VAR


terryefc said:
No - he only becomes offside when the ball is played to him and he's in an offside position.
This was more about the timing for when a player is offside - i.e. at what point is the pass played and is the player who receives it offside when the pass is played. The rule seem to imply that the first touch to play the pass is material whereas I think it should be when the ball leaves his foot. Split seconds I know but it does make a difference.
Click to expand...

Foe as long as I was interested in, and could understand the rules it was always the moment in play when the ball leaves the control of the player making the pass. Then they changed it that it then only becomes an offside decision when the receiving player becomes active in the phase of play.

You know what, I don't even know anymore.
 
Jacko93 said:
That's changed.

So, if I control the ball when my teamate is offside, and keep control of it until he gets onside in one movement, then play it through, he still offside?

Why do they change things that don't need changing.
Click to expand...
They added it in 2017 simply because of the onset of VAR and the exact conversation about frames we've had here, and to be fair it does clarify it.

There was that Swedish team who said they'd found a loophole, balancing the ball on their feet while the attacker runs into an offside position, but I would hope that the refs would just use a bit of common sense in that situation.
 

RD2910 said:
They added it in 2017 simply because of the onset of VAR and the exact conversation about frames we've had here, and to be fair it does clarify it.

There was that Swedish team who said they'd found a loophole, balancing the ball on their feet while the attacker runs into an offside position, but I would hope that the refs would just use a bit of common sense in that situation.
Click to expand...

But they can't, they just apply the rules as they are and if they don't, then it can be challenged.
Just leave it as it was and there's no loopholes. There is complete clarity as it was, the moment the ball has last contact is just as easy to see as first contact.

This is as clear a case as you'll need of people trying to justify a role in order to keep being paid.
 
Jacko93 said:
But they can't, they just apply the rules as they are and if they don't, then it can be challenged.
Just leave it as it was and there's no loopholes. There is complete clarity as it was, the moment the ball has last contact is just as easy to see as first contact.

This is as clear a case as you'll need of people trying to justify a role in order to keep being paid.
Click to expand...
I'm a bit confused here to be honest. Surely to literally everyone who isn't watching replays in slow motion, the first point of contact of someone kicking a ball is exactly the same as the last point of contact. Pre-VAR, no one had bothered to make it clear.

I don't really get the justification of the role either, football people are always clamouring for rules to be changed. Are you saying there shouldn't be anyone who maintains the rules?
 
RD2910 said:
I'm a bit confused here to be honest. Surely to literally everyone who isn't watching replays in slow motion, the first point of contact of someone kicking a ball is exactly the same as the last point of contact. Pre-VAR, no one had bothered to make it clear.

I don't really get the justification of the role either, football people are always clamouring for rules to be changed. Are you saying there shouldn't be anyone who maintains the rules?
Click to expand...

Before VAR it was clear. It was last contact, it always had been since it was invented as a rule The fact that it is in most cases the same moment makes it seem strange that they would change it. They're trying to solve problems that didn't exist.

Also, maintenance doesn't mean change. It actually mean to keep something in working order.

I'm not looking for an argument here btw, it'd be daft to argue about it tbh, just seems odd to me that a rule that has always worked would change.

People generally look for rule changes for only one reason, and that is for the benefit of themselves and the detriment of others.
 
If they are going to keep VAR I'd rather it was limited to something like goal line and each team be given the option of 3 VAR checks per game. Everything else is down to the onfield official.

Managers would only risk using one of the 3 if they thought it was clear and obvious, incase they needed them later for something worse etc.

I don't follow football to hear about refs and that's all everyone is talking about after every round of games. Sick of it!
 

blulouie said:
View attachment 240899
Sounds like a justification to me .

You have been using the subjective term as if that is the right way and shouldn't be questioned.
We need to question all of these decisions as a lot never go our way , yet favour many other teams.

We agree VAR is not fit for purpose and should be updated ,simplified or scrapped.
That doesn't mean while we have it we should just say nothing because it's a different opinion than the officials running it.
Click to expand...
You just totally misunderstood my point until now. I said about 10 times that I was just using the Beto one as an example because it was one where some people think it’s a pen and some don’t so it illustrated the point quite well but you were that worked up about thinking I was saying every decision against us is fair that you didn’t actually read it.
 
Abertonian said:
If they are going to keep VAR I'd rather it was limited to something like goal line and each team be given the option of 3 VAR checks per game. Everything else is down to the onfield official.

Managers would only risk using one of the 3 if they thought it was clear and obvious, incase they needed them later for something worse etc.

I don't follow football to hear about refs and that's all everyone is talking about after every round of games. Sick of it!
Click to expand...

Yeah I like the idea of it being more akin to a challenge in tennis.
 
JimmyK said:
You just totally misunderstood my point until now. I said about 10 times that I was just using the Beto one as an example because it was one where some people think it’s a pen and some don’t so it illustrated the point quite well but you were that worked up about thinking I was saying every decision against us is fair that you didn’t actually read it.
Click to expand...
Not so fella , I read it all.

My point from the very start has been if you leave " subjective " to people in authority it leaves it wide open to incompetence , bias and corruption.
This is why we are harshly done by in regards to the on field decisions we have suffered for many years.
If you think it's pointless questioning it you allow this to carry on.

Klopp , Guardiola even Arteta do not put up with this. Nether did Ferguson or Wenger.
But we just take it on the chin & roll over for a belly rub.
If you've missed this point I suggest you are not reading the room.
Those 2 decisions in the Palace game are prime examples.
 
Abertonian said:
If they are going to keep VAR I'd rather it was limited to something like goal line and each team be given the option of 3 VAR checks per game. Everything else is down to the onfield official.

Managers would only risk using one of the 3 if they thought it was clear and obvious, incase they needed them later for something worse etc.

I don't follow football to hear about refs and that's all everyone is talking about after every round of games. Sick of it!
Click to expand...
I'd just prefer them to copy Rubgy but they are too stuck up their own butts for that
Refs mic'd up, review on pitch on big screen, everything out in the open
And get rid of the 'clear and obvious' nonsense because that is only used when it suits them
Either the decision is wrong or it isn't
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top