball can prevent a goal too. Should that be a penalty every time then?

That's easier to force. You can kick the ball towards someone's hand or your hand can be to your body and still hit your hand when attempting a block. Not a like for like example.

 

Even if it's not intentional, if your hands are away from your body and you block a goal bound shot with your hand - yeh it's a penalty . That's always been a penalty.

[Shearergol]

31 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

That's easier to force. You can kick the ball towards someone's hand or your hand can be to your body and still hit your hand when attempting a block. Not a like for like example.

 

Even if it's not intentional, if your hands are away from your body and you block a goal bound shot with your hand - yeh it's a penalty . That's always been a penalty.

 

So what if a striker is stood with his hands to his body, a defender kicks the ball at him attempting to clear, it hits his hand and he's able to then score? That's your like-for-like example. What then?

[The College Dropout]

36 minutes ago, Shearergol said:

 

So what if a striker is stood with his hands to his body, a defender kicks the ball at him attempting to clear, it hits his hand and he's able to then score? That's your like-for-like example. What then?

Well no because defending is not attacking so it’s not like for like.  
 

Using your body to block the ball is a part of defending. If your arms are to your body and hits your arm. No that’s not a penalty.  
 

Using your hand to control footballs is not a part of attacking. 

[Shearergol]

13 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Well no because defending is not attacking so it’s not like for like.  
 

Using your body to block the ball is a part of defending. If your arms are to your body and hits your arm. No that’s not a penalty.  
 

Using your hand to control footballs is not a part of attacking. 

 

That's completely not what I said.