Cornet's Disallowed Goal

[Bosscat]

As has been said VAR isn't the problem ... its the people operating the equipment back at VAR HQ

[scouseclaret]

So they have thicker lines now, and from the graphic shown those lines were overlapping, so onside, no?

[dsr]

I think the point of all these offsides when players are level, is because the powers that be believe that there are too many goals being scored when players are level with the defender, and you get a better game of football if these goals are disallowed. However long it takes.

31 years ago, they changed the rule specifically so that this sort of goal would go from offside, as it was until 1990, to onside, as it was from 1990 to 2020. The VAR people have chosen to reverse that decision, apparently because they want to see more goals disallowed. They could easily have left the interpretation unchanged, that level according to human eye equals level in real life, but they chose instead to use the most extreme definition to disallow as many goals as possible.

Can anyone honestly say that the game has been made better by incidents like today's disallowed goal?

[Rileybobs]

I think the point of all these offsides when players are level, is because the powers that be believe that there are too many goals being scored when players are level with the defender, and you get a better game of football if these goals are disallowed. However long it takes.

31 years ago, they changed the rule specifically so that this sort of goal would go from offside, as it was until 1990, to onside, as it was from 1990 to 2020. The VAR people have chosen to reverse that decision, apparently because they want to see more goals disallowed. They could easily have left the interpretation unchanged, that level according to human eye equals level in real life, but they chose instead to use the most extreme definition to disallow as many goals as possible.

Can anyone honestly say that the game has been made better by incidents like today's disallowed goal?

They haven’t changed the interpretation to disallow as many goals as possible though have they? Your general point is sound, no need for fabrications.

[beeholeclaret]

I’ve not cheered a Burnley goal since Chris Wood’s header from McNeil’s cross put us “3-0” up aganst West Ham a couple of years back before VAR disallowed for marginal offside. My son played hell at me for not cheering any of the goals today. I said I’m waiting until all checks are complete and the opposition have kicked off again. By then the moment is over. So much for modern day football.

[scouseclaret]

I don’t think that’s right Dsr.I think the problem before VAR was that, to the human eye and with the speed the game moves, players who are onside very often look offside. Therefore, a lot more onside goals were incorrectly disallowed than the other way round (offside goals allowed to stand).

VAR probably does lead to better outcomes overall, but the problem is the forensic application of the lines, which is still more of an art than a science. I thought the fact they’d made the lines thicker was meant to ensure that really marginal decisions like today’s would see the scoring team given the benefit of the doubt, but not for Burnley, it seems.

[JohnMcGreal]

As has been said VAR isn't the problem ... its the people operating the equipment back at VAR HQ

VAR is the problem. It's a complete waste of time.

[dsr]

They haven’t changed the interpretation to disallow as many goals as possible though have they? Your general point is sound, no need for fabrications.

They have changed the interpretation with the result that they now disallow as many goals as they can do, short of formally changing the rules. But you're right that the reason behind it is speculation. It might be just that they're either too stupid to know what they've done, or too stupid to know how to fix it, or perhaps most likely is that they are more concerned with VAR than they are with the game of football so they simply don't care if it spoils the game.

[Jakubclaret]

I think the point of all these offsides when players are level, is because the powers that be believe that there are too many goals being scored when players are level with the defender, and you get a better game of football if these goals are disallowed. However long it takes.

31 years ago, they changed the rule specifically so that this sort of goal would go from offside, as it was until 1990, to onside, as it was from 1990 to 2020. The VAR people have chosen to reverse that decision, apparently because they want to see more goals disallowed. They could easily have left the interpretation unchanged, that level according to human eye equals level in real life, but they chose instead to use the most extreme definition to disallow as many goals as possible.

Can anyone honestly say that the game has been made better by incidents like today's disallowed goal?

I can certainly see the sense in that concept from a neutral entertainment spectacle it’s effectively keeping the game from a result perspective in the balance & also for as long as possible, it wouldn’t surprise me if some sort of directive was issued along them lines to rule more goals out.

[Rileybobs]

They have changed the interpretation with the result that they now disallow as many goals as they can do, short of formally changing the rules. But you're right that the reason behind it is speculation. It might be just that they're either too stupid to know what they've done, or too stupid to know how to fix it, or perhaps most likely is that they are more concerned with VAR than they are with the game of football so they simply don't care if it spoils the game.

I think that they just don't really care about the spectators tbh. It's impossible to fully celebrate a goal these days, and for me the occasional marginally wrong decision is a price worth paying to enhance the enjoyment of a game. But then again, spectators are seen as minor stakeholders where football is concerned.

[Jakubclaret]

If you are a neutral spectator at home & 1 team takes a commanding lead you switch the TV off & lose interest sure about the result & that advertising revenue is potentially lost, adverts which aren’t watched cannot generate any potential money it’s in the interests to keep the viewers absorbed for as long as possible.

[Rileybobs]

If you are a neutral spectator at home & 1 team takes a commanding lead you switch the TV off & lose interest sure about the result & that advertising revenue is potentially lost, adverts which aren’t watched cannot generate any potential money it’s in the interests to keep the viewers absorbed for as long as possible.

I said spectators, not viewers.

[Jakubclaret]

I said spectators, not viewers.

I wasn't specifically responding to your post a far bigger prize than the minority stakeholders (spectators) exist with the Sky & BT subscribers than 15k or so at TM.

[Rileybobs]

I wasn't specifically responding to your post a far bigger prize than the minority stakeholders (spectators) exist with the Sky & BT subscribers than 15k or so at TM.

My point exactly

[Jakubclaret]

My point exactly

So you agree that it makes plausible sense for some of the goals to be scrubbed off in order to keep people watching football for longer thus more exposure to the advertising?

[Rileybobs]

So you agree that it makes plausible sense for some of the goals to be scrubbed off in order to keep people watching football for longer thus more exposure to the advertising?

No, my point is that spectators, in stadiums, are almost irrelevant when it comes to administering the laws of the game.

[Jakubclaret]

No, my point is that spectators, in stadiums, are almost irrelevant when it comes to administering the laws of the game.

Have to be really because you are supposed to be applying fairness without bias.

[Rileybobs]

Have to be really because you are supposed to be applying fairness without bias.

Maybe administering was the wrong word. What I mean is that the forensic application of technology to decide offside calls is done so without any regard to spectators. Celebrating a goal in a stadium hasn’t been the same since VAR was introduced. Some people may prefer more decisions to be called correctly, I prefer the spontaneity of celebrating a goal without spending the next 2 minutes worrying whether it will be chalked off.

[Jakubclaret]

Maybe administering was the wrong word. What I mean is that the forensic application of technology to decide offside calls is done so without any regard to spectators. Celebrating a goal in a stadium hasn’t been the same since VAR was introduced. Some people may prefer more decisions to be called correctly, I prefer the spontaneity of celebrating a goal without spending the next 2 minutes worrying whether it will be chalked off.

Well people can’t have it both ways if correct decisions need to be made assessments take time, you might prefer celebrating straightaway but would you not prefer to wait & celebrate an honest correct decision? Some people seem to want it both ways & don’t understand that’s impossible.

[Rileybobs]

Well people can’t have it both ways if correct decisions need to be made assessments take time, you might prefer celebrating straightaway but would you not prefer to wait & celebrate an honest correct decision? Some people seem to want it both ways & don’t understand that’s impossible.

No. Like I say, from a spectator’s point of view I would happily scrap VAR and accept that my team will be on the end of some bad decisions. And even we are to persist VAR, which we will, I would like to see close offside calls like the one on Wood today, and at Leicester, go with the on-field decision. And that’s not because the decision would favour us, but because it would be in keeping with the nature of the game.

[CharlieinNewMexico]

That doesn't look like the moment the ball was played to me.

What I thought. The ball isn’t even in the picture so how can they know the exact moment of connection?

[RammyClaret61]

Its offside

This is what VAR is good for

Offsides

We will get some that help us, and some that won't

And before VAR, we got some decisions that went our way, and some that didn’t. So what’s the f****** point of it?

[Sean Dyche's Watch]

That doesn't look like the moment the ball was played to me.

20211031_034833.jpg (193.67 KiB) Viewed 4137 times

[Sean Dyche's Watch]

What I thought. The ball isn’t even in the picture so how can they know the exact moment of connection?

[CharlieinNewMexico]

Repeat. So how can they know the exact moment of connection.

If they want to split second it at one end, how can they be sure of the split second Westwood made contact with the ball. What are they going off. The naked eye? Sound?

[RammyClaret61]

Repeat. So how can they know the exact moment of connection.

If they want to split second it at one end, how can they be sure of the split second Westwood made contact with the ball. What are they going off. The naked eye? Sound?

This is the whole problem. It’s a botch up. Technology at one end, even though implemented by a human being, a human being’s guesswork at the other end! VAR makes no sense at all, it just slows everything down, and still we get tight decisions going one way or the other.

[claretandy]

There should be an umpires call like in cricket, if the flag doesn't go up then you stay with the on field decision.

[Colburn_Claret]

They haven’t changed the interpretation to disallow as many goals as possible though have they? Your general point is sound, no need for fabrications.

I've always believed that referees have had the hump at having their judgement challenged. They are, for the most part, the most arrogant group of people within any sport. From day one they have done everything they can to undermine the effectiveness of VAR, reinterpreting the rules for offside, handball amongst them. Then the prick Gallagher will stain the TV and justify all the bad calls, and blame it on the fans, because it's what we wanted.
There are no need for any lines, a simple replay of the goal will do. IF you can't tell its obviously offside, it's a goal. No one argues at the tight decisions, you might not agree, but if you can see why it was given....
Things will never change until we replace our referees and the PGMOL, with people who support the change.

[ClaretAL]

For me the technology is fine, it's the idiots using it. For example in the Euros it was great, ut was fast and correct to the point you hardly noticed it was in use.

[mill hill claret]

As has been said VAR isn't the problem ... its the people operating the equipment back at VAR HQ

[claretandy]

Just re-watched soccer saturday, Sue Smith originally said that the goal had been given.

[nil_desperandum]

For me it's the way that VAR is operated that's wrong. We could learn a lot from other sports.
Each team should be given 2 VAR "challenges" to be used for clear and obvious errors. As in cricket /tennis if the challenge is successful then you retain your review. if you challenge the decision and are wrong then you lose the review.
So in the case of marginal offsides then it would be highly unlikely that any team would ask for a review since if you lose the review it might come back to bite you later in the game when an error goes against you.
So in the case of Krul, we would obviously have issued a challenge and explained why we thought it was a red card and penalty.

[martin_p]

For me it's the way that VAR is operated that's wrong. We could learn a lot from other sports.
Each team should be given 2 VAR "challenges" to be used for clear and obvious errors. As in cricket /tennis if the challenge is successful then you retain your review. if you challenge the decision and are wrong then you lose the review.
So in the case of marginal offsides then it would be highly unlikely that any team would ask for a review since if you lose the review it might come back to bite you later in the game when an error goes against you.
So in the case of Krul, we would obviously have issued a challenge and explained why we thought it was a red card and penalty.

And lost the challenge given VAR looked at it and didn’t overturn the ref’s decision.

[Colburn_Claret]

And lost the challenge given VAR looked at it and didn’t overturn the ref’s decision.

You do realise VAR is a person behind a machine, and not a machine.

As others have said, it's the officials that are the problem, not VAR.

[JohnMac]

As soon as the ball went in Moss turned to the AR and did the two fingers pointing at his eyeballs thing, so asking 'Was that okay in your eyes'? It wasn't just a quick point either, probably 2 or 3 seconds. Flag stayed down as the AR clearly thought it was onside.

[Colburn_Claret]

As soon as the ball went in Moss turned to the AR and did the two fingers pointing at his eyeballs thing, so asking 'Was that okay in your eyes'? It wasn't just a quick point either, probably 2 or 3 seconds. Flag stayed down as the AR clearly thought it was onside.

That being the case why did VAR even intervene. There was certainly nothing clear and obvious about it. Moss was happy, the AR was happy, Brentford had accepted it, yet someone on an ego trip decides to upset the apple cart. It always comes back to the officials.

[Rileybobs]

That being the case why did VAR even intervene. There was certainly nothing clear and obvious about it. Moss was happy, the AR was happy, Brentford had accepted it, yet someone on an ego trip decides to upset the apple cart. It always comes back to the officials.

The VAR looks at every goal. Clear and obvious doesn’t apply to offside decisions. These two things have always been the case since the introduction of VAR.

[Colburn_Claret]

The VAR looks at every goal. Clear and obvious doesn’t apply to offside decisions. These two things have always been the case since the introduction of VAR.

Not this season, because of all the controversial 'toe nail' offside calls, it was supposed to be broader lines with attackers getting the benefit of close calls. There is no way that technology can determine the exact split second a pass is made, and split seconds can be 12ins if the defender and attacker happen to be going in opposite directions. The ruling yesterday is not what the vast majority of football fans want to see, and I'm sure many Brentford fans would agree. Just because referees keep telling us, this is what we wanted, doesn't make it so.

[martin_p]

You do realise VAR is a person behind a machine, and not a machine.

As others have said, it's the officials that are the problem, not VAR.

I do realise that, I was pointing out the the approach of having a limited number of VAR challenges wouldn’t have changed anything. In fact the only difference would be that some clear and obvious errors wouldn’t get challenged because a team had run out of challenges.

The main problem with VAR and offsides (as noted by many) is that the authorities want to use it to make decisions involving inches when the technology isn’t up to it and is never likely to be in my opinion. It’s no good comparing it to the technology used in tennis and cricket as they have the ability of those sports to place the cameras in the perfect positions to make a judgement as the action is always in fixed positions. Offsides are always going to involve three random points on a football pitch.

[Rileybobs]

Not this season, because of all the controversial 'toe nail' offside calls, it was supposed to be broader lines with attackers getting the benefit of close calls. There is no way that technology can determine the exact split second a pass is made, and split seconds can be 12ins if the defender and attacker happen to be going in opposite directions. The ruling yesterday is not what the vast majority of football fans want to see, and I'm sure many Brentford fans would agree. Just because referees keep telling us, this is what we wanted, doesn't make it so.

I agree. I was just pointing out that ‘clear and obvious’ has never been the bar used to determine offsides. I believe the lines have been thickened, but this margin of error obviously wasn’t large enough for Chris Wood to have been judged onside.

[Rileybobs]

I do realise that, I was pointing out the the approach of having a limited number of VAR challenges wouldn’t have changed anything. In fact the only difference would be that some clear and obvious errors wouldn’t get challenged because a team had run out of challenges.

The main problem with VAR and offsides (as noted by many) is that the authorities want to use it to make decisions involving inches when the technology isn’t up to it and is never likely to be in my opinion. It’s no good comparing it to the technology used in tennis and cricket as they have the ability of those sports to place the cameras in the perfect positions to make a judgement as the action is always in fixed positions. Offsides are always going to involve three random points on a football pitch.

Someone posted a link about a ‘Hawkeye’ type system which will be used in next year’s World Cup. So I don’t think we’re far away from the technology being fit for purpose, which it clearly isn’t as things stand.

[taio]

As pointed out when it's so tight there should be certainty about the precise moment the ball is played.

[martin_p]

Someone posted a link about a ‘Hawkeye’ type system which will be used in next year’s World Cup. So I don’t think we’re far away from the technology being fit for purpose, which it clearly isn’t as things stand.

I’m not so sure. It may be better than what we have, but good enough for decisions involving cms? Unless you can get cameras perpendicular to every point of the touch line there’s always going to be an estimation involved whether that be human or computer.

[Rileybobs]

I’m not so sure. It may be better than what we have, but good enough for decisions involving cms? Unless you can get cameras perpendicular to every point of the touch line there’s always going to be an estimation involved whether that be human or computer.

There will always be a margin of error, this is also the case in cricket and tennis - and even with goal line technology in football. But even as things stand, each PL pitch has been mapped, even taking account the camber of the pitch, and the camera is in a fixed position. The problem as you say is determining the point of contact - and an even bigger problem is the manual drawing of lines, particularly when taken vertically from a notional ‘t-shirt’ line.

I think the technology will improve, and as long as a margin of error is built in that either gives the benefit of doubt to the attacker, or stays with the onfield call then we will see improvements to a system which currently isn’t fit for purpose.

[Sean Dyche's Watch]

16356745929035655650528792974356.jpg (1.87 MiB) Viewed 3786 times

[Spijed]

You can have Hawkeye, but how will that ever resolve the age old problem as to whether a player is interfering with play or not?

The only way to make offside 100% certain would be that if any player is in an offside position it should be given as such, even if they were over the far side of the pitch, for example.

It's impossible to build technology where an opinion is needed, such as handball, deliberate or not, or whether inactive players are actually active where offsides are concerned.

[Sean Dyche's Watch]

It's just occurred to me that Chris Wood flicked it on to Cornet, and was Cornet offside at that point?

I've just checked, and he wasn't.

[NewClaret]

On in my opinion. It’s really annoying me that these decisions keep going against us. To be fair, we’ve generally been treated well by VAR, I think, but just recently the pen decisions and now this are very frustrating - it could have impacted the result very easily.

Did anyone get a proper view of the pen incident? It looked a pen to me live but not much has been made of it on here and the highlights so I assume not?

[Sean Dyche's Watch]

Did anyone get a proper view of the pen incident? It looked a pen to me live but not much has been made of it on here and the highlights so I assume not?

Definite push by the Brentford player.

[Lancasterclaret]

Definite push by the Brentford player.

Right

Not on any highlights, not shown on MOTD, if checked by VAR (which all incidents like this are) it didn't even require a stop in the play

I suspect that it wasn't nearly enough to be a pen