All about rules ... changes, enforcement, VAR etc

thornburyiron

I see that the refs chief has said VAR has made 4 major mistakes. One of them was our not getting a penalty against Norwich

grey_til_I_dye

Link to story here: https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/11807734/var-premier-league-referee-chief-mike-riley-admits-four-mistakes-this-season

jay_in_cpt

How Mavis Riley ever became chief I will never know, IMO he was a useless ref in his day....

buffybegood

Interesting that he says only 4 mistakes out of 230 referrals, I would say 4 mistakes out of 10 clear and obvious ref mistakes, or 40%, which is dreadful imo.

MrsGrey

Interesting that they have been quite open about it. Presumably, the VAR bar will be a bit lower now.

Of those 4 admitted errors, 2 seem not to have made a massive difference (we and Man City won convincingly). But Watford and Bournemouth can feel v aggrieved imo.

Newcastle's equaliser deprived Watford of all 3 points (game finished 1-1) and the Leicester v Bournemouth game was 2-1when Tielemens should have been sent off... he later provided the assist for Vardy's 2nd goal.

Expat_Hammer

Having had a quick "Alderz" moment :biggrin:
had we been awarded the penalty and scored from it, we would now be fifth instead of the gooners.

But if we'd only let Citeh get three we would have been fourth

alderz

Expat_Hammer said:

Having had a quick "Alderz" moment :biggrin:
had we been awarded the penalty and scored from it, we would now be fifth instead of the gooners.

But if we'd only let Citeh get three we would have been fourth

:stats:

IronHerb

MrsGrey said:

Of those 4 admitted errors, 2 seem not to have made a massive difference (we and Man City won convincingly). But Watford and Bournemouth can feel v aggrieved imo.

Ahem. I had Nobes in my FF team and that was a cert 5 points. :weep:

And possibly Haller for the assist.

puddleglumhammers

I also think VAR should have a similar rule to cricket, where if the replay leaves some doubt over a decision you revert to "umpire's call" and go with what the original decision was. The replays we saw could prove neither offside or onside, so just go back to what the linesman and referee decided.

Hamstew

puddleglumhammers said:

I also think VAR should have a similar rule to cricket, where if the replay leaves some doubt over a decision you revert to "umpire's call" and go with what the original decision was. The replays we saw could prove neither offside or onside, so just go back to what the linesman and referee decided.

Which is what they do with penalties I believe?

epsom_bubbles

Talking to the Palace supporters at work, all would have been happy with a draw, but all agreed that VAR should not be used if offsides are going to be decided by the width of a bootlace. Unless of course it's in West Ham's favour (I didn't tell them that bit

alderz

puddleglumhammers said:

I also think VAR should have a similar rule to cricket, where if the replay leaves some doubt over a decision you revert to "umpire's call" and go with what the original decision was. The replays we saw could prove neither offside or onside, so just go back to what the linesman and referee decided.

I can see why people want this approach, and honestly I kind of do too. However, the difference with the umpires call thing, is that in the cricket example you have the element of doubt because the ball hasn't travelled that far yet. With offside, in theory at least, there should be no judgement required - it's either off or not.

I think the issue isn't around how VAR applies the rule, it's that it highlights how ridiculous the rule is. The amount of goals teams like City score where the striker stands a mile offside for Phase 1, but then has the ball cut back to him for Phase 2 where the defenders can't possibly get back to mark him due to being so far offside, for example, is absurd.

For me, the application of the rule has to be to the letter of the law, it's just that the letters may as well be written in wingdings for the amount of sense they make.

epsom_bubbles

I agree Alderz. I think there should be blue sky between the players, thus showing that the offender has an advantage. It would be easier for the linesman as well.

Kuchinghammer

Alderz: it is a judgement call though. The VAR official makes a judgement of when he thinks the ball is kicked. Or is being kicked. Or when boot has impact on the ball. Or when ball starts to travel. If this judgement is a fraction of a second later or earlier, the whole scenario changes.
Maybe they need a hotspot for that moment, as in cricket...

alderz

That’s why I said in theory. Because, again, it isn’t a judgement call on paper. Either the pass has been made or it hasn’t. I think we can argue whether or not the technology works to pin point the exact moment, but they did so much testing over such a long period of time before bringing this stuff in, so you’d imagine the authorities must be satisfied?

CleverTrevor

It also depends on where they start the lines. IMO our line was ahead of our ‘knee’ and theirs was just behind their ‘knee’. So the mm would have been in our favour. Having said that I agree we should go back to ‘daylight’ otherwise there is no real advantage.

Fortuneseeker

Apologies but I can't remember who actually said this but someone said if a player in an offside position isn't deemed as active or interfering with play then what the hell is he doing there. If you look at the goal Palace scored on Saturday Zaha is clearly ahead of our last man.

PrestonHammer

It was Brian Clough.

IronHerb

No, it was definitely Zaha.

Adam

I remember this from the first game of the season. I can’t confirm it’s accurate but then neither can VAR, it would seem!

Brother_Sledge

Twice in the first half Yarmo was flagged offside on tight calls (by the same lino) but because play was stopped before a goal might have been scored there was no VAR.

Bazshuayi

Seems to me that this offside rule has been messed around with way too much in modern times (and not for the better).

Expat_Hammer

Baz, bang on mate.

Get back to the good old days, it's offside even if not interfering. Then VAR might be better for offside decisions.

MrsGrey

Then the bloke lying on the floor after being fouled is judged offside?

grey_til_I_dye

I suspect the 'not interfering' idea was brought in with good intentions.

However, as soon as it came in I would imagine coaches looked at how they could gain advantage from it.

It does seem bizarre that players standing offside in the middle of the goal in the penalty area are not considered 'active'. And as alderz has said, teams like Citeh seem to use the tactic deliberately.

Until, and unless, VAR can show that it has a system for judging offside that is equivalent to goal-line technology (instant and foolproof) there are always going to be issues.

I don't see how it can easily be tinkered with. Allowing for 'margins' simply means that offside is moved back to whatever that margin is, and then you have to judge how close to the new margin the players were.

MrsGrey

I can't find the comment now, but someone suggested having a 'zone' rather than a line...

Thing is, there's still a boundary, and whenever you have a boundary there will always be the case that someone will be millimetres across it and will be therefore judged off. Moving the boundary line will not do away with this fact.

It is inevitable.

Furthermore, the situation we have with VAR now is no different from the situation we had without it. Someone is still judging on/off. But VAR is giving the judger a better chance at getting it correct. So I am still in favour.

Maybe we need to increase the technology by having microchips in the ball and the boots

Dodger58

Why don't we just get rid of the Offside rule?

No offsides = no controversy over offside decisions.

Would make life much more simple and defenders would know exactly what their responsibilities are - don't leave the attacker.

Potential added bonus is that it would make the active playing area 'bigger' which may also encourage more skilful play ...

Lukerz

I have never liked that dodgy offside line they draw on as they measure it. There is no way anybody can convince me that is accurate.

DJ Hammer

Dodger58 said:

Why don't we just get rid of the Offside rule?

No offsides = no controversy over offside decisions.

Would make life much more simple and defenders would know exactly what their responsibilities are - don't leave the attacker.

Potential added bonus is that it would make the active playing area 'bigger' which may also encourage more skilful play ...

Get rid of the offside rule then what is there to prevent attackers standing on the goal line to tap the ball into the net?

Dodger58

DJ nothing to stop them at all, but interesting to see if they did. Basically they’d be out of the game if they did, so not many managers would do it ...