VAR

[Orikoru]

Likewise Grant, I agree with most of your post.

The only thing I'd say about handball, is that I don't think the rules should be made based on the officiating point of view.
Granted, the handball rule is now extremely easy for them, and the VARs. However, the rules surely have to be based around what's right for the game and what will improve the game.

I just didn't see a problem with "clear and obvious", for handballs. We now have the VARs who can quickly check to see if it was.
In your example of defenders coming out with their hands behind their backs, I think it's admirable if you can. John Terry was the master at flinging himself 'naturally' so that his arms were defending too. That imo, is cheating, even if the momentum of the lunge causes the arms to get in the way.

Agree. I don't think any contact with your arm in the build to a goal should be punished. If you score with your hand/arm it should be ruled out even if accidental I think, but otherwise the old rule of it being a deliberate action - moving towards the ball or having your arm outstretched from your body - was fine. Also not really that difficult to see on a video, I have no idea why they felt the need to change it.

 

[Grant85]

Likewise Grant, I agree with most of your post.

The only thing I'd say about handball, is that I don't think the rules should be made based on the officiating point of view.
Granted, the handball rule is now extremely easy for them, and the VARs. However, the rules surely have to be based around what's right for the game and what will improve the game.

I just didn't see a problem with "clear and obvious", for handballs. We now have the VARs who can quickly check to see if it was.
In your example of defenders coming out with their hands behind their backs, I think it's admirable if you can. John Terry was the master at flinging himself 'naturally' so that his arms were defending too. That imo, is cheating, even if the momentum of the lunge causes the arms to get in the way.

I think you have to consider officiating when making rule changes. Remember football is not just the dozen or so games you might watch from the top leagues and Champions league every few weeks... it is hundreds of properly arranged games at all levels and age groups. With referees ranging from semi-pro, experienced amateurs and parents helping out to ensure a game goes ahead.

I'd imagine that the changes to offside you propose would actually be harder to officiate on in terms of assessing close calls as possibly going to be harder to see where the line is.

Also, I think it's right that rules should, where possible, have less subjectivity. i.e. a goal is a goal and really 2 people could not look at a goal and have different views on whether it crossed the line or not.

Obviously with fouls, there is always going to be an element of subjectivity but rules have certainly been strengthened with regards to difference between a yellow or red card offence.

But with handball, that is something that the subjectivity can be taken out of.

 

[GB72]

TO my mind, VAR is only useful if there is an offence with a definitive infringement. Looking at matters that remain subject to opinion means that you do not eradicate the risk of a wrong decision as one can still be made. Part of this is that the rules were drafted without VAR in mind and so, perhaps, changes need to be made to take into account the use of new technology.

I also feel that offences that are only visible in super slow motion should be ignored. No human eye can see when offside is triggered by a kneecap etc and so using technology to make judgements that could not possibly be made on the pitch detracts from the game.

It is slightly ironic that it is video technology that has brought about the purported need for VAR. Mistakes were made in the past but they were not filmed from dozens of angles and replayed extensively in super slow motion with added graphic enhancements. The use of this technology has made it so as refs are being expected to see things that most people would never pick up at normal pace of play.

People look to rugby as an example of how it works but the nature of the game is more stop/start and lends itself far better to video refs. You also have the difference in advantage rules in that it is not a finite decision and so the ref can let play go on for a bit, see how things pan out then have a look at an possible infringement once play has broken down.

 

[Orikoru]

But with handball, that is something that the subjectivity can be taken out of.

It can, but it is not fair on the players to do so. You can't just say 'that hit your hand so it's handball' if it was wellied at him from one yard and his arms were pinned to his body, because he could not have possibly done anything about it then. There needs to be a human element, it's never black and white.

 

[Orikoru]

TO my mind, VAR is only useful if there is an offence with a definitive infringement. Looking at matters that remain subject to opinion means that you do not eradicate the risk of a wrong decision as one can still be made. Part of this is that the rules were drafted without VAR in mind and so, perhaps, changes need to be made to take into account the use of new technology.

I also feel that offences that are only visible in super slow motion should be ignored. No human eye can see when offside is triggered by a kneecap etc and so using technology to make judgements that could not possibly be made on the pitch detracts from the game.

It is slightly ironic that it is video technology that has brought about the purported need for VAR. Mistakes were made in the past but they were not filmed from dozens of angles and replayed extensively in super slow motion with added graphic enhancements. The use of this technology has made it so as refs are being expected to see things that most people would never pick up at normal pace of play.

People look to rugby as an example of how it works but the nature of the game is more stop/start and lends itself far better to video refs. You also have the difference in advantage rules in that it is not a finite decision and so the ref can let play go on for a bit, see how things pan out then have a look at an possible infringement once play has broken down.

Agree. If the player's body - not one toe or a shoulder but their centre of gravity let's say - is ahead of the defenders, then make that offside. It should be visible easily from one view of a replay as well, so the added bonus would be VAR not taking as long as it does now. If you have to stop-start the replay several times to see if they are a millimetre offside, then just stop the process because that shouldn't be enough to overrule or change the referee's decision.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

It can, but it is not fair on the players to do so. You can't just say 'that hit your hand so it's handball' if it was wellied at him from one yard and his arms were pinned to his body, because he could not have possibly done anything about it then. There needs to be a human element, it's never black and white.

It works in hockey. If it hits your foot it is a free hit. If it hits your foot in the D it is a penalty corner. If it hits your foot and it is a shot on goal or you deliberately stick your foot out to stop the ball in the D it is a penalty. No subjectivity, no discussion. It can work this way with football, it just needs the sport to have a different mindset and accept the change. Football, fans and players, don't seem to be very good at adapating to change though.

 

[Grant85]

It can, but it is not fair on the players to do so. You can't just say 'that hit your hand so it's handball' if it was wellied at him from one yard and his arms were pinned to his body, because he could not have possibly done anything about it then. There needs to be a human element, it's never black and white.

if your arms are pinned to your body, it will never be hand ball - unless the ball has travelled a large distance.

 

[Orikoru]

It works in hockey. If it hits your foot it is a free hit. If it hits your foot in the D it is a penalty corner. If it hits your foot and it is a shot on goal or you deliberately stick your foot out to stop the ball in the D it is a penalty. No subjectivity, no discussion. It can work this way with football, it just needs the sport to have a different mindset and accept the change. Football, fans and players, don't seem to be very good at adapating to change though.

It's a bit different when no equivalent 'penalty corner' exists. From what you're saying you'd be happy if the ball was hoofed at a defender's arm just inside the corner of the 18 yard box and that was given as a penalty? Or would you maybe change the rules to make that an indirect free kick inside the box?

 

[Orikoru]

if your arms are pinned to your body, it will never be hand ball - unless the ball has travelled a large distance.

So we're back on subjectivity then anyway. As you'd have to judge if they were 'pinned' or a cm away, and whether that's enough to make it handball.

 

[GB72]

It's a bit different when no equivalent 'penalty corner' exists. From what you're saying you'd be happy if the ball was hoofed at a defender's arm just inside the corner of the 18 yard box and that was given as a penalty? Or would you maybe change the rules to make that an indirect free kick inside the box?

This is always going to be the issue when intention comes into a decision. No amount of video evidence will provide a definitive response on intention.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

It's a bit different when no equivalent 'penalty corner' exists. From what you're saying you'd be happy if the ball was hoofed at a defender's arm just inside the corner of the 18 yard box and that was given as a penalty? Or would you maybe change the rules to make that an indirect free kick inside the box?

That is a good compromise. A penalty is a very severe punishment, an indirect free kick a half way house. A penalty would be for a handball where the shot was going towards goal, anything else is an indirect free kick.

My point was there are sports where this type of rule exists and has worked that way for years without issue. It is black or white, no grey no discussion.

 

[Grant85]

So we're back on subjectivity then anyway. As you'd have to judge if they were 'pinned' or a cm away, and whether that's enough to make it handball.

No - that is clearly not subjectivity.

Subjectivity is whether it was intentional or if he gained an advantage or not.

 

[Orikoru]

That is a good compromise. A penalty is a very severe punishment, an indirect free kick a half way house. A penalty would be for a handball where the shot was going towards goal, anything else is an indirect free kick.

My point was there are sports where this type of rule exists and has worked that way for years without issue. It is black or white, no grey no discussion.

Yeah, understood, but it would need the indirect free kick in the box otherwise the punishment far outweighs the crime.

 

[Orikoru]

No - that is clearly not subjectivity.

Subjectivity is whether it was intentional or if he gained an advantage or not.

Well it's anything that isn't black or white. You also said "unless the ball has travelled a large distance" - so that has to be debated as well. Is a yard a large enough distance? Three yards? All of that is subjective.

 

[howbow88]

I think people are overstating this "you can't celebrate goals anymore" point. For 90% of goals there is no question of it being ruled it because there is nothing dubious about it. If some nods it in and they're possibly offside, then yeah it's probably going to be reviewed, that's all. Ones like the Jesus disallowed goal will be extremely rare I should think, it's not as if people were often scoring goals with the ball deflecting off someone's arm in the old rules were they?? How often did that happen last season? Celebrating a goal is an involuntary reaction anyway. If anything, you get to celebrate it twice - once when it goes in, and again when it's not overturned.

It's an involuntary reaction I agree, but your mind learns and you will end up reacting accordingly. I think goals will end up becoming like winning a penalty if this continues. You celebrate winning a penalty, but it's not the same as a goal because you know there's a chance your team might miss it. I think goals will become like that. The ball hitting the back of the net is now just the first stage of actually scoring a goal, and that sounds awful to me.

 

[Orikoru]

It's an involuntary reaction I agree, but your mind learns and you will end up reacting accordingly. I think goals will end up becoming like winning a penalty if this continues. You celebrate winning a penalty, but it's not the same as a goal because you know there's a chance your team might miss it. I think goals will become like that. The ball hitting the back of the net is now just the first stage of actually scoring a goal, and that sounds awful to me.

Again it's only certain goals. Like the ones where people thought they were borderline offside and they would glance at the linesman before celebrating - now that process is a little longer as you wait for VAR confirmation. But if someone takes the ball and smacks it in from the edge of the box, there can't really be any doubt there so I'm sure they will continue to celebrate immediately. VAR isn't checking EVERY goal scored is it? Maybe goals from corners or goalmouth scrambles you might have some doubt, but a lot of goals you will surely know there's nothing to check on VAR.

 

[Deleted member 21784]

Saw Rooney got sent off by VAR. another plus for me (not because it’s rooney) I’m fed up of players getting away with snide hits etc only to be banned after the game when the panel see it.. too often it’s happened against us.

Augero few seasons ago. Should be off like 20th min for an elbow. Missed , banned 3 games after

Noble was sent off for a tackle against Liverpool (lucky we still won that game) and was withdrawn after the game but still could have affected the match

 

[clubchamp98]

Saw Rooney got sent off by VAR. another plus for me (not because it’s rooney) I’m fed up of players getting away with snide hits etc only to be banned after the game when the panel see it.. too often it’s happened against us.

Augero few seasons ago. Should be off like 20th min for an elbow. Missed , banned 3 games after

Noble was sent off for a tackle against Liverpool (lucky we still won that game) and was withdrawn after the game but still could have affected the match

I agree .
Not convinced by var !
But they are getting most right so it’s hard to argue.
As said they have cocked up on a few rules.
But if VAR spots a straight red I am all for it.

 

[howbow88]

Again it's only certain goals. Like the ones where people thought they were borderline offside and they would glance at the linesman before celebrating - now that process is a little longer as you wait for VAR confirmation. But if someone takes the ball and smacks it in from the edge of the box, there can't really be any doubt there so I'm sure they will continue to celebrate immediately. VAR isn't checking EVERY goal scored is it? Maybe goals from corners or goalmouth scrambles you might have some doubt, but a lot of goals you will surely know there's nothing to check on VAR.

2 things:

Glancing at the linesman takes 2 seconds. VAR can take up to 120, if not more. 'A little bit longer' - no, potentially much longer.

And yes, VAR checks every single goal scored. So that belter from 30 yards will still be under as much scrutiny as the Man City goal the other day.

 

[doublebogey7]

That is

Again it's only certain goals. Like the ones where people thought they were borderline offside and they would glance at the linesman before celebrating - now that process is a little longer as you wait for VAR confirmation. But if someone takes the ball and smacks it in from the edge of the box, there can't really be any doubt there so I'm sure they will continue to celebrate immediately. VAR isn't checking EVERY goal scored is it? Maybe goals from corners or goalmouth scrambles you might have some doubt, but a lot of goals you will surely know there's nothing to check on VAR.

Sorry but you are wrong. I sat no more that 40 yes from where the Wolves non goal was scored. Not one person either on the field of play or in the ground could see an infringement, Wolves players celebrated with their fans. All players were back in position for the kick off before it became apparent that something was wrong, the goal being chalked off about 30 seconds later. So clearly all goals are checked by VAR. That will probably be the last time Wolves fans will ever celebrate like they did that day. Ok as a Fox we benefitted that day, but I'm not sure we can ever now lose ourselves when celebrating a goal, as a result of witnessing the Wolves experience.

The Man C non goal was the same.