Spurs and VAR

[bigfrooj]

The VAR guy simply read the picture wrong. VAR was a massive chance to right mistakes but it’s just created it’s own mistakes.

 

[andrewt]

Demot Gallagher, said on sky both calls were correct thinks that Doherty turns his back as he jumps and so because he collides with forster it's a foul as he isn't looking g at the ball...wtf

and kane is just off side ? ?

 

[Mr Pink]

Forster initiates contact with Doherty first.

Had the ball not ended up in the net I'd be looking for a penalty.

One of the worst decisions I've ever seen and it goes to show a lot of these officials are sickly incompetent.

 

[qqq1]

Foster had already dropped the ball before he ran into Doherty.

Offsides should only be checked by VAR if the linesman flags immediately after the goal. This would help stop players and fans celebrating then having that awkward pause whilst the VAR checks.

 

[SlotBadger]

Demot Gallagher, said on sky both calls were correct thinks that Doherty turns his back as he jumps and so because he collides with forster it's a foul as he isn't looking g at the ball...wtf

and kane is just off side ? ?

Watching Dermot Gallagher and Peter Walton perform mental gymnastics to defend refereeing decisions is one of my favourite hobbies.

Another hobby of mine is asking a prosthetic leg its opinion on recent VAR controversies and realising it would serve as much purpose on television as these pair of Egon Spenglers.

 

[TheTanguy]

Atkinson got it all wrong yesterday. One of the most shambolic VAR performances I've seen so far.

 

[Graham Minshall]

Demot Gallagher, said on sky both calls were correct thinks that Doherty turns his back as he jumps and so because he collides with forster it's a foul as he isn't looking g at the ball...wtf

and kane is just off side ? ?

Does any expect him to say anything different? He just an apologist for bad decision, going by his criteria of Doherty turning his back spurs should have had a penalty in the last minute for KWP jumping into Harry Kane and not looking at the ball ⚽️

 

[Serpico]

Offside should be taken from the chest/waist of a player, not a nose, not a toe and not a pube. It’s so obvious it’s ridiculous.

The feet- only the feet. Simple but football doesn’t want 100% accurate information because it doesn’t suit.

 

[ShelfWatcher]

It depends on how you make the lines thicker.

If you increase thickness from the middle of each line it won't change anything.

But if you increase the line for the defender away from goals, and the attackers towards then it should benefit the attacker.

Best way would probably be to keep the defenders line as is, and build the margin of error into the attackers line by making it thicker.

Exactly, however thick the defenders line needs to be ensure goals like Kane's stands, that's how thick it should plus a little bit more to be on the safe side
The Prem refs said toenail and armpit offsides were to be no more, after last summers line thickening tweak
Well clear the tweak needs tweaking. Of course no matter how thick the lines are drawn there will be marginal decisions. But Kane's and similar goals should never be marginally offside. The thickness neednt allow a whole head or complete foot, but a sliver of a shoulder, ridiculous

 

[ShelfWatcher]

Demot Gallagher, said on sky both calls were correct thinks that Doherty turns his back as he jumps and so because he collides with forster it's a foul as he isn't looking g at the ball...wtf

and kane is just off side ? ?

Both calls are correct as the laws and guidelines stand. Doherty goal is never going to stand.
But the Kane one should be standing in the future because they need to tweak the lines further next summer in favour of attackers
I thought this summers tweak was supposed to stop such anti football decisions. Clearly though the tweak needs tweaking.

 

[gerishep]

My issue with the offside (which applies to almost all of the very marginal offsides where VAR has intervened in recent years) is that the frames per second don’t allow the VAR to definitively determine when the ball is played. So they have to take a best guess at that and draw the line then. This is effectively introducing a subjective element to what is supposed to be an objective (or black & white) rule. The approach should be that where such a subjective element is needed the attacker should be deemed onside.

Perhaps it would be better to make the decision separately on when the ball was kicked before looking at the whole picture. Maybe they already do.

 

[ShelfWatcher]

Perhaps it would be better to make the decision separately on when the ball was kicked before looking at the whole picture. Maybe they already do.

Yep, I and most people on here I suspect, don't know exactly how the offside lines are drawn, what software is used, how many people give input etc.
I assume there's a standard procedure and that is followed correctly to the best of the officials capabilities. I don't believe a deliberate decision was made to rule out Kane's goal, for whatever corrupt reason
Of course corruption is always possible, but until it is proved, I assume and fervently hope our game is clean. Because if there is systemic corruption the game is meaningless and a large part of my life becomes a hollow sham
So I believe VAR got it right, the issue is the lines need thickening even further in favour of the attacker
Maybe Fifa need to change the offside laws, but that's gonna take years, if at all. We have the power to change the Prem lines though, so do it.

 

[PCozzie]

Making line thicker, or thinner, or having a gap, or not having a gap; it doesn't matter. At some point, with all of those solutions, there will still be a marginal call. You can measure it from feet only or from the end of the players nose, there will still be marginal calls. This is because being offside, or onside, is binary. There is no in-between ground where the decision is subjective and open to interpretation.

On Kane's disallowed goal yesterday there are calls for it to be measured only by the players feet. Fine. That's a reasonable proposition, and is measurable. It doesn't, however, rid the game of marginal calls. There will be a VAR check in a couple of weeks where the feet are practically level and we will be squinting at two coloured lines trying to determine which one is closer to the goal.

There is no solution to this unless either offside is eradicated, or the law is made subjective.

 

[Trotter]

Yep, I and most people on here I suspect, don't know exactly how the offside lines are drawn, what software is used, how many people give input etc.
I assume there's a standard procedure and that is followed correctly to the best of the officials capabilities. I don't believe a deliberate decision was made to rule out Kane's goal, for whatever corrupt reason
Of course corruption is always possible, but until it is proved, I assume and fervently hope our game is clean. Because if there is systemic corruption the game is meaningless and a large part of my life becomes a hollow sham
So I believe VAR got it right, the issue is the lines need thickening even further in favour of the attacker
Maybe Fifa need to change the offside laws, but that's gonna take years, if at all. We have the power to change the Prem lines though, so do it.

Broadcast lines are 5cm wide, meaning Kane was more than 5cm offside.
It is a very deceiving camera angle unfortunately which increases frustration, but system is calibrated to take all that into account, whereas our eye sights aren't

 

[chrissivad]

Making line thicker, or thinner, or having a gap, or not having a gap; it doesn't matter. At some point, with all of those solutions, there will still be a marginal call. You can measure it from feet only or from the end of the players nose, there will still be marginal calls. This is because being offside, or onside, is binary. There is no in-between ground where the decision is subjective and open to interpretation.

On Kane's disallowed goal yesterday there are calls for it to be measured only by the players feet. Fine. That's a reasonable proposition, and is measurable. It doesn't, however, rid the game of marginal calls. There will be a VAR check in a couple of weeks where the feet are practically level and we will be squinting at two coloured lines trying to determine which one is closer to the goal.

There is no solution to this unless either offside is eradicated, or the law is made subjective.

Making the lines thicker won't stop marginal calls, I agree. But if the line is tick enough and advantage goes towards the attacker then a marginal call should be a call that looks like he is off, rather than is he off.

 

[JCRD]

I keep saying this again and again - as soon as you need to start drawing lines - then it isnt clear and obvious offside. Simple.

Let the ref go look at it ont he monitor without lines, if it looks offside then fair enough. If it doesnt then the goal stands. None of this line bollocks. Whats funny is I htought Sons goal against Palace was more offside than this one for Kane.

The so called foul on the keeper, it clearly wasnt but we all know that keepers are protected when it comes to stuff like this so ill give the ref the benefit of the doubt. The offside one - just bollocks really.

 

[ShelfWatcher]

Broadcast lines are 5cm wide, meaning Kane was more than 5cm offside.
It is a very deceiving camera angle unfortunately which increases frustration, but system is calibrated to take all that into account, whereas our eye sights aren't

Cheers MK was hoping you would reply as I have lots of respect for your insights. Yep, I thought it was 5 cm currently. So do you think it should be upped to 10 say, to favour attackers even more. Because Mike Riley gave the impression this summer that goals like Kane's would stand
Very interesting what you say about camera angles, eyesight and system calibration, it's the sort of detail many are unaware of, including myself.

 

[PCozzie]

Making the lines thicker won't stop marginal calls, I agree. But if the line is tick enough and advantage goes towards the attacker then a marginal call should be a call that looks like he is off, rather than is he off.

Having one line thicker than the other simply shifts the point of contention by a few centimetres. You could give attacker A the benefit of 5cm of doubt, but when he is 6cm offside we're all talking about marginal calls again. This continues until the FIFA are forced to re-write the offside law to allow an attacker to be a certain distance offside. Arbitrarily you could propose one metre of grace, but then be arguing about a line drawn on the screen when an attacker might be 101 centimetres offside.

Personally I'd go back to the VARless days when the officials were just ordinarily shit. At least you didn't have to wait in suspense for the pixels to align.

 

[ralphs bald spot]

From what I can see the general standard of refereeing across Europe is even worse. The game has progressed but the referees haven't and VAR doesn't seem to be helping.

Var in addition to the ridiculous rules that FIFA come up with have made it worse - referees hide behind VAR its the easy option

Var itself hasn't improved football especially for people who go to games its designed for the television

 

[Trotter]

Cheers MK was hoping you would reply as I have lots of respect for your insights. Yep, I thought it was 5 cm currently. So do you think it should be upped to 10 say, to favour attackers even more. Because Mike Riley gave the impression this summer that goals like Kane's would stand
Very interesting what you say about camera angles, eyesight and system calibration, it's the sort of detail many are unaware of, including myself.

Last year there was no tolerance, if it was 1mm offside it was deemed as offside, at least now they have increased it to 5cm, so all we know for certain is Kane's was deemed greater distance offside than that. Without having better camera angle, and they only deploy 5, whereas would maybe need 100 to get satisfactory views for every offside decision, these will always look worse then they really are, I am sure if camera angle was level with incident and people could see 5cm off, would not really have any complaints.

Personally I think it should be greater tolerance than 5cm, purely because the frame rate can be out by greater than that, and football is about goals.