The Ref Stop

VAR? Sorted now

The Ref Stop
So they don't want to get away from the drama of the magic lines. I still like the MLS version of not using lines and relying on what is clear and obvious using eyes.

But then how are the thicker lines used--do they create an "inconclusive zone" in which the call on the field stands (including an OS call) or does it create more places where the VAR says it is not OS and overrules the AR?
 
socal lurker said:
So they don't want to get away from the drama of the magic lines. I still like the MLS version of not using lines and relying on what is clear and obvious using eyes.

But then how are the thicker lines used--do they create an "inconclusive zone" in which the call on the field stands (including an OS call) or does it create more places where the VAR says it is not OS and overrules the AR?
Click to expand...
A DMZ? :)
 
Just making the line thicker makes absolutely no difference unless it is accompanied by some other rules like "if the lines touch, it is not offside". And even that has its own issues discussed here in past threads. Even now with the thinner lines, when they touch, they still call offsides.

Sometimes I wonder if they run these ideas past anyone with some relvant technology background ore even think about what the end to end solution would look like.
 
As I understand from other things I've read on this topic, it should be that if the lines touch or overlap, then the players will be judged as level and so there would be no offside.

I think you're right that up till now, they'd been trying to 'force' a decision by using the thinnest lines possible and even moving those slightly to ensure a distinction between them. For instance you could sometimes see as they showed you the VAR footage, that they would start with the lines in one position but then adjust both the lines on the ground and the lines coming down from the players' bodies, to ensure there was a gap between them. I don't recall them ever drawing two lines that were absolutely on top of each other, even though we knew that occasionally, that should have been the case.

They must have a specific way of working it out already in mind though, because Mike Riley when he was talking about this, was able to say precisely how many goals that were ruled out for a marginal offside in the Premier League so far this season, would have been allowed to stand if thicker lines were in use.
 
the line could be a metre thick it is not going to stop the argument on those decisions which are tight
 
Tino Best said:
the line could be a metre thick it is not going to stop the argument on those decisions which are tight
Click to expand...

I don't know about that - if the lines were a metre thick, no-one would be called offside until they were at least a metre offside so they wouldn't be the infinitesimally small "toe nail" or "armpit hair" type of decisions that everyone is complaining about.

There might be an argument over whether they're 99cm or a metre offside but that would be an argument of a different nature. It wouldn't be about the player not being offside by a sufficient margin.
 
Who do we apply for our points back then for our 7 'thin line' contrived, flawed, dodgy decision reversals then.... ;)
 
So far every new idea about a 'new offside' has the same problem of people still being millimetres on/offside. Not many people (at least non-referees) realised how close decisions can be and VAR has just highlighted that imo. Now it's been introduced, it's going to remain the same in terms of tight offside decisions. The no line idea is a good idea, but what it's still the same and things will be up for even more debate
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top