Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
I’d get rid of the concept of “Interfering with play”, if the defence is influenced you are active
In the box or not
-
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
- Thread starter Gutter Boy
- Start date
I’d get rid of the concept of “Interfering with play”, if the defence is influenced you are active
In the box or not
Not sure what the difference would be from now? Inside the box the defence is almost 100% going to be influenced. Outside is a grey area open to interpretation. Which creates subjective decisions, which creates confusion, and anger.
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
if a team steps up to play an attacker near a touchline offside they should be deemed to have been interfering with play, and the FK awarded, right now you can hang out there, not receive the ball, be deemed inactive, yet the defence have had to consider your position in their movements
it's wrong imo
Robbo
Paul Walsh
Very interesting. A couple of things:
Why don't they show the thinner lines on telly? Those thick lines are useless.
Why don't they broadcast the VAR dialogue as well, so viewers can better understand the reasoning going on?
Funny how they totally ignored Sterling's dive, too. That's a free kick if it's Bissouma. Then again they didn't stop play at the offside, which probably explains it.
Why don't they show the thinner lines on telly? Those thick lines are useless.
Why don't they broadcast the VAR dialogue as well, so viewers can better understand the reasoning going on?
Funny how they totally ignored Sterling's dive, too. That's a free kick if it's Bissouma. Then again they didn't stop play at the offside, which probably explains it.
Fair enough. Wasn't that the old rules?
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
If they broadcast it most of the time, whenever their was a feed issue people would scream corruption, as long as the link to the ref is intact that should be enough, the ref relays the decisions with his hand gestures anyway.
I thought Sterling dived, they called that as him stumbling on the audio I think.
Baleforce
Arthur Rowe
I think so, a while ago.
Right now you have to touch the ball, be close enough to a defender to impede their movement, or block line of sight for the keeper to be deemed offside.
We had one this season where we gave away what looked like a really soft goal, Davies not stepping out with the others, but he had a pacy winger outside him he was factoring in.
Gazza Dazzla
Chris Perry
Yep first offense was the dive, games stops there doesn’t it?
Dicko
Paul Stalteri
Man
That made me angry just watching it.
Robbo
Paul Walsh
There was an offside before that, which would've stopped the game, if it wasn't for the refs deeming Romero's tackle as violent conduct, or whatever they call it.
It's probably correct as per the rules, but to give a red card and a penalty after a confirmed offside and a dive that should've resulted in a free kick, is unreasonable IMO. Especially the penalty, as play would've stopped for that offside decision.
I might be wrong, but lets say play had stopped for a corner or whatever, and one player for instance punches an opponent when the ball is not in play - that would probably be a red, but no foul (penalty) would be given, as the ball is not in play. That's basically what the Romero situation is about as well. After that VAR decision the ball was not in play for the Romero foul (which I disagree with, but that's another debate), so how could that also be a pen?
Bishop
John Lacy
To this day I do not understand how the fudge that was ever given as a foul. Absolute madness.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
fudge me, what has the world come to? That is absolutely Kafkaesque.
I want to send that video into outer space with a plea to a genocidal alien species to come put us all out of our misery.
NaijaSpurs
Les Ferdinand
And yet without VAR we would not have got a penalty for our second goal because the ref saw it and waved it away.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
But vdv's goal would have stood, and we'd've been 1-1 rather than 0-2. And the game would have been about football, rather than officiating
Penwith Pete
Alton Thelwell
Without VAR, the ref would have most likely given it. VAR takes the onus off him to do so.
Bedfordspurs
Mark Falco
100%
Var allows them not make the calls knowing someone will clean up for them
Robbo
Paul Walsh
Dicko
Paul Stalteri
Can anyone confirm if the VDV goal should've counted or not? He was offside (barely but let's say he was) from that shot, but I have seen people saying he shouldn't have been because of the Arse player trying to clear it etc. I dont even know the proper laws nowadays. What's the correct call?
Chrissivad
Dean Austin
I don't think anyone knows as the rules are not clear enough
In my opinion, it's a case of a subjective view in a definitive ruling...
Was VDV in offside positon when Porro struck the ball - Yes, therefore he was offside.
However, where is became subjective is whether Tomiyasu deliberately played the ball or whether it was a deflection. If a deliberate action then it's a new 'phase' and where VDV is standing when Porro kick it becomes irrelevant. The second touch y Gabriel is a deflection. Therefore, to be given offside the VAR officials have deemed the first touch was accidental.