Taiwo Awoniyi.

[martin_p]

Of course you have the right to ask questions. Just as a player who is played through 1v1 only for the assistant to flag incorrectly and prevent a goalscoring chance would have the right to ask questions.

We don’t know how certain the assistant was that it was offside. I agree that if an assistant is absolutely certain there is an offside then they should be able to flag, and to be honest I think they do as I’ve seen it. If there is any doubt then we have two options;

1.) AR’s keep their flags down until the goalscoring opportunity has passed, which will lead to normal football related side-effects such as injuries
2.) AR’s flag if they think it was offside, which will lead to some goals correctly disallowed and some goals incorrectly disallowed

I’m surprised there is such a desire for option 2 if I’m honest.

But there’s a nuance to option 2 isn’t there. If the flag had gone up immediately at weekend a goal would never have been scored and VAR doesn’t get involved anyway. Play is stopped with Forest just in the Leicester half, tv looks at the replays and if it turns out it was onside then maybe a few people have a bit of a grumble and that is it. It’s different if the offside is in the box and a player is just about to score, but this wasn’t one of those instances.

[Rileybobs]

But there’s a nuance to option 2 isn’t there. If the flag had gone up immediately at weekend a goal would never have been scored and VAR doesn’t get involved anyway. Play is stopped with Forest just in the Leicester half, tv looks at the replays and if it turns out it was onside then maybe a few people have a bit of a grumble and that is it. It’s different if the offside is in the box and a player is just about to score, but this wasn’t one of those instances.

Yeah there is, but with nuance comes ambiguity. At what point do you allow the AR to exercise their judgement? The Awoniyi incident was clearly a very good goalscoring opportunity despite being near the halfway line. And what happens in your scenario in the box when players are injured when a flag is kept down? Presumably the same argument.

Nobody has answered whether they’re happy for VAR to be used just to disallow offside goals as opposed to also allowing perfectly good goals incorrectly ruled out. Because that is the crux of this.

[martin_p]

Nobody has answered whether they’re happy for VAR to be used just to disallow offside goals as opposed to also allowing perfectly good goals incorrectly ruled out. Because that is the crux of this.

That’s because it’s an irrelevant point. If the ball goes in the net then in pretty much all instances the offside has been so late in the move that the ref hasn’t had chance to blow his/her whistle. So whether the AR had their flag up or not it goes to VAR to decide. In instances where the flag goes up and play is stopped before a goal is scored VAR doesn’t get involved. There are very few instances I can think of that don’t fall into one of those two categories.

[Rileybobs]

That’s because it’s an irrelevant point. If the ball goes in the net then in pretty much all instances the offside has been so late in the move that the ref hasn’t had chance to blow his/her whistle. So whether the AR had their flag up or not it goes to VAR to decide. In instances where the flag goes up and play is stopped before a goal is scored VAR doesn’t get involved. There are very few instances I can think of that don’t fall into one of those two categories.

OK, I'll rephrase...

The problem with the other suggestion is that in the case of offside, VAR would exist purely to disallow goals that were incorrectly given, rather than allowing goalscoring opportunities, some of which would inevitably lead to legitimate goals, to play out. Are people happy with this?

[martin_p]

OK, I'll rephrase...

The problem with the other suggestion is that in the case of offside, VAR would exist purely to disallow goals that were incorrectly given, rather than allowing goalscoring opportunities, some of which would inevitably lead to legitimate goals, to play out. Are people happy with this?

Yes, that’s what VAR was supposed to be for, correcting match changing decisions.

[Rileybobs]

Yes, that’s what VAR was supposed to be for, correcting match changing decisions.

Which should surely also include incorrect offside calls?

[martin_p]

Which should surely also include incorrect offside calls?

No. It was never for every offside call, it was for those involving goals. The logical extension to that thinking is that the referee never makes any decision, whether it be offside, a foul or a handball, until the outcome of the sequence of play is known.

[Rileybobs]

No. It was never for every offside call, it was for those involving goals. The logical extension to that thinking is that the referee never makes any decision, whether it be offside, a foul or a handball, until the outcome of the sequence of play is known.

I wouldn't say that's a particularly logical extension, but that scenario does occur in some situations with the advantage rule.

[martin_p]

I wouldn't say that's a particularly logical extension, but that scenario does occur in some situations with the advantage rule.

No it doesn’t. The advantage rule recognises an infringement of the rules has happened but doesn’t want to punish the team the infringement has occurred against if it looks like they’re in a better position than the free kick would offer.

What the position on offside that VAR has created says is ‘I’m fairly sure the attacking player is offside but let’s see how this plays out before I tell anyone just on the off chance I’m wrong’. So logically why don’t we also say ‘I’m fairly sure that was a foul by the attacking player but let’s see how this plays out before I tell anyone just on the off chance I’m wrong’.

Referees sometimes are wrong on fouls but they call them then and there and the game stops. VAR only intervenes when a goal is scored and the officials have missed a foul, as it should be, so why don’t we do that with offsides?

[daveisaclaret]

It's obvious that this is the way VAR has to work. It would be ridiculous to have a system that sometimes rules out goals for being offside but can never rule goals in for being onside.

[martin_p]

It's obvious that this is the way VAR has to work. It would be ridiculous to have a system that sometimes rules out goals for being offside but can never rule goals in for being onside.

But you’re creating a role for VAR far beyond its original remit and that’s part of the problem. No one was screaming for someone to do something about the goals they’d imagined they’d score if they hadn’t been given offside 50 yards from goal. The ‘problem’ was errors that had changed the game that could have been easily resolved with a quick look at a tv screen. VAR has massively extended its remit and looked to resolve problems that didn’t exist.

[quoonbeatz]

Yes, that’s what VAR was supposed to be for, correcting match changing decisions.

Which is why it will never work in football. Football isn’t like cricket, tennis, rugby etc because they’re all stop/start, things reset on a regular basis. Football isnt like that. Everything that happens in a football match affects what comes next so every decision changes the match. Every corner, throw in, free kick affects the game.

If var was to work in football, every decision has to be reviewed. Which is obviously ridiculous and why it will never work.

[martin_p]

Which is why it will never work in football. Football isn’t like cricket, tennis, rugby etc because they’re all stop/start, things reset on a regular basis. Football isnt like that. Everything that happens in a football match affects what comes next so every decision changes the match. Every corner, throw in, free kick affects the game.

If var was to work in football, every decision has to be reviewed. Which is obviously ridiculous and why it will never work.

I think it can work for correcting major game changing wrongs, I.e. goals that shouldn’t have stood, penalty appeals incorrectly called and serious foul play behind the referees back. But that’s about its limit.

[pureclaret]

But AR’s don’t know for sure as pointed out above, so they are told to let play continue to avoid a situation where perfectly good goals are ruled out. I’m surprised to see so many people against this considering the noise we have about VAR looking to rule out goals. Because if lino’s flag then VAR’s only purpose re offsides will be to correct incorrect decisions by chalking off goals, and not to correct incorrect decisions by allowing goals. Do we really want that?

Im getting quite confused by the correct incorrect points you are making.
As far as I understand VAR is to correct clear and obvious mistakes and the powers that be have taken the offside to minute detail.
My understanding of the VAR check is if a goal is scored and that that happens regardless of if a an official says offside or not.
Its if the ball goes in the net a check is done. The problem and the reason for the protocol is that if the lino flags and the ref blows his whistle and the players play on and put the ball in the net , is that the ref would consider booking a player for kicking the ball away, but if the offside was wrong then the goal may or may not stand and the ref would have to rescind the card John Jo played on when flagged offside and goal stood

[bobinho]

Very interesting discussion this.

VAR has created its own role beyond its original remit. It STILL uses the phrase “clear and obvious error” but millimetres are neither of those things when the game is in full flow.

Let the game be referee’d properly, let the linesman operate properly. If you need a line drawing across a screen and super slo-mo backwards and forwards it’s most certainly overstepping the remit. If the offside is obviously offside, flag it. Not flagging it serves no real purpose.

Make the interventions about clear and obvious errors and we will see a better VAR, everything else is the refs call (like umpires call in cricket)

[pureclaret]

Very interesting discussion this.

VAR has created its own role beyond its original remit. It STILL uses the phrase “clear and obvious error” but millimetres are neither of those things when the game is in full flow.

Let the game be referee’d properly, let the linesman operate properly. If you need a line drawing across a screen and super slo-mo backwards and forwards it’s most certainly overstepping the remit. If the offside is obviously offside, flag it. Not flagging it serves no real purpose.

Make the interventions about clear and obvious errors and we will see a better VAR, everything else is the refs call (like umpires call in cricket)

I think you are spot on, I think if it takes more than 30 seconds to look at 3 or 4 screens and still cant decide then its not clear and obvious go with on field decision.
My new suggestion is that you and I with another go to the Royal Dyche they could set us up in one of the rooms with 3 to 5 screens pay us the £40k that they get paid per year for the 4 or 5 matches per week im sure we would get more things right than current people do !!!!!

[quoonbeatz]

I think it can work for correcting major game changing wrongs, I.e. goals that shouldn’t have stood, penalty appeals incorrectly called and serious foul play behind the referees back. But that’s about its limit.

But you can’t have it correcting goals that shouldn’t have stood without it correcting goals that should have stood, which is why you get incidents like the one that started this thread.

A throw in given the wrong way or a corner given instead of a goal kick can be a major game changing wrong, but they don’t bother with them, which is the point, they all affect the game.

[martin_p]

But you can’t have it correcting goals that shouldn’t have stood without it correcting goals that should have stood, which is why you get incidents like the one that started this thread.

A throw in given the wrong way or a corner given instead of a goal kick can be a major game changing wrong, but they don’t bother with them, which is the point, they all affect the game.

There isn’t a goal that should have stood if an offside is given, the game stops!

I get your logic but unfortunately it leads to a complete destruction of the game as we know it and there has to be a lot of pragmatism when it comes to VAR if it is going to be a positive force rather than what it has become.

[quoonbeatz]

There isn’t a goal that should have stood if an offside is given, the game stops!

I get your logic but unfortunately it leads to a complete destruction of the game as we know it and there has to be a lot of pragmatism when it comes to VAR if it is going to be a positive force rather than what it has become.

It’s already led to destruction of the game as we know it. Obviously there isn't a goal if an offside is given but there is always the chance an offside is given incorrectly, just as an offside goal might be given incorrectly. They’re game changing decisions and you can’t have one without the other.

[bobinho]

But you can’t have it correcting goals that shouldn’t have stood without it correcting goals that should have stood, which is why you get incidents like the one that started this thread.

A throw in given the wrong way or a corner given instead of a goal kick can be a major game changing wrong, but they don’t bother with them, which is the point, they all affect the game.

I think the incident that started the thread is different though, in that it was OBVIOUS Elanga was offside and VAR would not have needed to intervene. Had the Lino flagged when the ball was played to elanga as he should really have done but for the daft rule change, that play would have been stopped and the serious injury would not have occurred.

If it’s tight, give the Lino the breathing space by all means, but if it isn’t, get the feckin flag up.

What if the lads career is over?

What if he sues?

[quoonbeatz]

I think the incident that started the thread is different though, in that it was OBVIOUS Elanga was offside and VAR would not have needed to intervene. Had the Lino flagged when the ball was played to elanga as he should really have done but for the daft rule change, that play would have been stopped and the serious injury would not have occurred.

If it’s tight, give the Lino the breathing space by all means, but if it isn’t, get the feckin flag up.

What if the lads career is over?

What if he sues?

There are loads of instances where a player looks very obviously offside but it turns out they aren’t. What if it looks obvious to the liner and they stick their flag up but they’re actually a yard behind play and couldn’t see a player playing them on? Ridiculous as it seems, they’re doing the right thing at the moment by letting play go on.

The answer is to bin var and let the officials on the pitch make the decisions.

[Bullabill]

What if it looks obvious to the liner and they stick their flag up but they’re actually a yard behind play and couldn’t see a player playing them on?

The answer is to bin var and let the officials on the pitch make the decisions.

In this case she was almost dead in line and could have flagged. This is being discussed because it's a serious injury, but we've all seen 'near things' and the possibility that these thing could happen. If this 'rule' is not changed it will happen again. How would we feel if Maxim Esteve were chasing down that attacker and ripped a hamstring?

[quoonbeatz]

In this case she was almost dead in line and could have flagged. This is being discussed because it's a serious injury, but we've all seen 'near things' and the possibility that these thing could happen. If this 'rule' is not changed it will happen again. How would we feel if Maxim Esteve were chasing down that attacker and ripped a hamstring?

She was indeed almost dead in line but that’s irrelevant. Almost every game there are instances where players look offside but they aren’t or look onside but they’re not. Liners make mistakes. You can’t say flag straight away if you think it’s off but if you think it’s on, it doesn’t matter, we’ll check it after anyway because you’re letting them make a decision sometimes but not others, which isn’t remotely fair on anyone.

This is entirely down to using var. If we’re honest, liners are redundant at PL level, they don’t even give throws without asking the ref first these days.

[Ashingtonclaret46]

This is an excellent example of how there are two different interpretations as to The Laws of the Game dependent at which level you are playing football.
Only in the Premier League is there the interpretation which led up to this terrible injury. In every other game of football played in England on that day, the AR at whichever level would have flagged for the original offside if they were doing their job correctly. This would have stopped play a number of seconds before the accident occurred.
There is one reason why the accident happened and that is the use of VAR.

You can say that the football authorities consider that the Premier League is the only division which matters in ALL English football because all the other football played has no relevance because they do not insist that every game played should have VAR. They say that this is because of cost and clubs can't afford it. That being the case, it should not have been introduced at any level at all because it has done nothing at all for the game and its enjoyment, particularly for the fans who attend matches.

Never mind, it will continue to ruin the game at the top level, aided and abetted by FIFA, UEFA et al until they can think of some other digital introduction, available only to the top level, in order t put another spoke in the wheel. Meanwhile the fan who attends matches will move further down the pecking order even though they will charge you more to gain admittance.

IN the meantime we have a player lying in a hospital bed with an injury which just did not need to happen because FIFA are trying to manufacture the 'perfect game of football' Sad, very sad.

[martin_p]

You can’t say flag straight away if you think it’s off but if you think it’s on, it doesn’t matter, we’ll check it after anyway because you’re letting them make a decision sometimes but not others, which isn’t remotely fair on anyone.

I think flag if you think it’s off and not flagging if you think it’s on have both been considered decisions since offside was invented.

VAR only need get involved when a goal is scored because a wrong decision is irrelevant in all other cases.

[Elizabeth]

There are many reasons to call for the sacking of VAR but this is not one of them. Put the flag up when it is clear to everyone, as in this case, there is an offside.

[quoonbeatz]

I think flag if you think it’s off and not flagging if you think it’s on have both been considered decisions since offside was invented.

VAR only need get involved when a goal is scored because a wrong decision is irrelevant in all other cases.

It isn’t irrelevant because a goal could have been scored when the liner put their flag up incorrectly. That’s a game changing decision, just like when an offside goal is scored and a liner doesn’t flag. That’s the point, you can’t have one but not the other, it has to go both ways.

They are doing the right thing and as long as var is used they have to continue with that.

[martin_p]

It isn’t irrelevant because a goal could have been scored when the liner put their flag up incorrectly. That’s a game changing decision, just like when an offside goal is scored and a liner doesn’t flag. That’s the point, you can’t have one but not the other, it has to go both ways.

They are doing the right thing and as long as var is used they have to continue with that.

But you can have one without the other very easily. VAR isn’t about predicting what might happen it’s about correcting wrongs that have happened, specifically when goals have been scored, penalties have/have not been given or there has been serious foul play. As i’ve said previously on this thread the logical extension of your argument is never giving any decision ever (because it might be wrong) and letting play continue to see what happens, then only reviewing afterwards. We allow the officials to make immediate decisions on fouls or handballs, why not offside. Both can be wrongly given, both could have ended up in a goal if not given.

[quoonbeatz]

But you can have one without the other very easily. VAR isn’t about predicting what might happen it’s about correcting wrongs that have happened, specifically when goals have been scored, penalties have/have not been given or there has been serious foul play.

And that’s exactly what it’s being used for by letting play continue. There have been plenty of times when the liner has flagged for offside after a goal was scored and var has shown they’ve been wrong. That’s why you have to play on.

[martin_p]

And that’s exactly what it’s being used for by letting play continue. There have been plenty of times when the liner has flagged for offside after a goal was scored and var has shown they’ve been wrong. That’s why you have to play on.

So why don’t we do the same for every other decision then? Why is it only offsides?

[quoonbeatz]

So why don’t we do the same for every other decision then? Why is it only offsides?

That’s exactly the point I’ve been making since var was introduced. Every decision has a consequence in football so if var is to work, everything has to be reviewed rather than picking and choosing what you review. That would be ridiculous but that’s why var isn’t right for football.

[martin_p]

That’s exactly the point I’ve been making since var was introduced. Every decision has a consequence in football so if var is to work, everything has to be reviewed rather than picking and choosing what you review. That would be ridiculous but that’s why var isn’t right for football.

Yes, but some decisions have consequences that are real and have actually happened whereas others only have a number of potential consequences. VAR was brought in to help with the ones that have actually happened and if it stuck to those it would work better. We shouldn’t be trying to solve problems that have never existed, no one was suggesting video technology should be introduced to allow potential futures to map out!

[quoonbeatz]

Yes, but some decisions have consequences that are real and have actually happened whereas others only have a number of potential consequences. VAR was brought in to help with the ones that have actually happened and if it stuck to those it would work better.

That’s exactly what it is doing. That’s why play continues and the flag goes up when play stops/a goal is scored and they check it.

[martin_p]

That’s exactly what it is doing. That’s why play continues and the flag goes up when play stops/a goal is scored and they check it.

No, that’s a decision with a potential consequence. In this case the consequence was a player with a potentially life threatening injury.

The only way VAR can be effective if is the mantra is ‘shoot first, ask questions later’.

[quoonbeatz]

No, that’s a decision with a potential consequence. In this case the consequence was a player with a potentially life threatening injury.

Nope, the consequence, as it is in every offside situation is either a goal is scored or not scored. If a goal had been scored, var would have reviewed and disallowed it. That’s what var is for and that’s why play continues. If a goal is not scored, the offside decision is moot but if a goal is scored, the offside comes into play. You can’t do one and not the other, in the interests of fairness if nothing else.

[martin_p]

Nope, the consequence, as it is in every offside situation is either a goal is scored or not scored. If a goal had been scored, var would have reviewed and disallowed it. That’s what var is for and that’s why play continues. If a goal is not scored, the offside decision is moot but if a goal is scored, the offside comes into play. You can’t do one and not the other, in the interests of fairness if nothing else.

Of course you can. Fairness to who? It would be the same for both teams.

[quoonbeatz]

It is the same for both teams, that’s why play continuing is fair.

[dsr]

No, that’s a decision with a potential consequence. In this case the consequence was a player with a potentially life threatening injury.

The only way VAR can be effective if is the mantra is ‘shoot first, ask questions later’.

It's compromise, isn't it. The more you give offside, the less likely players are to get injured. VAR would have it that if the linesman is (estimated) 90% sure of offside, he should give it. You would have it that it should be 50%. But why 50%? Why not flag if it is 25%, or 10% chance of offside? That would reduce the chances of injury even further.

[martin_p]

It's compromise, isn't it. The more you give offside, the less likely players are to get injured. VAR would have it that if the linesman is (estimated) 90% sure of offside, he should give it. You would have it that it should be 50%. But why 50%? Why not flag if it is 25%, or 10% chance of offside? That would reduce the chances of injury even further.

I’d say it’s fairly simple. If the linesman thinks it’s offside he raises his flag, if he doesn’t he doesn’t raise his flag.

[dsr]

I’d say it’s fairly simple. If the linesman thinks it’s offside he raises his flag, if he doesn’t he doesn’t raise his flag.

And therein lies part of the problem. Under the pre-VAR rules, he had a fair chance of getting it right. Nowadays under VAR, the ones we he used to call "level-onside" are pure guesswork.

(I don't actually know what they do after the event. When it's one of those where the linesman hasn't a chance of being right, the ones that take 2 minutes and more to check, does he let it play out and then take a 50-50 guess, or does call it onside like he would have done in the "old days"? Either way, he's going to be wrong half the time.