Wet Spam v City

[one]

Like with the naked eye the 'unwritten rule' of benefit to the attacker

This is not the rule. It is misunderstood and it has got to a point that it is even wrongly taught that way because it is easier to understand.

The rule is "You make the decision which is likely to be least erroneous". In the vast majority of cases the attackers benefit from this rule as the attacker runs twards the goal line and defenders away from it or stationary, and the flashlag effect dictates if you think it's just offside or very close, it infact is onside. But the direction of movement is not always as described here.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

We've discussed this before, no way can the operator freeze the frame at the exact conatct with the ball by the player making the pass.

The resoloution/technology just isn't there. Like with the naked eye the 'unwritten rule' of benefit to the attacker should apply in calls THAT close IMHO.

So we’ve replaced one bloke guessing with a few more blokes guessing! Brilliant, is that what football expected?

 

[Mintyref]

I don't think it was @Sheffields Finest, but I did............

This is not the rule. It is misunderstood and it has got to a point that it is even wrongly taught that way because it is easier to understand.

The rule is "You make the decision which is likely to be least erroneous". In the vast majority of cases the attackers benefit from this rule as the attacker runs twards the goal line and defenders away from it or stationary, and the flashlag effect dictates if you think it's just offside or very close, it infact is onside. But the direction of movement is not always as described here.

Least erroneous? Surely you must be right or wrong.........? Or do you really mean the decision that will have the least negative effect on your match control....

 

[PinnerPaul]

So do you as a referee make it a habit to over rule your ARs because it was too close, or if they flag for offside do you go with them?

That's not the argument here at all. You ARE overruling the AR based on a microscopic call which may or may not be correct because of the 'built in' margin of error caused by the decision being ridiculously close.

 

[PinnerPaul]

The Guardian yesterday said of the disallowed goal, "Hear that hissing sound? It's the sound of the spirit going out of the game".

Is there a new definition of where shoulder ends and arm starts?

And is it really fair that a player wearing a size 11 boot should be onside but he'd be offside if wearing 11 and a half?

Yes I agree - in the 'old days' (last season!) even the 'pundits' 'allowed' ARS incorrect calls if the call was that tight. That approach should be in place here. Even the PL VAR ambassador Mr Shearer said that the PL has 'set the bar high' with VAR ie only using for obvious errors - didn't really have a convincing answer when Mr L said that these offside calls were far from 'obvious'

 

[zarathustra]

That's not the argument here at all. You ARE overruling the AR based on a microscopic call which may or may not be correct because of the 'built in' margin of error caused by the decision being ridiculously close.

Of course it is.

VAR is an assistant referee, it's in the name Video Assistant Referee. They do not make the final decision, the referee does.

If you think the referee should not go with the advice of the VAR because it is too close, then surely you would advise referees to not go with their "normal" assistants if there is a tight call.

Offside is not a subjective decision, it is a factual one. A player is either in an offside position when the ball is played or they aren't.

I agree that the current technology is never really going to be 100% accurate simply because of the difficulty in identifying exactly when the ball is played and whether the attacking player, or a part of their body that can legally play the ball, is offside.

But, it is no less reliable than simply relying on the ARs like they were doing last season.

 

[PinnerPaul]

Of course it is.

VAR is an assistant referee, it's in the name Video Assistant Referee. They do not make the final decision, the referee does.

If you think the referee should not go with the advice of the VAR because it is too close, then surely you would advise referees to not go with their "normal" assistants if there is a tight call.

Offside is not a subjective decision, it is a factual one. A player is either in an offside position when the ball is played or they aren't.

I agree that the current technology is never really going to be 100% accurate simply because of the difficulty in identifying exactly when the ball is played and whether the attacking player, or a part of their body that can legally play the ball, is offside.

But, it is no less reliable than simply relying on the ARs like they were doing last season.

We'll have to agree to disagree but I have to say, you can't call ANY decision - human or technology assisted - 'factual' and then go on to say (correctly) that it isn't 100% accurate.

Its a best guess, it might be better informed using technology, but its still a best guess. So in my view its better to call not offside when its so close.

 

[zarathustra]

You know what I mean.

Offside isn't subjective, it isn't opinion based, you either are offside or you aren't.

The fact the cameras used for VAR might not have a high enough definition to make it obvious whether someone, or part of someone, is on or offside in extremely tight calls doesn't change that.

 

[bloovee]

Of course it is.

VAR is an assistant referee, it's in the name Video Assistant Referee. They do not make the final decision, the referee does.

If you think the referee should not go with the advice of the VAR because it is too close, then surely you would advise referees to not go with their "normal" assistants if there is a tight call.

Offside is not a subjective decision, it is a factual one. A player is either in an offside position when the ball is played or they aren't.

I agree that the current technology is never really going to be 100% accurate simply because of the difficulty in identifying exactly when the ball is played and whether the attacking player, or a part of their body that can legally play the ball, is offside.

But, it is no less reliable than simply relying on the ARs like they were doing last season.

So if the VAR flashes up "Decision - no goal" that's after the VAR has said to the referee, ""the attacker was moving so fast the image is a bit blurred but this less-than-100% accurate technology says his shoulder is about 1mm offside" and the referee has said, "on that basis it's my decision to award the goal as (edited) most people in the ground (including me) are looking at that big screen and think he looks onside".

 

[bloovee]

Back to the retaken penalty - so if the VAR had decided there was no encroachment, the real AR would not have flagged for the GK off his line?

(Why isn't VAR on the GK's movement? I hope it's not because encroachment is hard to spot but GK off his line is easy.... So we now have goals disallowed for offside by a fraction of an inch, but penalty saves allowed even when the GK is a foot off his line.)

 

[zarathustra]

So if the VAR flashes up "Decision - no goal" that's after the VAR has said to the referee, ""the attacker was moving so fast the image is a bit blurred but this less-than-100% accurate technology says his shoulder is about 1mm offside" and the referee has said, "on that basis it's my decision to award the goal even though most people in the ground (including me) are looking at that big screen and think he looks onside".

Who cares what most people in the ground think?

Do you think the VAR said that, or do you think that the VAR simply told the referee that the player was offside, or that their foot was offside etc?

Why are you complaining about the penalty? It was retaken because a defending player encroached into the area before the ball had been kicked which is 100% correct. I didn't notice if the goal keeper was off his line for the first one, second time he did look like he came off his line early, but as the goal was scored that isn't an issue.

 

[GraemeS]

So if the VAR flashes up "Decision - no goal" that's after the VAR has said to the referee, ""the attacker was moving so fast the image is a bit blurred but this less-than-100% accurate technology says his shoulder is about 1mm offside" and the referee has said, "on that basis it's my decision to award the goal even though most people in the ground (including me) are looking at that big screen and think he looks onside".

Huh? Why on earth do you think the VAR and referee would say all that?

As other have pointed out numerous times on this thread, the VAR makes one of two recommendations: "offside" or "not offside". There's no room in the system (or for that matter, in the LOTG) for any other decision, and no reason for any level of detail above that. Any VAR waffling in my ear about "well, he's offside on this frame, but on on the next, and it's quite blurry and blah blah blah" would quite quickly be told to shut up and give me the recommendation one way or the other!

 

[one]

I don't think it was @Sheffields FinestLeast erroneous? Surely you must be right or wrong.........? Or do you really mean the decision that will have the least negative effect on your match control....

We don't all have VAR to see if we are right or wrong. And you are correct, I am either right or wrong. The problem is for the very tight calls, I don't know if I am right or wrong and I want to give myself the best chance of being right and sometimes it means negative impact on my match control. if 50-50 with no factor to sway my decision, I'd go with match control. But in a scenario I described 'studies have shown' that the striker is most likely on, so i am going to go with that decision.

 

[Mada]

I was at the game and as it stands VAR is a frustrating experience for anyone watching from within the stadium. There is absolutely no information relating to the decision making process so you stare at a purple screen until a decision is made 1-2 minutes later.

In my opinion they have rushed the implementation of VAR. The entire process of working through the decision based on replays etc needs to be shown on the screen much like cricket. That way the fans in the stadium can follow along and it will build suspense and an atmosphere but most importantly you'll have some idea as to what's going on!

Of course that cannot happen as United and Liverpool don't have screens

 

[bloovee]

Huh? Why on earth do you think the VAR and referee would say all that?

As other have pointed out numerous times on this thread, the VAR makes one of two recommendations: "offside" or "not offside". There's no room in the system (or for that matter, in the LOTG) for any other decision, and no reason for any level of detail above that. Any VAR waffling in my ear about "well, he's offside on this frame, but on on the next, and it's quite blurry and blah blah blah" would quite quickly be told to shut up and give me the recommendation one way or the other!

I don't think that. I'm pointing out that it's silly to say that giving offside is the referee's decision - i.e. a scenario in which the referee would not go with the VAR "recommendation". You can effectively see referees saying to players "No point arguing with me". If you like the fiction that it's still the referee's decision, keep pretending.

 

[Peter Grove]

The law states the penalty must be retaken if both teams encroach but VAR is only used to penalise the defending team. Not fair.

That's not what it says. The VAR protocol as written will penalise either an attacker or defender if they encroach and get involved. The exact wording is:

Encroachment can only be reviewed if:
• an attacker who encroached scores or is directly involved in a goal being scored
• a defender who encroached prevents an attacker playing or being able to play the ball in a situation where a goal might be scored

 

[bloovee]

Who cares what most people in the ground think?

Do you think the VAR said that, or do you think that the VAR simply told the referee that the player was offside, or that their foot was offside etc?

Why are you complaining about the penalty? It was retaken because a defending player encroached into the area before the ball had been kicked which is 100% correct. I didn't notice if the goal keeper was off his line for the first one, second time he did look like he came off his line early, but as the goal was scored that isn't an issue.

Because the GK was off his line. The AR should have flagged and we'd have been spared the wait for VAR on encroachment. Just because you didn't notice... (The point being that if we're going to have VAR for penalty infringements, why exclude whether the GK was off his line?)

 

[Russell Jones]

Because the GK was off his line. The AR should have flagged and we'd have been spared the wait for VAR on encroachment. Just because you didn't notice... (The point being that if we're going to have VAR for penalty infringements, why exclude whether the GK was off his line?)

I don't believe that level of GK encroachment would have been penalised in previous years and I see no reason why it needs to be now. It's so negligible that it doesn't materially impact. Whereas the encroachment clearly impacted as Rice was the first player to get to the ball

 

[zarathustra]

Because the GK was off his line. The AR should have flagged and we'd have been spared the wait for VAR on encroachment. Just because you didn't notice... (The point being that if we're going to have VAR for penalty infringements, why exclude whether the GK was off his line?)

VAR does check for goalkeeper infringements, as was shown in the women's world cup.

Was 5-0 not enough for you, was it all a big conspiracy to stop City getting 6?

Behave yourself, the keeper was off his line, and the defender encroached, you got your retake and the goal, so why are you complaining?

 

[Big Cat]

VAR does check for goalkeeper infringements, as was shown in the women's world cup.

Was 5-0 not enough for you, was it all a big conspiracy to stop City getting 6?

Behave yourself, the keeper was off his line, and the defender encroached, you got your retake and the goal, so why are you complaining?

Unlike FIFA's attempts to mar the WWC, PGMOL will not police the GK's position on PKs pedantically