What's new

The VAR Thread

Marty

Audere est farce
Mar 10, 2005
39,885
62,563
that goal just makes VAR a complete joke.
No, it makes the rule a complete joke. It's frustrating as hell watching it play out now but ultimately it's a good thing about VAR that it's showing up the offside and handball rules for being total shit, which will hopefully mean they can be changed for the better sooner rather than later.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,628
that goal just makes VAR a complete joke.

Why? It gives the ref the chance to see the incident clearly and make her decision. The problem here isn't with the Video Assistant Referee, it's the on field referee.
 

BuryMeInEngland

Polish that cock lads
May 24, 2012
11,045
27,449
But that's because certain decisions still come down to the referees interpretation. It's not a problem with VAR.

That's the problem if none of the officials see it or act on it in the first place, then why should they be the ones to change that after the fact? The human interaction is just part of the game.
 

BuryMeInEngland

Polish that cock lads
May 24, 2012
11,045
27,449
Why? It gives the ref the chance to see the incident clearly and make her decision. The problem here isn't with the Video Assistant Referee, it's the on field referee.
Refs have been missing things for decades. Now all of a sudden they get a do over? Ridiculous.
 

cwy21

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2009
9,448
7,930
Whether you like the offside law or not, that second USA goal is not offside. It should have never been sent down for review so credit to the referee for telling the VAR no.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,628
That's the problem if none of the officials see it or act on it in the first place, then why should they be the ones to change that after the fact? The human interaction is just part of the game.

Refs have been missing things for decades. Now all of a sudden they get a do over? Ridiculous.

I can't argue with that. The amount of criticism refs get these days drives me mad, but managers and pundits and most fans won't accept incorrect decisions now so here we are.
 

BuryMeInEngland

Polish that cock lads
May 24, 2012
11,045
27,449
Whether you like the offside law or not, that second USA goal is not offside. It should have never been sent down for review so credit to the referee for telling the VAR no.
I think she was offside by at least a step or two. I'm guessing the decision was that she wasn't interfering with play (which is debatable)
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,628
Whether you like the offside law or not, that second USA goal is not offside. It should have never been sent down for review so credit to the referee for telling the VAR no.

Can you explain why not? It looked like the Swedish player only flicked the ball on because she was worried about the player that was in an offside position, therefore she's affecting the play.
 

cwy21

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2009
9,448
7,930
I think she was offside by at least a step or two. I'm guessing the decision was that she wasn't interfering with play (which is debatable)

She was clearly in an offside position. She didn't interfere with play since she didn't touch the ball. And with the current offside law/interpretations she didn't interfere with an opponent.

Now I totally understand how this feels like it should be offside. I'd probably even agree with that statement. But it's not in the current edition of the laws.
 

Marty

Audere est farce
Mar 10, 2005
39,885
62,563
She was clearly in an offside position. She didn't interfere with play since she didn't touch the ball. And with the current offside law/interpretations she didn't interfere with an opponent.

Now I totally understand how this feels like it should be offside. I'd probably even agree with that statement. But it's not in the current edition of the laws.
It definitely feels like it should be offside. But the fact that it isn't is IFAB and the rulemakers' fault, not VAR.
 

BuryMeInEngland

Polish that cock lads
May 24, 2012
11,045
27,449
She was clearly in an offside position. She didn't interfere with play since she didn't touch the ball. And with the current offside law/interpretations she didn't interfere with an opponent.

Now I totally understand how this feels like it should be offside. I'd probably even agree with that statement. But it's not in the current edition of the laws.
This season is going to be "interesting". I'm pretty sure that would have been an offside call by a lino in any game last season.
 

Marty

Audere est farce
Mar 10, 2005
39,885
62,563
This season is going to be "interesting". I'm pretty sure that would have been an offside call by a lino in any game last season.
Very similar to the Lovren/Kane incident from the 2-2 that Liverpool fans won't stop bleating about, isn't it? I'm not sure that would've been given offside.
 

cwy21

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2009
9,448
7,930
Can you explain why not? It looked like the Swedish player only flicked the ball on because she was worried about the player that was in an offside position, therefore she's affecting the play.

The way the law is written is based on what the attacker does and not what the defender thinks. It's impossible for the referee to get in the mind of the defender to determine if they we're truly impacted by a player being in an offside position. So to ensure consistency, refs determine offside by the actions of the attacker.

There's four clauses involving interfering with an opponent.

  • preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
    • She didn't do this. The US attacker didn't stop the defender from being able to play the ball. To be clear, this clause has nothing to do with the defender choosing to play the ball because of the attacker. The attacker must actually prevent the defender from being able to play the ball. So this one is a no.
  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
    • She was about to attempt to play the ball, but when the defender played the ball, the ball wasn't close enough to the US attacker for her to play it yet.
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
    • This particular clause is for when a player in an offside position deliberately avoids playing the ball. For example letting a shot pass go through your legs in an attempt to fool the defender or goalkeeper. So it doesn't apply in this case. Also the attacker didn't impact the defenders ability to play the ball.
  • challenging an opponent for the ball
    • This could be your argument for offside. The question to answer is at the moment the defender played the ball, was the US player close enough to by physically challenging her for the ball? I think it's a clear no and so did the referee on the field. The attacker was still a couple yards behind the defender and was not close enough to be challenging her (think shoulder to shoulder or jumping together for the ball).

So IMO she didn't do any of those four things. Like I said, I can understand how your gut feeling of football justice says it should be offside, but the laws of the game say it's not.
 
Last edited:

cwy21

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2009
9,448
7,930
Very similar to the Lovren/Kane incident from the 2-2 that Liverpool fans won't stop bleating about, isn't it? I'm not sure that would've been given offside.

Ding ding ding. This isn't a new law.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,628
The way the law is written is based on what the attacker does and not what the defender thinks. It's impossible for the referee to get in the mind of the defender to determine if they we're truly impacted by a player being in an offside position. So to ensure consistency, refs determine offside by the actions of the attacker.

There's four clauses involving interfering with an opponent.

  • preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
    • She didn't do this. The US attacker didn't stop the defender from being able to play the ball. To be clear, this clause has nothing to do with the defender choosing to play the ball because of the attacker. The attacker must actually prevent the defender from being able to play the ball. So this one is a no.
  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
    • She was about to attempt to play the ball, but when the defender played the ball, the ball wasn't close enough to the defender for the attacker to play it yet. So this is a no.
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
    • This particular clause is for when a player in an offside position deliberately avoids playing the ball. For example letting a shot pass go through your legs in an attempt to fool the defender or goalkeeper. So it doesn't apply in this case. Also the attacker didn't impact the defenders ability to play the ball.
  • challenging an opponent for the ball
    • This could be your argument for offside. The question to answer is at the moment the defender played the ball, was the US player close enough to by physically challenging her for the ball? I think it's a clear no and so did the referee on the field. The attacker was still a couple yards behind the defender and was not close enough to be challenging her (think shoulder to shoulder or jumping together for the ball).

So IMO she didn't do any of those four things. Like I said, I can understand how your gut feeling of football justice says it should be offside, but the laws of the game say it's not.

For me it comes under:

"clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent"

She's made the run ahead of the defender in an attempt to play the ball. She even has her foot up in the air. Just because she didn't get to it doesn't mean that she's not trying to play the ball.
 

cwy21

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2009
9,448
7,930
For me it comes under:

"clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent"

She's made the run ahead of the defender in an attempt to play the ball. She even has her foot up in the air. Just because she didn't get to it doesn't mean that she's not trying to play the ball.

My counter argument would be she hasn't "clearly attempted to play the ball" yet at this moment. She's about to, but she hasn't yet. You can hate it, but that's how refs are told to interpret this.

FFa6QwJ.png
 

SteveH

BSoDL candidate for SW London
Jul 21, 2003
8,642
9,313
Good to see debate and conjecture around football are healthy and are still alive and kicking!
 

BuryMeInEngland

Polish that cock lads
May 24, 2012
11,045
27,449
The way the law is written is based on what the attacker does and not what the defender thinks. It's impossible for the referee to get in the mind of the defender to determine if they we're truly impacted by a player being in an offside position. So to ensure consistency, refs determine offside by the actions of the attacker.

There's four clauses involving interfering with an opponent.

  • preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
    • She didn't do this. The US attacker didn't stop the defender from being able to play the ball. To be clear, this clause has nothing to do with the defender choosing to play the ball because of the attacker. The attacker must actually prevent the defender from being able to play the ball. So this one is a no.
  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
    • She was about to attempt to play the ball, but when the defender played the ball, the ball wasn't close enough to the US attacker for her to play it yet.
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
    • This particular clause is for when a player in an offside position deliberately avoids playing the ball. For example letting a shot pass go through your legs in an attempt to fool the defender or goalkeeper. So it doesn't apply in this case. Also the attacker didn't impact the defenders ability to play the ball.
  • challenging an opponent for the ball
    • This could be your argument for offside. The question to answer is at the moment the defender played the ball, was the US player close enough to by physically challenging her for the ball? I think it's a clear no and so did the referee on the field. The attacker was still a couple yards behind the defender and was not close enough to be challenging her (think shoulder to shoulder or jumping together for the ball).

So IMO she didn't do any of those four things. Like I said, I can understand how your gut feeling of football justice says it should be offside, but the laws of the game say it's not.
If the average referee has to consider all of that in a split second, games will have a lot of var reviews and a lot of added time.
 

nailsy

SC Supporter
Jul 24, 2005
30,536
46,628
My counter argument would be she hasn't "clearly attempted to play the ball" yet at this moment. She's about to, but she hasn't yet. You can hate it, but that's how refs are told to interpret this.

FFa6QwJ.png

Making a run to the penalty spot is part of the clear attempt to play the ball. The cross is aimed straight towards where she's running to. She hasn't run there to just stand and watch, she lifts her leg to try and kick it.
As for what the refs have been told, in my opinion its not in keeping with the rule as it's written if that's the case.
 

Ekmek

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2014
1,026
2,523
Whether you like the offside law or not, that second USA goal is not offside. It should have never been sent down for review so credit to the referee for telling the VAR no.

Of course its offside and should have been ruled out. The American player in an offside position forces the Swedish defender to try to get the ball away. Its ridicilous ti give that goal.
 
Top