Leeds (A) - verdict

[The Bear]

I still say the lines should be wider to introduce a big enough margin that it becomes noticeably offside at first glance, rather than a microscopic one. Yes it's just moving the definitions, but it needs to be a margin of offside that people can accept rather than be up in arms or dismayed about.

Kind of like the difference between the Mane one last weekend and the Podence one. It was still tight but everyone agrees it was off, which you could practically see without the lines anyway and a quick look confirmed it.

You'll still get ones that might be microscopically off and VAR would let go, but that's better than what we have now where people are fed up with offsides that can't even be seen.

 

[Lycan]

I still say the lines should be wider to introduce a big enough margin that it becomes an obviously noticeable offside at first glance, rather than a microscopic one. Yes it's just moving the definitions, but it needs to be a margin of offside that people can accept rather than be up in arms or dismayed about.

Kind of like the difference between the Mane one last weekend and the Podence one. It was still tight but everyone agrees it was off, which you could practically see without the lines anyway and a quick look confirmed it.

You'll still get ones that might be microscopically off and VAR would let go, but that's better than what we have now where people are fed up with offsides that can't even be seen without lines.

Plus, if you're looking at players positions down to the millimetre, surely we should be looking at when the ball is struck in exactly the same detail. When is a pass officially made? When the foot touches the ball or at the exact moment when the ball leaves the foot? If they're not taking the time to determine that down to the millisecond then there's got to be margin for error when looking at a players position.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

It's first contact, always has been.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

Leeds United news: Robinson slams Jimenez after 'clear intent' v Koch

Paul Robinson has slammed Raul Jimenez after game between Leeds United and Wolves on Monday night, and said the striker should have been sent off

motleedsnews.com

Here's Paul "Thunder Thighs" Robinson slating Raul for er, not kicking one of their players.

No mention of England's Kalvin Phillips flying into how many tackles as if it's 1972, and winning the ball approximately 0% of the time.

 

[AndyWolves]

It's first contact, always has been.

You've still got to determine exactly when first contact occured

 

[The Bear]

You've still got to determine exactly when first contact occured

You're limited to the frame rate of their cameras which IIRC are 50fps.

 

[darlowolf64]

You're limited to the frame rate of their cameras which IIRC are 50fps.

Yet mm lines are still the go to for the "offside lines"

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

You've still got to determine exactly when first contact occured

I know. Just explaining the laws of the game, which have been there since forever.

 

[Alan]

Leeds United news: Robinson slams Jimenez after 'clear intent' v Koch

Paul Robinson has slammed Raul Jimenez after game between Leeds United and Wolves on Monday night, and said the striker should have been sent off

motleedsnews.com

Here's Paul "Thunder Thighs" Robinson slating Raul for er, not kicking one of their players.

No mention of England's Kalvin Phillips flying into how many tackles as if it's 1972, and winning the ball approximately 0% of the time.

There was certainly something weird about how Raul kicked out, tbf. If he'd made contact he could have been in trouble.

Which would have been bittersweet as Phillips deserved a bruise or two for smacking multiple of our players in the face.

 

[Aikiwolf]

It seems really simple to me, does the attacker look to be behind or inline with the defender without drawing any lines.

20 seconds to review and if you're not sure then the player is onside.

 

[Premier Quality]

It seems really simple to me, does the attacker look to be behind or inline with the defender without drawing any lines.

20 seconds to review and if you're not sure then the player is onside.

Clear and obvious then? Works for me!

 

[jdrodrigues]

Clear and obvious then? Works for me!

Thing is, I don't think that would be an improvement on whatever we had before VAR.

The goal is to eliminate, as much as possible, illegal goals. Any offside goal is offside, be it 1cm or 1m. Would rather them taking time and getting it right than undermining the whole thing.

 

[Newbridge Wolf]

Should work on referral.

Goal scored, ref happy goal given - no check(If it was later proved to be marginal then it wasn't clear and obvious on the pitch)

Ref gives goal, linesman or ref believes there may be possible reason to check - refer to Video. Has to be clear reason to disallow goal, no lines drawn.

Ref doesn't give a goal, but wants to check. Refer to video they look for a clear and obvious reason to overturn on field decision. No lines drawn.

Its worked in league which is a much faster sport for ages. I really don't understand what you hope to bring to the game from drawing lines.

They are attempting for perfection when all anyone wanted was the glaring errors to be corrected. Its sport not a flipping mathematical formula, you actually want teams to score

 

[Aikiwolf]

Thing is, I don't think that would be an improvement on whatever we had before VAR.

The goal is to eliminate, as much as possible, illegal goals. Any offside goal is offside, be it 1cm or 1m. Would rather them taking time and getting it right than undermining the whole thing.

I disagree on this. I think the point in VAR is to make sure blatent mistakes aren't made (Henry's handball vs Ireland, the Hand of God incident, Lampard's goal against Germany etc).

To reduce VAR to being a tool that forensically analyses if Moutinho's toenail is offside as he plays a ball for Neves to smash in from 25 yards (Man U at home) reduces VAR to being a tool for nitpicking and we still have huge mistakes (Pickford's "challenge" on VVD).

What we've done is implement a tool more focused on a toenail than a player having their season ended. That's not right.

 

[pacamac]

Just scrap it all together!

There was nothing wrong with football before hence its popularity why do they feel the need to mess!

Americanisation crap stop start games

 

[Aikiwolf]

Just scrap it all together!

There was nothing wrong with football before hence its popularity why do they feel the need to mess!

Americanisation crap stop start games

That'd be my preference as well! Admittedly I was never pro-VAR before implementation so it's difficult to persuade me of the benefits!

I think we probably have to accept that VAR is here to stay though.

 

[Premier Quality]

Thing is, I don't think that would be an improvement on whatever we had before VAR.

The goal is to eliminate, as much as possible, illegal goals. Any offside goal is offside, be it 1cm or 1m. Would rather them taking time and getting it right than undermining the whole thing.

I disagree with this too - football shouldn’t be a forensically measured “to the nearest milimetre” sport. It used to be that the attacker got the benefit of the doubt because it makes the game more entertaining. Going to clear and obvious takes you back there.
As it stands, football is losing a lot of what made it so interesting - long waits to see if someone’s armpit hair was too long is not what we pay so much money to see.

 

[Johnny75]

That'd be my preference as well! Admittedly I was never pro-VAR before implementation so it's difficult to persuade me of the benefits!

I think we probably have to accept that VAR is here to stay though.

You should've mentioned you were against VAR, I never knew...

You are right it's here to stay and they should get it right.

But you're also right to say it was bought in to stop the glaring errors such as the hand of God and Lampard's disallowed goal. Which in the main the system is doing really well.

Hawkeye is a really good example of how it should work and when that went wrong. The VAR officials managed to balls that up too.

It's the people using the system that are idiots not the system itself.

 

[StuardoWulf]

much as I hate VAR and I really do. the big 6 used to get everything. as did home teams unless playing big 6

 

[Aikiwolf]

You should've mentioned you were against VAR, I never knew...

You are right it's here to stay and they should get it right.

But you're also right to say it was bought in to stop the glaring errors such as the hand of God and Lampard's disallowed goal. Which in the main the system is doing really well.

Hawkeye is a really good example of how it should work and when that went wrong. The VAR officials managed to balls that up too.

It's the people using the system that are idiots not the system itself.

That's just because of "Covid time" where we've not been in a pub together for me to remind you of my opinion on VAR!

Hawkeye works brilliantly (Sheff U/Villa aside). It's quick, simple and doesn't add controversy.

Mind you, I think VVD doesn't think the system is stopping glaring errors...