• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

VAR: Sponsored by Chelsea

galeforce said:
why is that worse than hair splitting madness that allows goals which were actually offside?
Click to expand...
As I understand it the official FIFA guidance is that where there is any doubt about whether it's offside, the decision should favour the attacking side. For me that means if you cannot tell within a few seconds whether it was offside or not then it's plainly not clear and obvious, so stop farting about for minutes on end with ridiculous slide rule adjustments and award the goal.

Giving the benefit of the doubt to the scoring side over such absurdly microscopic scenarios is not only downright common sense, it also helps keep fans enjoying the game instead of turning them blue with rage at the sheer nonsensical incompetence of it all.
 
Spur of the moment said:
As I understand it the official FIFA guidance is that where there is any doubt about whether it's offside, the decision should favour the attacking side. For me that means if you cannot tell within a few seconds whether it was offside or not then it's plainly not clear and obvious, so stop farting about for minutes on end with ridiculous slide rule adjustments and award the goal.

Giving the benefit of the doubt to the scoring side over such absurdly microscopic scenarios is not only downright common sense, it also helps keep fans enjoying the game instead of turning them blue with rage at the sheer nonsensical incompetence of it all.
Click to expand...

I have issue with that too, if there is caution to be erred on the side of, surely it’s better to go with that which doesn’t change the score than with that that does, balance should be the priority.
 
they were not the same, there was no ambiguity from Son, it was 100% a vicious act, Maguire slowed it down enough that it could have been accidental, next time Son should use a slow rake of the studs without fully extending his leg
 
Last edited:
Surely there should be a time limit on the review, if the adjudicator cannot decide within 45sec it would appear not to be clear and obvious?
 
Everyone seems to be trying to get behind this new suggestion of clear daylight for the attacking player and although I think it would be better, and lead to more goals being allowed, I still dont see how it would stop people complaining.
I mean you would still have occasions when the strikers back heel is overlapping millimetres with the defender right!?
 
K.D.D.D.D.Soc said:
Surely there should be a time limit on the review, if the adjudicator cannot decide within 45sec it would appear not to be clear and obvious?
Click to expand...

I've been using the Clear and Obvious argument for a while too but I heard recently that it's just something pundits etc have generated and got behind and that it has never officially been a 'Thing'.
 
dingdongo said:
Everyone seems to be trying to get behind this new suggestion of clear daylight for the attacking player and although I think it would be better, and lead to more goals being allowed, I still dont see how it would stop people complaining.
I mean you would still have occasions when the strikers back heel is overlapping millimetres with the defender right!?
Click to expand...
Yep, it's an issue nobody seems to understand. Those same arguments as to whether someone was on or offside based on the clarity of the shot at which it's measured will still be there. They'll just be about an imaginary point an inch in front of the offside line.
 
dingdongo said:
I've been using the Clear and Obvious argument for a while too but I heard recently that it's just something pundits etc have generated and got behind and that it has never officially been a 'Thing'.
Click to expand...
IFAB Principles : "1. A video assistant referee (VAR) is a match official, with independent access to match footage, who may assist the referee only in the event of a ‘clear and obvious error’ ..." http://www.theifab.com/projects/vars/principles-practicalities-protocol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back