Rangers Calling For VAR

[buster. 5,262]

It appears like another layer of costly, imperfect decision-making that ultimately depends on a human interpretation, which in effect leaves us with age old questions.

 

I'd stay clear until it appears to be functioning well.

 

 

 

 

[Rousseau 10,823]

3 minutes ago, Yorkie Bear said:

It's questionable if it takes 2 minutes to decide. When you see the referee at the screen looking at the incident played several times, it is clear that it is not a clear and obvious decision and in that case I believe an offside should not be given.

 

I think the default position should be that no offense has taken place (penalty, offside or whatever) unless it is clear and obvious.

 

I'm not arguing that VAR should not be introduced. All I'm saying is that it's use needs to be refined from what is happening at present.

In general you're correct, but I was under the impression that Offsides are different? I might be wrong there. You're offside, or you're not; there's no interpretation involved. 

 

I agree it needs refined. They've made changes already, and will continue to do so, hopefully. 

 

I'm still in favour of a challenge system, like Cricket and Tennis, whereby you get 3, 4, or 5 challenges throughout a game which the Captain can take to VAR to check. 

[craig 5,199]

10 minutes ago, Rousseau said:

It's not every goal. Players don't refer it, the VAR guys will check and inform the Referee if there's a chance, and then check it. 

 

I wouldn't be throwing out the baby with the bath water. 

 

It has it's flaws but they've made, and will continue to make changes. 

 

It's mostly the laws that people don't like -- it's just that before Ref's couldn't judge them properly. I like Souness' idea for offside, whereby an attacking player is ON, if any goalscoring part of his body is behind the defender. It gives the advantage to the attacker. 

Problem with that is that it requires a FIFA, or IFAB specifically, change to the rules because it changes the offside rule conpletely

[compo 7,229]

In Scotland VAR would be an entirely different thing it will depend on what religion the studio referee is and weather he is a Billy or a Dan that's the way Scottish football works  .

[Thinker 887]

In its current form, VAR is slow and frustrating and receives a lot of criticism for prolonging the period of doubt after any hairline decision.

 

But if that's what it takes to keep Scottish referees honest, I'd put up with it. It would be a lot more difficult for refs to go with their "unconscious bias" against us if they have to view the evidence on loop a few times before confirming the call.

[Bill 13,717]

1 hour ago, Rousseau said:

In general you're correct, but I was under the impression that Offsides are different? I might be wrong there. You're offside, or you're not; there's no interpretation involved. 

 

I agree it needs refined. They've made changes already, and will continue to do so, hopefully. 

 

I'm still in favour of a challenge system, like Cricket and Tennis, whereby you get 3, 4, or 5 challenges throughout a game which the Captain can take to VAR to check. 

Undoubtedly where it needs to end up

[Briton 314]

2 hours ago, Rousseau said:

I like Souness' idea for offside, whereby an attacking player is ON, if any goalscoring part of his body is behind the defender. It gives the advantage to the attacker. 

Great idea.  

[Walterbear 557]

The main reason for the offside rule in the first place was to provide structure to the game and stop attacking players standing on the opponents goal line.  The changes nowadays where a toe anywhere in the attacking half is found to be offside has become ridiculous. If VAR is to not ruin the game the ‘clear and obvious’ must apply because that would take 2 seconds to resolve in 99% of cases. 

Edited December 31, 2019 by Walterbear

[Yorkie Bear 633]

AR technology should only be called on to reverse “clear and obvious” mistakes regarding offside, according to the general secretary of the law-making International Football Association Board.

The weekend’s Premier League fixtures featured a number of marginal offside decisions which were checked by VAR, with goals ruled out for Wolves, Crystal Palace, Norwich, Brighton and Sheffield United.

Lukas Brud said the Ifab will reissue guidance on best practice regarding VAR to competitions which use it, probably after its annual general meeting at the end of February next year, which will include information on offsides.

In general terms, that advice will be that technology cannot definitively make a ruling on offside as it can over whether a shot has crossed the goal line, and that therefore VAR should only be used to correct “clear and obvious” mistakes.

“Clear and obvious still remains - it’s an important principle. There should not be a lot of time spent to find something marginal,” Brud told PA Sport.

“If something is not clear on the first sight, then it’s not obvious and it shouldn’t be considered. Looking at one camera angle is one thing but looking at 15, trying to find something that was potentially not even there, this was not the idea of the VAR principle. It should be clear and obvious.”

The Ifab stressed the guidance on offside will not be new advice, and will be a routine update to stakeholders that has nothing to do with events in England this weekend.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/dec/30/var-should-only-be-used-for-clear-and-obvious-offside-errors-say-law-makers

[Yorkie Bear 633]

AR technology should only be called on to reverse “clear and obvious” mistakes regarding offside, according to the general secretary of the law-making International Football Association Board.

The weekend’s Premier League fixtures featured a number of marginal offside decisions which were checked by VAR, with goals ruled out for Wolves, Crystal Palace, Norwich, Brighton and Sheffield United.

Lukas Brud said the Ifab will reissue guidance on best practice regarding VAR to competitions which use it, probably after its annual general meeting at the end of February next year, which will include information on offsides.

In general terms, that advice will be that technology cannot definitively make a ruling on offside as it can over whether a shot has crossed the goal line, and that therefore VAR should only be used to correct “clear and obvious” mistakes.

“Clear and obvious still remains - it’s an important principle. There should not be a lot of time spent to find something marginal,” Brud told PA Sport.

“If something is not clear on the first sight, then it’s not obvious and it shouldn’t be considered. Looking at one camera angle is one thing but looking at 15, trying to find something that was potentially not even there, this was not the idea of the VAR principle. It should be clear and obvious.”

The Ifab stressed the guidance on offside will not be new advice, and will be a routine update to stakeholders that has nothing to do with events in England this weekend.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/dec/30/var-should-only-be-used-for-clear-and-obvious-offside-errors-say-law-makers