This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Southampton vs Palace Match Thread
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Rudi Hedman  Caterham 30 Dec 19 11.08am |
  |
|---|---|
|
It should be the upper body or torso, not including head, limbs, hair, finger nails or eye balls. No player plays the offside looking at anything other than the upper body. It’s a complete joke and Liverpool’s title should null and void. To everyone else it will be because of all the favouritism. I wouldn’t be surprised that years in the future we hear that there was some Liverpool w@nk favouritism and support in the VAR studio.
COYP |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 30 Dec 19 11.20am |
|
|---|---|
|
What is interesting is that the debate about VAR suggested that any controversy would be about subjective decisions and matters of FACT would be accepted as it is with goalline technology. Furthermore it was always said that REFEREES needed help etc etc - It is not the referees who make the offside calls but their assistants ! I totally understand the rationale behind checking whether a goal should stand or not but alas at the present time it is not adding value to the PL due to "Offsidegate".
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| NEILLO Shoreham-by-Sea 30 Dec 19 11.31am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Willo
Statistics revealed that the Assistants were getting offside decisions right 98% of the time so in effect there were hardly any mistakes made. With the introduction of VAR we now have "Armpit gate" and other controversies, week on week to the extent that supporters are enraged and totally fedup with the incessant debate that surrounds this issue, not forgetting of course the injustices they see in such hairline decisions.Games are stopped, VAR checks are not concluded with sufficient alacrity and this is having a negative affect on the entertainment factor of football and the PL. There is an argument that with the very high percentage of correct offside calls which used to be made pre-VAR, the technology should be used solely to determine penalties,simulation and red cards and whilst of course there will still be controversy and debate, there will not be this furore we have at the present time. There is also the argument that as in cricket, where an umpire's decision not to award LBW stands if Hawkeye adjudges that a ball would only have just touched the stumps, a degree of elasticity could be introduced in terms of VAR and offsides. As things stand, VAR is having a negative affect on players and supporters so changes are necessary.VAR is mired in controversy and confusion. Edited by Willo (30 Dec 2019 10.38am) But...are you saying that the ' armpit ' incidences would fit into the 98% of the correct calls because I'm not sure it would be humanly possible to identify them. And the rules as they stand, are being applied by VAR. Which is why I think the offside rule needs to be reviewed. It's a nonsense anyway. I certainly support the notion that VAR is no longer used for offside and only for the other scenarios you mention.
Old, Ungifted and White |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| sickboy Deal or Croydon 30 Dec 19 11.47am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by NEILLO
But...are you saying that the ' armpit ' incidences would fit into the 98% of the correct calls because I'm not sure it would be humanly possible to identify them. And the rules as they stand, are being applied by VAR. Which is why I think the offside rule needs to be reviewed. It's a nonsense anyway. I certainly support the notion that VAR is no longer used for offside and only for the other scenarios you mention. Souness had a good idea.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle  30 Dec 19 12.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by sickboy
Souness had a good idea. That seems like a good idea.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Elpis In a pub 30 Dec 19 12.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by sickboy
Souness had a good idea. Not really ,you are just moving the point of controversy .Until there is 360 coverage and technology that also includes the point at which the ball is played VAR is flawed .
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Slimey Toad  Karsiyaka, North Cyprus 30 Dec 19 12.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by sickboy
Souness had a good idea. That means a player with one foot behind the line and the other well over is onside. Back to square one with that idea.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
cryrst  The garden of England 30 Dec 19 1.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
It should be the upper body or torso, not including head, limbs, hair, finger nails or eye balls. No player plays the offside looking at anything other than the upper body. It’s a complete joke and Liverpool’s title should null and void. To everyone else it will be because of all the favouritism. I wouldn’t be surprised that years in the future we hear that there was some Liverpool w@nk favouritism and support in the VAR studio. Bin dippers win the inaugural VAR title.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rachid Rachid Rachid 30 Dec 19 1.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
It should be the upper body or torso, not including head, limbs, hair, finger nails or eye balls. No player plays the offside looking at anything other than the upper body. It’s a complete joke and Liverpool’s title should null and void. To everyone else it will be because of all the favouritism. I wouldn’t be surprised that years in the future we hear that there was some Liverpool w@nk favouritism and support in the VAR studio. Agree with this about the torso. All it requires is that a visible section of torso is offside and if there's any doubt the default is a goal. Just a question of mindset and common sense rather than minute computer generated lines and armpits. Most of the goals that have been ruled out are legit in old money. I remember John Motson saying he was against goal line technology (a success IMO) because of the Pandora's box it would eventually open (ie VAR) and there aren't many who understand football better than him.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| midlandspalace kidderminster 30 Dec 19 4.15pm |
|
|---|---|
|
It seems the current use of VAR here may not be what was intended:
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Willo South coast - west of Brighton. 30 Dec 19 4.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by midlandspalace
It seems the current use of VAR here may not be what was intended: Thank you for the interesting link. I have raised the subject of "Clear and obvious" in some of my recent posts, stating that this concept has somehow been sidelined by VAR in this country. Edited by Willo (30 Dec 2019 4.27pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Eaglecoops CR3 30 Dec 19 5.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Easy answer to this. Scrap offside. With the pace of the current game “goal hangers” would be a liability as play switches direction. It would also open up play because there would effectively be more pitch to defend. More goals guaranteed I reckon, which is never a bad thing.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.