VAR

[Jacko93]

I’m not sure where you got that definition but I don’t think it’s from the rule book. The action must impact an opponent’s ability to or reaction to playing the ball. There are no defenders between Unal and the other Bournemouth player (but that’s for the Tarkowksi thread). No defenders react to Unals attempt to play the ball.

This is the current rulebook definition

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

The only bit you could say there is that he has attempted to play the ball. But it becomes opinion by adding in the bit about impacting an opponent.

If your challenging for the ball within 10 yards of the goal, your very presence will have an affect on the opponent.

Easiest thing would be to say, if your offside in the box, you're offside even if you were running away.

 

[pfim]

This is the current rulebook definition

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

The only bit you could say there is that he has attempted to play the ball. But it becomes opinion by adding in the bit about impacting an opponent.

If your challenging for the ball within 10 yards of the goal, your very presence will have an affect on the opponent.

Easiest thing would be to say, if your offside in the box, you're offside even if you were running away.

I guess my question would then be, which opponent has he impacted?

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

VAR is corrupt in terms of sporting ingegrity, The powers that control EPL have purposely allowed subjectivity to be part of the decision process. Its just part of the entertainment, the villan in the pantomime... VAR is not about fairness. Its there to create content and push desired result as much as possible for the greater good of greed.

 

[MACCA75]

He makes a move towards the ball and tries to head it and the moment he does that he becomes active and is offside.

Active Involvement: A player in an offside position is penalised if they move towards the ball and attempt to play it, or challenge an opponent for the ball.

Yeah as has been pointed out, not sure what you are quoting there, but it’s not the laws of the game. It must impact an opponent, and in truth, it didn’t really.

 

[Jacko93]

I guess my question would then be, which opponent has he impacted?

Well, that's the bit thats open to interpretation. You could say, hes not in an offside position because hes not in anybodys immediate eyeline. A defender could say, ifs he's within 25 yards of the goal I'm defending, of course I'm aware and he impacts my decision making.

The overcomplicated wording of the rule gives you decision such as that one, but also decisions such as the Liverpool goal against us. Its the interpretation that causes the division.

Why not just go back to if you're off, you're off. If you're too lazy to get back onside, tough. Work harder.

I agree with the idea that if your not affecting play, get off the pitch.

As it happens. We conceded twice very quickly due to poor defending, and even if he wasnt in an offside position it likely wouldn't have made a difference, but I'm not arguing that tbf.

 

[Sharpies volley]

Not a mention of the hair pull on MOTD. If that was us they would have shown it from every camera angle known to man including satalite images from space. One camera angle they showed it from in the City game. Its blatantly unfair at best and totally corrupt at worse.

 

[Benicetoourboys]

Its put me off watching much of the Premier league to be honest.
Just watch my boys at HD & our highlights from the away games.
Love the German football on I-Player.

 

[Lanolin]

Well, that's the bit thats open to interpretation. You could say, hes not in an offside position because hes not in anybodys immediate eyeline. A defender could say, ifs he's within 25 yards of the goal I'm defending, of course I'm aware and he impacts my decision making.

The overcomplicated wording of the rule gives you decision such as that one, but also decisions such as the Liverpool goal against us. Its the interpretation that causes the division.

Why not just go back to if you're off, you're off. If you're too lazy to get back onside, tough. Work harder.

I agree with the idea that if your not affecting play, get off the pitch.

As it happens. We conceded twice very quickly due to poor defending, and even if he wasnt in an offside position it likely wouldn't have made a difference, but I'm not arguing that tbf.

I think you'd be surprised at how many goals you're asking to be chalked off if you just want literally anyone in an offside position to be deemed as interfering with play.

 

[HalfTimeSayers]

I think you'd be surprised at how many goals you're asking to be chalked off if you just want literally anyone in an offside position to be deemed as interfering with play.

Yeah it sounds the simplest solution but that can’t work can it. Barry clean through on goal goes for the corner, keeper saves it and it falls to KDH on the edge of the box to hammer home. Barry lying on the floor crying 15 yards to the right of the goal is offside, no goal.

 

[greener]

Yeah it sounds the simplest solution but that can’t work can it. Barry clean through on goal goes for the corner, keeper saves it and it falls to KDH on the edge of the box to hammer home. Barry lying on the floor crying 15 yards to the right of the goal is offside, no goal.

Like a few old buggers I remember playing before the offside rule was changed.

By reverting to offside being offside you'll just change how teams setup and play, like they had to when the rules were changed back in the day. The ref (as always) can just blow up and stop the match if a team's player has been shot by opposition snipers.

The justification for many rule changes was to make the game 'more exciting' for supporters, something I must remember during the next VAR 10min wait to decide if a players semi-erect member has put him off or a dirty look in the buildup of a goal should rule it out.

About the only rule change which had a mostly positive effect was the pass back to the keeper, but there's been some meddling with the interpretation of that as well which means it's very rarely given now.

Sadly I can only see further complications to the rules as they feed the faux dramatic media discussions and tv pundit borefests.

 

[Alanbileysfeathercut]

The clear hair pull at city?
Clear offside v Bournemouth.
Are the club sitting back and allowing this farcical stuff happen?

 

[Bebeto]

The clear hair pull at city?
Clear offside v Bournemouth.
Are the club sitting back and allowing this farcical stuff happen?

What else can we do...moyes has been very critical of referees, and his tone/mood during the last interview shows that he is literally fed up of the lack of consistency in their decisions. There is nothing we can do unfortunately as we do not have any leverage like some of the other big players have. We have become insignificant sadly.

 

[Daniel Gardner]

Personally don’t think there’s anything wrong with there 2nd. But, how the rules are written, I can imagine an almost identical goal being disallowed at some point.
I suppose with football that has always happened, but how they write the rules nowadays and the use of VAR just leaves it so open to abuse.

 

[Jacko93]

I think you'd be surprised at how many goals you're asking to be chalked off if you just want literally anyone in an offside position to be deemed as interfering with play.

It'd soon change as they stopped being so lazy. When offsides were simple, there wasn't nearly as many chalked off as there are now. Yes, they play more on the margins, but the rule was as clear.

 

[MACCA75]

It'd soon change as they stopped being so lazy. When offsides were simple, there wasn't nearly as many chalked off as there are now. Yes, they play more on the margins, but the rule was as clear.

I’m pretty old and there has always been an ‘not interfering with play’ aspect to offside in my lifetime. It’s always had an element of subjectivity.