VAR farce

quoonbeatz · Post by **quoonbeatz** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:19 am

kane is offside on both of those screenshots.

if the top one is the official var one, then its incredible they've got that wrong.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:20 am

When it gets as close as that, they need to clarify whether offside is to be judged at the moment when the player's boot first touches the ball, or the moment when the ball leaves the player's boot (about 1/100th of a second later). In that time, a running footballer will cover about 3 inches. Until that part of the rule is clarified and until TV cameras improve to 100 frames per second or better, trying to judge offside by less than 3 inches is nonsense.

simonclaret · Post by **simonclaret** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:38 pm

quoonbeatz wrote:kane is offside on both of those screenshots.

if the top one is the official var one, then its incredible they've got that wrong.

Isn't the back foot of the right back keeping him on?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:49 pm

simonclaret wrote:Isn't the back foot of the right back keeping him on?

Until they sort out the points in my post 52, there is no way to tell whether the back foot is keeping him onside. It's like trying to weigh sugar on a bathroom scale - the technology is not accurate enough to measure in that detail.

wilks_bfc · Post by **wilks_bfc** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:49 pm

simonclaret wrote:Isn't the back foot of the right back keeping him on?

It is, but I thought you were offside with any part of the body with which you can score a goal, not just the feet.

Looking at the top pic, Kane's feet are in line with the defenders, but his head does appear to be ahead of his feet - so he's offside

pureclaret · Post by **pureclaret** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:50 pm

imo head and shoulders are beyond unlike Vydra who the thickness of his shirt was offside, so he must have been offside

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:32 pm

Didn't see the game but heard the hoo-ha on the radio this morning so thought I'd pop on here to check out the fuss. The problem with the official VAR view is that it's using Kane's right foot as the part of his body which he could use to score closest to the goal. If they used his shoulder, or even his head, he's clearly a foot or more offside. See my crude photoshopped line below. Also note that the VAR line isn't straight but I presume this accounts for the camber of the pitch.

Kane was offside, the linesman called the decision correctly although considering the closeness of the decision he should he have kept his flag down to allow the play to conclude. I have a big issue with the linesman flagging in a scenario like this as this could easily catch the eye of the defenders, goalkeeper or indeed the attacker. Despite being told to play to the whistle this will ultimately lead to goalkeepers or defenders letting the attacker score or the attacker not taking a shot.

There are bound to be teething problems with VAR but it's fair to say that despite only being used in a handful of matches this season it has already proven a farce.

quoonbeatz · Post by **quoonbeatz** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:35 pm

simonclaret wrote:Isn't the back foot of the right back keeping him on?

nope, kane's chest is ahead of the right back's feet.

the left back's chest was keeping vydra on, on saturday.

both incredibly tough to get right in real time but the liners managed it in both instances. the VAR guy overruled incorrectly in both cases.

Ashingtonclaret46 · Post by **Ashingtonclaret46** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:39 pm

Come on guys, VAR is always correct ---in the eyes of whoever is making the judgement through VAR.
This time Chris Kavanagh and his assistant, Stephen Child, decided that Harry Kane was onside so ----they must be correct because a penalty was then given. However, had they decided that Harry Kane was offside then, they would still have been correct because they had used VAR to arrive at that decision.
This has always been my argument against VAR because it just introduces other opinions, however, because of the way it is being introduced, the VAR decision will always be correct in the eyes of those making the judgement. They should just get rid of the onfield officials when VAR is being used at a match and they can scrutinise every decision. What fun that would be. However, every decision should be correct in that case ----shouldn't it?

NottsClaret · Post by **NottsClaret** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:46 pm

One thing it has brought up, linesmen are really good these days.

jrgbfc · Post by **jrgbfc** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:53 pm

If in doubt the attacking player is supposed to get the benefit of the doubt I thought, so the correct decision was made.

ClaretTony · Post by **ClaretTony** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:57 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:I have this awful feeling that we've not really asked the FAs in Germany, Spain and Italy about how to do this properly.

It appears to work pretty well in those leagues, and they would have had the same teething problems we are having.

I used to be dead against VAR but having seen it in the above countries and the World Cup I reckon it probably essential. I just hope we get it right as soon as possible.

Lots of problems in Spain and currently there have been so many mistakes in the Bundesliga they are demanding that it be run by ex-players. Having said that, the goings on at Burnley, Fulham and Spurs in the last few days have turned it into a farce in this country.

Bordeauxclaret · Post by **Bordeauxclaret** » Wed Jan 09, 2019 5:43 pm

All explained on the sky sports website

https://www.skysports.com/football/news ... er-chelsea" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:27 pm

Clear and obvious

hmmm...

burnleymik · Post by **burnleymik** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:28 pm

Spijed wrote:Clear and obvious

hmmm...

Agreed. Took so long too

thelaughingclaret · Post by **thelaughingclaret** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:29 pm

That took ages and what happened to clear and obvious error? Just like the Vydra one. And this is going to be in the league next season! It’s shocking. It needs work but the game don’t care. I think they like more contoversy as sky and the like lap it up and we all know sky run the show. And that’s what football is now. A show. Makes me sad as the game we all love slips further away.

MDWat · Post by **MDWat** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:31 pm

It's going to ruin the game. If it comes in like this, I won't be arsed going anymore. What's the point? No emotion. No atmosphere. Joke.

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:31 pm

That took longer than it needed to but i do like that there's a VAR centre now and not the referee running to the side of the pitch to watch a monitor each time.

The time taken is just a teething problem though and the process will improve. But i've seen decisions take longer in cricket, rugby and baseball.

Duffer_ · Post by **Duffer_** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:32 pm

I have been a strong advocate for VAR but, seeing how it is being used in England, I would rather they wait for the "right" technology. It needs to be as instant as the goaline technology. Until then I'd rather keep the emotion and accept human error.

UTC!

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:34 pm

Test User wrote:That took longer than it needed to but i do like that there's a VAR centre now and not the referee running to the side of the pitch to watch a monitor each time.

The time taken is just a teething problem though and the process will improve. But i've seen decisions take longer in cricket, rugby and baseball.

But as Danny Murphy said, players will no longer celebrate, nor will the crowd.

It'll kill any spontaneity.

MDWat · Post by **MDWat** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:36 pm

Spijed wrote:But as Danny Murphy said, players will no longer celebrate, nor will the crowd.

It'll kill any spontaneity.

No emotion and no atmosphere at football anymore. People won't bother going.

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:37 pm

Spijed wrote:But as Danny Murphy said, players will no longer celebrate, nor will the crowd.

It'll kill any spontaneity.

Do players not celebrate in cricket, rugby or baseball? Because if VAR will end celebrations then it must end them in other sports. Right?

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:43 pm

Football and the Government - how to spoil a nation and the national game by having idiots in charge!

The moment the ball moves, that defender would be post Waghorn. And it's a foot for Gawd's sake! Surely we have, at least to be talking a body torso at least, before we question a goal being offside?

That one idiot moment has ruined the whole match.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:43 pm

Test User wrote:Do players not celebrate in cricket, rugby or baseball? Because if VAR will end celebrations then it must end them in other sports. Right?

In cricket they tend to stand there watching the reply of the ball on the big screen before celebrating.

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:48 pm

Spijed wrote:In cricket they tend to stand there watching the reply of the ball on the big screen before celebrating.

I've caught a few of the Big Bash games this month and i see them celebrating when they're sure and muted celebrations when they're unsure. I don't see anything wrong with that, certainly nothing wrong when the alternative is having them celebrate and then realise that the one-field umpires disagree.

Basically, i don't really give a **** about what VAR in any sport does to celebrations. I watch sport to see entertainment and justified winners and losers, not who got the luckiest decisions.

Archie Claret · Post by **Archie Claret** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:51 pm

What seems even more bizarre is in this competition some teams are able to benefit from VAR whilst others won’t. Surely either all ties have it or none?

MDWat · Post by **MDWat** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 8:53 pm

Test User wrote:I've caught a few of the Big Bash games this month and i see them celebrating when they're sure and muted celebrations when they're unsure. I don't see anything wrong with that, certainly nothing wrong when the alternative is having them celebrate and then realise that the one-field umpires disagree.

Basically, i don't really give a **** about what VAR in any sport does to celebrations. I watch sport to see entertainment and justified winners and losers, not who got the luckiest decisions.

A really **** version of football then? The greatest sport in the world that hasn't needed videos for 150 years? Fair play.

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:03 pm

MDWat wrote:A really **** version of football then? The greatest sport in the world that hasn't needed videos for 150 years? Fair play.

Football didn't need the pass back rule for over 100 years either - until it did. It didn't need the two-opponent off-side rule for over 70 (previously it was three opponents) - until it did. Football didn't need red and yellow cards for almost 100 years, including when England won the world cup - until it did. Football didn't need goal-line technology for almost 150 years either - until it did.

Just because a sport didn't have something before doesn't mean it was because it didn't need it. Often it's because either no one had thought of it or because the technology didn't make it possible.

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:06 pm

Archie Claret wrote:What seems even more bizarre is in this competition some teams are able to benefit from VAR whilst others won’t. Surely either all ties have it or none?

It doesn't matter in a knockout competition.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:09 pm

Test User wrote:I've caught a few of the Big Bash games this month and i see them celebrating when they're sure and muted celebrations when they're unsure. I don't see anything wrong with that, certainly nothing wrong when the alternative is having them celebrate and then realise that the one-field umpires disagree.

Basically, i don't really give a **** about what VAR in any sport does to celebrations. I watch sport to see entertainment and justified winners and losers, not who got the luckiest decisions.

That's fair enough, it's horses for courses. VAR will probably improve the game for the casual TV viewer. I think I recall you don't go to many games so it's understandable that you might be more entertained, I would probably be the same in a game such as tonight's where I don't have much interest in who wins. But surely you can agree that VAR, in its current form, will make the spectacle less entertaining for those who attend the games?

Ptangyangkipperbang · Post by **Ptangyangkipperbang** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:11 pm

If Derby's goal would have stood it may have made the game a bit more exciting with Southampton having to chase the game than it is at the moment

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:17 pm

Rileybobs wrote:That's fair enough, it's horses for courses. VAR will probably improve the game for the casual TV viewer. I think I recall you don't go to many games so it's understandable that you might be more entertained, I would probably be the same in a game such as tonight's where I don't have much interest in who wins. But surely you can agree that VAR, in its current form, will make the spectacle less entertaining for those who attend the games?

I'll make a similar point to my celebration post, are other sports being ruined by VAR or their equivalents? In Cricket and Tennis the process has become a part of the spectacle, but it's easier for them because they are naturally stop-start sports. So what do they do in Rugby that is more flowing? They chuck it up onto the big screen so that the crowd can see what it is the Video Refs are reviewing and that's how the video review becomes a part of the spectator experience there. There's no reason that can't be done for football.

Claretincraven · Post by **Claretincraven** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:19 pm

Southamptons second. Who knows if it was offside or not, the camera angle used was from about 25m in front of the players. If they haven't got the right kit it can't possibly work.

1fatclaret · Post by **1fatclaret** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:30 pm

Test User wrote:I'll make a similar point to my celebration post, are other sports being ruined by VAR or their equivalents? In Cricket and Tennis the process has become a part of the spectacle, but it's easier for them because they are naturally stop-start sports. So what do they do in Rugby that is more flowing? They chuck it up onto the big screen so that the crowd can see what it is the Video Refs are reviewing and that's how the video review becomes a part of the spectator experience there. There's no reason that can't be done for football.

Football didn't need those things you listed in your other post until, in particular with the back pass rule, games were being killed with boredom.

Your comparison with cricket doesn't stand water either. Each delivery is a miniature, self contained event. There is a natural pause after each one. Also, there are usually a minimum of ten wickets per match, so the celebrations are different. Only big wickets get a real cheer. In football, only consolation goals or the 5th or 6th in a hammering, get anything other than instantaneous raptures. VAR is going to remove that.

Cricket, tennis and pretty much all rugby VAR decisions are line calls or technology based (trajectory in particular) football VAR is looking at opinion based calls, not matter of fact, and also, as seen with Vydra, various phases of play. It's ********. I hate it. Really really hate it.

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:47 pm

VAR in the hands of numskulls.

Great that we have extra time to wear out Southampton!

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:57 pm

1fatclaret wrote:Football didn't need those things you listed in your other post until, in particular with the back pass rule, games were being killed with boredom.

Your comparison with cricket doesn't stand water either. Each delivery is a miniature, self contained event. There is a natural pause after each one. Also, there are usually a minimum of ten wickets per match, so the celebrations are different. Only big wickets get a real cheer. In football, only consolation goals or the 5th or 6th in a hammering, get anything other than instantaneous raptures. VAR is going to remove that.

Cricket, tennis and pretty much all rugby VAR decisions are line calls or technology based (trajectory in particular) football VAR is looking at opinion based calls, not matter of fact, and also, as seen with Vydra, various phases of play. It's ********. I hate it. Really really hate it.

No, of course football didn't "need" any of it. I was deliberately using the term that MDWat used to put across my counter argument using his language.
And i addressed the stop-start nature of some sports, which is why i explained how it's used in rugby.

There's a lot of things that football doesn't need but chooses to have because it makes sense. Examples of which are in my earlier post. And it makes sense to have VAR now that it's practical and other major sports have proven that it can work without ruining the enjoyment of the game.

I've got absolutely no doubt that the very same arguments being used against VAR in football were used to oppose VAR in the various other major sports in which it has been adopted, and not once has it ruined the sport. So i don't really give a **** what people's objections are, because they've been heard before and debunked.

Test User · Post by **Test User** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:01 pm

1fatclaret wrote:
Cricket, tennis and pretty much all rugby VAR decisions are line calls or technology based (trajectory in particular) football VAR is looking at opinion based calls, not matter of fact, and also, as seen with Vydra, various phases of play. It's ********. I hate it. Really really hate it.

What opinion-based decisions is football VAR looking at?

And Rugby has opinion-based video referee referrals. It's not just whether the ball was down, or whether a foot was in touch, they also look for foul play.

Ashingtonclaret46 · Post by **Ashingtonclaret46** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 10:50 pm

Test User wrote:What opinion-based decisions is football VAR looking at?

And Rugby has opinion-based video referee referrals. It's not just whether the ball was down, or whether a foot was in touch, they also look for foul play.

The offside decisions are opinion based because the goal tonight would have been given except for the opinion of two VAR officials looking at a screen which, from all accounts, was not really conclusive, therefore the goal was disallowed on the opinion of the off field VAR operators and the onfield officials did not even get to view the situation --this has happened in all the cup games where it has been used.

If you want another clear example of opinion-based decisions you only have to look at the farce in the final of the World Cup. The referee correctly gave a corner when the French player completely missed his header and the ball hit the defender on the arm. He was happy with this decision,as were the players, however, he was called to the halfway line to review his decision, he looked at the incident and then was making his way back to the penalty area to proceed with the corner. He got 10 yards onto the field of play and was obviously told that he must go back and review the incident again, which he did and then he gave a penalty. Why?
He was probably told that if he did not change his decision to go along with what the VAR operators wanted, in order to justify its use, he would not be on the International Panel of Referees in the future. There was no way that he thought that his original decision was incorrect otherwise he would have changed it on his first viewing of the incident on VAR.

If the VAR had allowed the goal tonight --it would have been correct because that was the opinion of the VAR operators. Likewise, they disallowed it for offside, in the opinion of the VAR operators.
In our game against Barnsley our penalty was disallowed because of offside, in the opinion of the VAR operators, however, the player given offside was not interfering with play at all. The referee was quite precise in ensuring that the free kick from where Sam Vokes was deemed to be offside which was 8 yards outside the penalty area whereas Vydra was well inside the area when he was involved.
VAR is just the opinion of another two people as it stands at the moment and the onus is completely removed from the onfield officials, therefore, this means that every decision that they make on the field of play is irrelevant and not important to the game, in spite of getting 96% correct.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:10 pm

Test User wrote:Do players not celebrate in cricket, rugby or baseball? Because if VAR will end celebrations then it must end them in other sports. Right?

I've been to a reasonable amount of live rugby, including watching England in a world cup final and various other finals, and the celebrations are more muted. Initially you're waiting to see if it gets referred, then trying to second guess the referee with the replay and then it's more relief rather than celebration if it's given. It's not the same, definitely worse in my opinion.

It's fun for neutrals and particularly watching on TV, not so much fans on the game.

Realistically though, fans on the game are the lowest priority for football so you can see why it's being brought in.

In other sports as well there are far fewer judgement calls on the video ref. Rugby has a few but even then the rules often aren't that open to interpretation, most refs have a fairly consistent view. That obviously isn't the case for football.,

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:54 pm

If offside is to be judged like it was tonight, then FIFA need to clarify the following things.

1. Is offside to be judged at the moment the ball is first touched by the kicking player, or the moment the ball leaves the foot of the kicking player, or at any point during the process, or at all points during the process? (The process of kicking the ball lasts about a hundredth of a second, during which time a running player will cover about 3 inches. A defender running out will also cover about three inches. A defender's back foot will cover about 5 or 6 inches.)

2. If the shoulder is to be used to judge offside or not, we will need an exact anatomical definition of where the shoulder ends and the arm starts.

3. Confirmation of whether or not the player's clothing can be offside, or if it is just the player personally. If a flapping sleeve or the toe of a boot is offside, but the arm or foot is not, does that constitute offside?

4. Confirmation that the technology used to assess these decisions is working at at least 200 frames per second. (8 times the speed of normal cameras, 3 times the speed of HD cameras.)

OR ALTERNATIVELY - they could look at the TV pictures like tonight, and see that the man is level in accordance withe the meaning of the law, and get on with the game. When the "level" rule was brought in (1990), the point was to give the attacker a bit of an edge in that he no longer had to be behind the second last opponent, he could be level with him. That rule was not brought in to give him an extra half an inch of room. It was intended to make a difference; a difference which will still apply in normal football, but not in VAR football.

But as it stands, and because we don't have answers to any of the four questions (or at least, the answer to question 4 is that they don't have the equipment) then the VAR officials could not correctly overturn the linesman's decision tonight. They don't have the technology.

Ashingtonclaret46 · Post by **Ashingtonclaret46** » Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:37 am

aggi wrote:I've been to a reasonable amount of live rugby, including watching England in a world cup final and various other finals, and the celebrations are more muted. Initially you're waiting to see if it gets referred, then trying to second guess the referee with the replay and then it's more relief rather than celebration if it's given. It's not the same, definitely worse in my opinion.

It's fun for neutrals and particularly watching on TV, not so much fans on the game.

Realistically though, fans on the game are the lowest priority for football so you can see why it's being brought in.

In other sports as well there are far fewer judgement calls on the video ref. Rugby has a few but even then the rules often aren't that open to interpretation, most refs have a fairly consistent view. That obviously isn't the case for football.,

Very true, aggi. The whole thing is media driven and ignores those who attend matches on a regular basis. If they are going to continue with VAR, they need to show the incident(s) being referred on the big screen in the ground so that those attending the match can have an idea of what is happening. There should be no secrets as far as VAR is concerned, however, I still feel that it is making one decision more important than another, which is wrong.

piston broke · Post by **piston broke** » Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:47 am

There will be many on here seriously depressed to read that VAR will be used in the City cup-tie.

Ashingtonclaret46 · Post by **Ashingtonclaret46** » Thu Jan 17, 2019 9:57 am

piston broke wrote:There will be many on here seriously depressed to read that VAR will be used in the City cup-tie.

Like Brexit, I accept that it will happen---won't it? I express my opinion about VAR, however, as far as being depressed about its use ----NO ---it is what the modern fans want and it is not something to cause me any concern.
It is easy to put into perspective because it is only a game and win, lose or draw it never affects my attitude to life. Waken up in the morning and be happy ---it really pisses people off!

NottsClaret · Post by **NottsClaret** » Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:10 am

Ashingtonclaret46 wrote:it is what the modern fans want and it is not something to cause me any concern.

I think a lot of fans want it because they truly believe their club does worse from ref's decisions than any other club and with VAR they'll be miles better off. They won't, obviously.

The goal line technology was great, it worked and it's a yes/no call within seconds. As we've seen already, penalties and even offside will always create debate, even more so with VAR. It is concern that once we have become accustomed to goals regularly being ruled out for an offside boot lace and penalties given for 'contact' that you'll lose the crowd reaction altogether.

Imagine Robbie Blake's goal, but instead of that glorious moment as the ball hits the net, we applaud, admire the strike regardless then anxiously wait for a couple of minutes to discover if a man in a hut has spotted something. Do you do the 'limbs' thing when the goal's scored - or when the goal's given by VAR?

And anyone know what's happening to added time now? It took 2 minutes last night for the Derby offside decision, then only 2 minutes added on for stoppages. When was the last time they put up 0 minutes on the board, which is what they effectively had..

Ashingtonclaret46 · Post by **Ashingtonclaret46** » Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:18 am

NottsClaret wrote:I think a lot of fans want it because they truly believe their club does worse from ref's decisions than any other club and with VAR they'll be miles better off. They won't, obviously.

The goal line technology was great, it worked and it's a yes/no call within seconds. As we've seen already, penalties and even offside will always create debate, even more so with VAR. It is concern that once we have become accustomed to goals regularly being ruled out for an offside boot lace and penalties given for 'contact' that you'll lose the crowd reaction altogether.

Imagine Robbie Blake's goal, but instead of that glorious moment as the ball hits the net, we applaud, admire the strike regardless then anxiously wait for a couple of minutes to discover if a man in a hut has spotted something. Do you do the 'limbs' thing when the goal's scored - or when the goal's given by VAR?

And anyone know what's happening to added time now? It took 2 minutes last night for the Derby offside decision, then only 2 minutes added on for stoppages. When was the last time they put up 0 minutes on the board, which is what they effectively had..

Can't argue against any of that Notts, however, it does make you wonder just where the game is going ---and for whose benefit? Certainly not the fan actually attending the game.

bob-the-scutter · Post by **bob-the-scutter** » Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:41 am

I think a better and much more entertaining idea would be to show the slow-motion replay on the big screen and let the crowd decide with a show of hands!

fatboy47 · Post by **fatboy47** » Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:48 am

The only sensible way to use VAR without massively detracting from the game is to allow each captain 1 appeal against a decision...when its gone its gone.

This appeal would only be for a goal or penalty conceded or not awarded.

Quickenthetempo · Post by **Quickenthetempo** » Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:02 am

Dsr-the player can't be offside until his team mate has deliberately passed the ball to him, so it has to be leaving the foot.

When using VAR the offside rule must be changed to just the feet as it's not got proper camera angles. You would need the linesman to have a camera on his head or a mobile camera keeping up with play. You can't have a true sense of shoulder etc.

duncandisorderly · Post by **duncandisorderly** » Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:22 am

Could this potentially lead to a simpler offside law, if it's going to be VAR'd?
i.e You can only be offside with your feet, not any other part of your body with which you can score. Would that make a difference?

Ashingtonclaret46 · Post by **Ashingtonclaret46** » Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:55 pm

I see that the VAR farce continues this weekend with just 6 out of 16 FA Cup ties covered.
Needless to say that the ones covered are all at PL grounds and involve 10 PL clubs.
PL clubs playing away are West Ham, Everton and Wolves and are not covered.
Meanwhile I can only asume that the other ties at Bristol City, Accrington Stanley, Doncaster, Middlesbrough, Portsmouth, Swansea and Barnet have no relevance whatsoever.

I don't think that it is fair to have VAR at some ties whilst there is none at others ---it should be all or nothing.