Exactly this @Wingnut. If we removed most of the cameras from the ground and just had one in the main stand, no-one would ever know! I hate VAR, the game is about emotion for fans watching, in the moment.
For me, if it stays (which I hope it doesn't), the only question the referee needs to ask is when a goal is scored or penalty is awarded - is there any reason I cannot award that goal / penalty.
Offside would have to be clear daylight for me, none of this armpit/toe nonsense.
Penalty, did the defender get the ball - no, penalty.
@Commoner said:
Exactly this @Wingnut. If we removed most of the cameras from the ground and just had one in the main stand, no-one would ever know! I hate VAR, the game is about emotion for fans watching, in the moment.
For me, if it stays (which I hope it doesn't), the only question the referee needs to ask is when a goal is scored or penalty is awarded - is there any reason I cannot award that goal / penalty.
Offside would have to be clear daylight for me, none of this armpit/toe nonsense.
Penalty, did the defender get the ball - no, penalty.
Daylight is the obvious answer to the offside VAR nonsense, and is more sensible in general. Give the advantage to the attacker!
A player is in an offside position if:any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent.
That seems completely clear. A finger over the line is not offside, but an armpit or toe is.
Frankly the VAR officials and ref should only be allowed to view replays at normal speed albeit they should be allowed to see whatever camera angles are available,
@Commoner said:
Exactly this @Wingnut. If we removed most of the cameras from the ground and just had one in the main stand, no-one would ever know! I hate VAR, the game is about emotion for fans watching, in the moment.
For me, if it stays (which I hope it doesn't), the only question the referee needs to ask is when a goal is scored or penalty is awarded - is there any reason I cannot award that goal / penalty.
Offside would have to be clear daylight for me, none of this armpit/toe nonsense.
Penalty, did the defender get the ball - no, penalty.
Daylight is the obvious answer to the offside VAR nonsense, and is more sensible in general. Give the advantage to the attacker!
Making offside (more) subjective would be a disaster!
Comments
Exactly this @Wingnut. If we removed most of the cameras from the ground and just had one in the main stand, no-one would ever know! I hate VAR, the game is about emotion for fans watching, in the moment.
For me, if it stays (which I hope it doesn't), the only question the referee needs to ask is when a goal is scored or penalty is awarded - is there any reason I cannot award that goal / penalty.
Offside would have to be clear daylight for me, none of this armpit/toe nonsense.
Penalty, did the defender get the ball - no, penalty.
Thank God there is no penalty for players looking a bit miserable...
'The referee is being asked to go and view the sub-standard hand-clapping of the fans by the substituted player...'
Daylight is the obvious answer to the offside VAR nonsense, and is more sensible in general. Give the advantage to the attacker!
Law 11: Offside
A player is in an offside position if:any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent.
That seems completely clear. A finger over the line is not offside, but an armpit or toe is.
Frankly the VAR officials and ref should only be allowed to view replays at normal speed albeit they should be allowed to see whatever camera angles are available,
Making offside (more) subjective would be a disaster!