Send some words to [email protected]…
Be careful what you wish for…
I’m sure you will get many messages about VAR after the weekend’s games, decrying how VAR is “..destroying our game…” and such. However, VAR is doing exactly what I expected it to. It hasn’t stopped the debates, it’s just moved them around a bit.
It’s worth pointing out that, particularly on the subject of marginal offsides, the general narrative amounts to “we wanted a system that would help officials get all of the decisions right, except for the ones we want them to get wrong”. Implementations of VAR so far have treated offside as a matter of fact. Someone is either offside or they are not. This is why offside decisions are treated differently to more subjective ones such as whether there was enough contact to make something a foul. This kind of black and white approach means that there will always be a line. If you’re on one side of it, you are onside. Go past it and you are offside. Even Graeme Souness’ suggested reversal of the emphasis of the law to make you onside if any part of your body is in an onside position would simply move that line. The little coloured lines would just be being placed in a different place relative to the players involved. Where we now have “is his toe/armpit further forward than the last man?” we would have “is his shoulder/heel level with the last man?”
In all this, there is a dearth of alternatives being suggested. Pundits and fans alike may cry out that such decisions are not in the spirit of the game, and my heart may even be tempted to agree, but what is the alternative? How far offside should you need to be to actually be offside? 1cm? 5cm? 1m? Wherever you draw that line, there will still be marginal decisions to be made around it.
Forwards have always looked to play on the shoulder of the last defender to try to get behind a team, and defenders have always looked to step out at exactly the right moment to catch the attacker offside. Both of these groups are now so good at this that who is successful in a given situation can literally come down to millimetres. Like all elite sports, football at the highest level has become about the finest of margins and VAR is simply exposing this for us to see and giving us a choice. Do we want to see a game where the laws are applied rigorously and inflexibly, where the decisions might be technically correct but remove some of the passion and immediacy? Or would we prefer a game where decisions are made in real-time and we immediately know what the outcome of a situation is, at the cost of an increased likelihood that some of those decisions may be incorrect? I know where my hat would be, VAR was always a solution in search of a problem and hasn’t made the game better, in my opinion.
You may suggest that it is possible to come up with an approach that achieves both sides of that choice, but I’ve yet to see anything that convinces me it wouldn’t simply move the arguments in the same way that VAR in its current form has.
Steve G., Warrington
Reading the mailbox on VAR and everyone is missing the point …… VAR was meant to review and atone for clear and obvious mistakes made by the match officials…….. no matter if you feel unjustly wronged or happy because the decisions were technically correct, the point is these “offsides” didn’t need reviewed at all.
They (Norwich, Wolves) were barely marginal, if they were given as goals pre-VAR no one would’ve batted an eyelid
The VAR team should only pipe up if the match officials have dropped a bollock and missed it or that obvious mistake has cost a team, not scrutinise every single offside, handball, goal etc. …… if the trained human eye couldn’t see it in real time or after a replay then it can’t have been a match changing mistake
Ryan, Whitehaven
Game day after game day the same thing: VAR discussions, and all centered around marginal offside calls. In the Daily Mail Clattenburg says, the only alternative is to remove offside from the VAR responsibility and give it back to referee and linesmen. Souness wants to shift the hair’s width decisions to being onside, while Carra points to the initial purpose of the rule.
Now, think about it: in times before VAR, offside decisions would still be controlled after the fact, by showing a ton of slomos, and everyone was happy, when a decision turned out to be right by a hair’s width, and aghast when wrong. However – there was no lengthy interruption. Also, calls would be MADE – now, they are NOT made, knowing that VAR will overturn it, if NOT calling it is wrong. The latter comes from the fact that the game is interrupted when a linesman flags or the ref whistles.
Can THAT rule be changed? That the game goes on, until the ball is “dead”? Makes no sense, because there may be a goal at the other end then, red cards and whatnot until the ball is really dead.
Another factor shouldn’t be ignored, and that’s the part of the body being offside: a part of the armpit? The kneecap? I think, that’s what’s a bit hard to stomach. Technically, offside is when a part of the body is offside that is allowed to score – but that’s only relevant when the offside contact results in a direct goal: if there is a cross that’s deflected from a kneecap into the goal and that kneecap was offside the goal shouldn’t count. But apart from that, to VAR-decide whether a player is onside or offside, it would definitely help, if only the head amd the feet would count, since those are the boday parts players use WILLINGLY to score.
This would speed up decisions and make them easier to take: head or foot offside, how marginal it may be? Okay. But a hair’s width of a buttock?
Click Here: Italy Rugby Shop
JJ, BvB (We got Haaland!)
I do get Conor Coady being frustrated at the disallowed Wolves goal but that sort of goal has been disallowed against every team this season.It happened 4 times this weekend alone.
I do completely disagree that VAR has always gone against Wolves.Traore blatantly fouled Mendy in the run up to the equaliser Friday night but he conveniently forgets that.”Nothing has gone our way with VAR all season” were his exact words.It happened to 3 other teams over the weekend Conor and happened to Liverpool v Villa & Watford.
Also Liverpool had better chances,more shots on goal and more possession so they deserved the 3 points.
And this is why VAR was necessary.
Pre VAR week after week after week managers and players would come out slating the decisions made by officials.Even if their team was completely outplayed certain managers always used officials as scapegoats(or as diversionary tactics).
Most managers did it but special mentions to Mourinho,Pullis and Hughes who brought it to another level.For me either we keep it and get on with it or we get rid of it and no manager can mention any decisions made by refs in post game interviews.If any manager does,their team is deducted 3 points.It was shameful the way managers put all the blame on officials.Watch Gary Nevilles soccerbox with Rooney and when it shows how they surrounded the ref swearing profusely after a decision against Utd(how dare they) Rooney smirked saying “it is shameful looking back how we treated refs.”(bar Howard Webb obviously who gave Utd their titles on a plate).
It was and still is shameful how refs are treated.
Also,VVD didn’t handle the ball v Wolves but if he did it wouldn’t have mattered as it only matters if it leads directly to a goal or assists a goal.So yesterday if Mane or Lallana handled the ball it would have been chalked off.
Finally in a weekend where City got a joke of a penalty v Wolves,missed it and got to take it again and where Sheff Utd had a marginal offside given against them to cancel out their first goal not to mention Aguero scoring after the ball hit the ref(should have been a drop ball)as well as the Palace,Nwich,Brighton goals chalked off for tiny margins can we stop this LIVARPOOL narrative.It is petty,childish and makes no sense(a bit like Richard Keys.)
Ferg,Cork
I feel like we’re all missing the fact that VAR is an incredible success – for the actual reasons it was implemented. Permit me a tin-foil hat for a moment. Today’s society is becoming more and more polarised, and the rise of social media has moved the ‘crazies’ that called into talksport into the norm. Debates or yelling matches are not just on short programmes with talking heads, but are all that exist on Twitter, Facebook and now the ‘punditocracy’ that has become football ‘analysis’.
Barring the odd bit of tactics, most halftime and fulltime chat consists of a couple ex-pros arguing over things. And over the past decade, this has moved into arguing not about coaching or passing or shooting – because those are hard for us poor plebs to understand – but about frame-by-frame analysis of refereeing decisions. Because we can all agree that those are the most crucial aspects of the sport. Did he clip his toenail there and hence the mythical ‘contact’ was made and he can go down? Did the ball ricochet thirteen times and touch his glove? Is he offside using this Microsoft paint lines?
Of course it doesn’t matter, but it does get fans on both sides arguing, gets the blood boiling and gets engagement. And that is the whole point. Football is a product, and the bodies that run it do so accordingly. It is not about bettering the sport, but bettering the product. And what better way to increase engagement than create a next level of debate – where the focus of the whole game comes down to slow-motion replays and long breaks? People in the esteemed mailbox claim they’re going to turn off – but I’d wager if you added up your year on year emails they’d be up significantly, and the majority would be down to VAR chat.
Clicks, eyeballs, engagement whatever – VAR is just an excellent monetisation tool in this age of outrage. It’s not about getting the decision right. It’s about us talking about it.
Ryan, (on the refs side since ’95)
We’ve done this dance before, haven’t we?
I have given my tuppence about VAR at the start of the season. It could be neatly summarised as; It’s not used perfectly but it is still better than not having it.
First things first; Marginal offsides. The general public, as is its wont, likes to have a collective psychosis over certain things. It can’t be judged to be rational or logical, instead sections of any large population will base a stance primarily on an emotional response to events. Emotions bind us as a population, and can be a very powerful force for good, unfortunately, they can also make us vote for Brexit. Essentially, individuals are sometimes smart and sometimes stupid. The general public is almost never particularly smart, its quite frequently stupid and its sometimes insanely dumb. This brings us neatly to marginal offsides, or as I like to call it; offsides.
Can some of the people who complain about these marginal offside calls tell me why a ball being 1mm over or not over the line is different to a player being 1mm offside? People can postulate that the offside rule would be better based on feet, daylight between players or centre of gravity, but it doesn’t make a jot of difference, there will be still be a line drawn on a pitch, there will still be millimetres in decisions and people will still complain. The reality is people wanted goals scored by players who were miles offside to be correctly ruled out. Nothing wrong with that. We got that. We also got players who are offside by the tip of their nose having their goals ruled out. Is that wrong? Not according to the rules, which are clear; you’re either on or you’re off. Yet, still such opprobrium around the literal and logical interpretation of the rules. Bitter arguments where logic is usurped by emotion. We have a player finish a slick passing move by a team. Maybe that team is a minnow punching above its weight, playing a Man City or Liverpool. The goal scorer then appears on replay to have a protruding left testicle offside. Replays flash up with him basically onside apart from the pixilated ball-sack that’s strayed off. The goal is ruled out. People complain that it would never have happened in the old days, when they didn’t have the technology to analyse to millimetre precision. People would talk about it not being in the spirit of the game as though their statement is not entirely subjective, they would say VAR is a bloody joke getting out its ruler and taking the letter of the law to the nth degree. It’s bloody PC pencil pushers ruining it for everyone else. It’s always the big teams that get the breaks. Poor little guy being screwed over by the system which favours the big teams. All of these emotional arguments percolate in societies’ communal consciousness, and as anger boils sense evaporates. The result; 2 goals correctly adjudicated by VAR in Liverpool vs Wolves game cause all kinds of fury and hand-wringing. All of this over correct decisions. We used to save this reaction not for the wrong decisions, but the really wrong decisions. Now we do it when the correct decisions were made but we have issue with interpretation. Some people would argue that’s significant progress.
Ultimately, when all is said and done, I think what we want is consistency. That’s the metric often spouted as of highest importance by managers and fans. That means if your team gets a goal ruled out because a players armpit is 1mm offside, the opposition player whose arsecheek is offside by 1mm in the following game has their goal ruled out too. You might disagree with both decisions but ultimately both sides were treated consistently. You could say the rules don’t always have to be the best interpretation of the way the game should be played, though obviously that would be preferable, they just need to be fair to both sides so then neither team can be judged to have had an advantage.
For those who reasonably raise the issue of inconclusiveness with VAR, where there is an issue adjudicating when contact was made with a ball for a pass, actions happening between frames of footage or views being obscured, football should take heed from rugby. Here, the referee is required to state what he believes the correct decision to be before review but what he needs checking. If the VAR/assistant ref cannot see adequately to overrule he says so and the referee’s decision stands. Its quite simple.
And to those people that speak of conspiracies, that Liverpool or any other team get favourable decisions. You’re wrong. Its sour grapes or wishful thinking or just being dumb. The FA/Premier League are incapable of many things, full-scale sustainable conspiracies to aid football teams is near the top of that list. My friend plays FIFA and when he loses he insists to me that the game is rigged, that he had loads more shots but the other player got lucky rebounds. That it always happens to him. He has made these bold accusations in previous iterations of FIFA. I used to point out the pointlessness of arbitrarily creating a bias within the game to favour random individuals, that EA would risk serious financial and legal repercussions for integrating a feature like this, and for no discernible benefit. He didn’t take much notice, he was adamant, the game is rigged.
But it wasn’t, he’s just shit and an idiot.
Ed Ern
I really hope that all the moaning minnies that have been insisting that Liverpool’s march to a maiden Premier League title is the work of Stockley Park, and not of Jürgen Klopp and his players, have taken a moment to read Planet Football’s updated article on which clubs have been affected both positively and negatively by the sway of VAR decisions.
Spoiler: Liverpool aren’t the no.1 beneficiaries.
James F, BCFC KRO (4-5? I really don’t get my club most of the time, but that was mental)
Another round of games and more instances of VAR getting on everyone’s wick. Let’s face it, it’s not football – not as we all grew up knowing it, loving it, worshipping it. That’s gone but can be saved. Of course we just scrap the whole complicated, silly VAR mess, and go back to just complaining about the refs. It’s the simplest solution. But what about this season? This VAR tainted, abomination of a Premier League season? With over half the season played, let’s admit the VAR menace has ruined the whole thing and just write it all off. Play to the end of the season and then never speak of it again. Shun it, erase it from the history books. Let no trace of this shameful stain on this beautiful game remain. Do not even engrave the name of the winners on the cup and let the records remain blank. Away with it and all those that even dare whisper of its existence. Shame anyone callous enough to utter a word about it. Really though, who could be callous enough to celebrate anything about this farce, this outright attack on all that is pure and wholesome about football? We must stand united on this. It’s for the good of the game…honest.
Rob Y (Stockholm)
I try not to get involved in VAR debates because they bore me. My favourite analogy is if I think I’ve broken my leg and I get an X-ray, then 1st Dr I see says I’m fine and the 2nd says, “no, it’s broken”; I don’t/shouldn’t blame the X-Ray machine/printout!!!!
But my one other bugbear is people misquoting that VAR is only for “clear and obvious mistakes” in all circumstances. That part of VAR implementation ONLY refers to refereeing decisions of a subjective nature!!!!
As has been said countless times, offside is not considered subjective by IFAB. You are either onside or offside, same as ball is either over line on still on line. So stop saying that marginal offside calls aren’t “clear and obvious” because you’re applying the wrong standard to the decision.
It’s the equivalent of sending someone off for a careless tackle, rather than a reckless one!!! You’re taking the wording from one part of the law and tryint to apply it to a different part, erroneously!!!
The solution to these VAR offside calls is a change of the law, or stop using the TV cameras and used dedicated cameras, like Hawkeye, that can produce quicker frame rates and thus better decisions on when the ball was precisely played; thus reducing the margin of error that currently exists.
Paul, Spurs (T.Wells)
Firmino v villa – armpit offside
Mane v sheff utd – no penalty
Matip v newcastle – no penalty
Mane v watford – arse cheek offside
I dont remember people complaining with such passion after these incidents? But it’s against liverpool so it’s ok, let’s all have a laugh. As soon as one goes for us then is LiVARpool *yawn*. As for john the wolves fan in london making a reference to a minutes silence, you can piss off as most of us know what you’re trying to get at.
Pete, (justice for the 96), brum
Dear Editor,
Full disclosure, I’m a Liverpool fan and generally an adVARcate (sorry), in principle, but I think we can all agree that its implementation has been a bit shit (to put it mildly) and that the debate around VAR is tiresome (I find it physically painful). Having said that, I have a couple of suggestions for ways to improve VAR and make the footballing world generally a better place:
1. Margin of appreciation for VAR offsides – The biggest issue with VAR for offsides is the ridiculously marginal offside calls. Disallowing Wolves’ goal was ridiculous IMHO but correct under the current rules & implementation with technology. Same with Pukki / Zaha / Firmino’s armpit hair. There are 2 main problems with this. Firstly, we’re treating the technology like an exact science. The movement of players and gaps in camera frame rates mean that we can’t actually say for CERTAIN whether a player is offside when the ball is struck. There are too many moving parts. Secondly, when defenders / attackers are lining up the opposition players for on / offside, they can’t physically make a reasonable judgement from c. 20 meters away to a 1 cm accuracy. If we have a margin of appreciation of (for example) 10 cm, those ridiculously tight offside calls that VAR can’t actually be certain of and that players have not calculated would largely be eroded. IMHO this would work better than (a) taking into account feet only, as if the attacker’s head is beyond the defender then to me thats just offside and (b) changing the rule so that if any part of the attacker is level they’re onside, as this just shifts the same debate back a meter or so and could lead to equally ridiculous assessments of whether the sprinting attackers little toe is in line with the chasing defender. The rule can remain the same, as players and coaches understand it and not changed unnecessarily, but with a tweak to implementation to accommodate VAR.
2. Players, coaches, fans and pundits need to stop blaming VAR for the world’s ills – Seriously. VAR’s implementation is crap. We know this. But I’m sorry Nuno, going on a diatribe about how the VAR referee is miles away so we should go with the on pitch ref when the on pitch ref got the decisions wrong is nonsensical. There is definitely something in this for the interpretation of fouls, but VAR has just literally corrected two wrong decisions. Conor Coady too, I’ll let you both off as its clearly shortly after a hard fought game and emotions are running high, but I have no idea why you’re getting your knickers in a twist about why the ref didn’t tell you how far offside a player was. I’ll give you that it may be useful to know if the same moronic winger keeps on getting offside, but i can’t remember a lino ever saying “it was the number 9 by 7cms”. It’s irrelevant. It makes no sense repeatedly saying that you “just don’t understand the decision”, its simple, technology ruled Jonny offside as it has on multiple occasions for others this season. Don’t get me started on Kammy & Co. on Goals on Sunday. I’ll say it again, VAR’s implementation is crap. We all know this, including the authorities. It’s in its infancy and will be improved over time, just not midseason. So feel free to make a dossier of all the ways that VAR is crap and send it to the authorities, but please let’s stop banging on about the same ways that VAR is crap every week, it’s really dull.
Sorry for the length of the email and the rant.. Just a couple of things that grind my gears.There’s potentially more on VAR (use of screens by refs, time taken over decisions etc). But I just really can’t be arsed. Happy New Year!
Heston LFC (It’s not done til it’s done. Long way to go)
Offside rule
The offside decisions that went against Norwich and Wolves were clearly correct but it does bring into question the offside law/rule. We all know why the rule exists but when talking about a body part being an inch offside which hasn’t been used in the goal it really is frustrating and not in the spirit of the game.
So, instead of it being based on any part of the body you can score with being offside, I think it should be any part of the body that was used to score with i.e. that touched the ball. For example, if a player’s shoulder is offside but they didn’t use that to control the ball during the passage of play leading to the goal then it’s not offside. If they did, then it is. Feet and legs should be counted as one body part to save any confusion if a player shins one in.
On another note, two wins against teams who sat in and gave us the ball – heady days. I think we’ll pass on Nuno for now.
Garey Vance, MUFC
Nothing has changed at Arsenal
Stu, you’d hardly know anything had changed? Really?
For one, Arsenal were playing as a unit for the first time in what seemed like yonks. Even against Bournemouth you could see improvements especially up front when we actually managed to accumulate some shots and create chances (too bad Auba didn’t have his shooting boots on and Saka can’t cross for sh*t).
Against Chelsea we were even better and definitely deserved more than a defeat. Luck wasn’t on our side but I feel as though the result will come. We are playing football again and, even if it’s just a honeymoon phase because of a new manager, I’m enjoying it more.
It couldn’t get any worse under Emery and, while we did lose, at least we look like a team again. Baby steps and all that….
Malcolm, AFC
If Stu, (too depressed for brackets) AFC in France didnt see improvement in our game from City to Bournemouth, from Bournemouth to Chelsea, maybe football isnt the game for him. In 10 days you can clearly see a strategy, a way of playing and tactics being implemented, something we have seen in 1 and a half years of Emery.
It’s also worth noting a number of players, including players who have played under some other greats, have said they can see something special in Arteta, the same way Wenger and Guardiola did.
Arteta out? Please…2 individal errors, one from an unusual source and one from a usual source, does not make a bad manager.
Rob A (10 days in ffs…) AFC
Thoughts on Chelsea/Lampard
Hello,
I read Aravind’s thoughts on Chelsea/Lampard and that prompted me to give my thoughts on the same (as well as to write-in after many years!) So here goes, point by point:
1) I agree that teams like Arsenal, Spurs and Man Utd are struggling but what doesn’t surprise me is our league position. Hit and a miss season for Chelsea? Sure. But more hits than misses, especially if you take in the context of Eden Hazard leaving, transfer ban, relatively inexperienced coach coming in etc.
2) Lampard has been getting criticism every now and then. In this day and age, no PL manager (whoever that is) can go by without criticism. He was questioned after the Man Utd defeat (the first time), the first CL game/defeat and many other times. Just like how he was praised when he deserved it. On and by F365, for that matter.
3) We do not have one of the worst midfields in the top half of the table. That’s…..a bit of stretch. Plus, you’ve got to wait until everything falls into place. Like RLC coming back and doing what he does best, for example. Yes, our full-backs are inept but there’s nothing Lampard could’ve done about it (See: transfer ban) since he came in. He is learning as you said, and this is a gig where you learn on the job.
4) Easy to talk about back 3/4 being a good or bad decision in hindsight. If Chelsea lost to Spurs, one could’ve called the formation bonkers since Alonso isn’t defensively the best and he was facing Lucas Moura and Aurier on his side. Lampard took a gamble, got his tactics right and we won. Against Arsenal, he got it wrong, changed it early and got three points. And he admitted to getting things wrong. And it is ok to get things wrong every now and then, as long as he learns from it. Especially since we’ve had far too many stubborn managers in our (recent) history who refused to do so.
5) I’d agree with Jorginho in the pivot, especially with our fragile defence. It needs as much protection as possible, ergo a three-man midfield is better if he features.
6) Kante had one bad(-ish) game against Arsenal. And several good, if not excellent, games this season. He isn’t slowing down. He is….being human?
7) Agree on Kovacic being the best midfielder this season, but Mount’s a close second for me. And let’s not forget the strong start Jorginho had under Lampard. Also agree on Kovacic needing to improve his G+A numbers.
8) And that’s being sorted, slowly. Some by adding from the youth system, some by formation changes and some in the January transfer window if possible. But everything will be properly answered in the summer, so I won’t be surprised if some patterns repeat in the second half.
9) Kepa isn’t the world’s best but he isn’t the worst. He signed a six-year contract, has four more left and Lampard hasn’t hinted at anything that suggests that his time is running out. And the fact the Lampard was rumoured to be interested in getting his own GK coach (Shay Given) shows that he agrees that Kepa can improve but also that he can be improved.
And he is far from our worst signing in the last three years. Bakayoko and Zappacosta (and DDW) take the cake.
10) Potentially great players, great players and some average players who can be good on their day or when needed. That is how a squad is supposed to work, right? Unless you are Real Madrid or Barcelona.
Regards,
Vela, also a Chelsea fan
Healthy competition in Scotland again…
Happy New Year everyone and especially to all at F365 who’ve kept me occupied and sane during the year.
I just want to make a quick reference to the Rangers mail of Neil, Glasgow.
It’s certainly a positive development for Scottish football that there’s healthy competition in the league, of that there’s no doubt.
However, considering that Rangers in their current incarnation are only in existence since 2012 they can hardly be considered to “be back”.
Also, even leaving that piece of financial and economic pedantry aside, the people at Egyptian club Al Ahly may take umbrage at you incorrectly awarding the title of “worlds most successful club” to Rangers. They’re three trophies ahead at 118 trophies to the combined total of both Rangers clubs still impressive 115.
Eoin (New Years resolution is not to get so petty about Rangers again) Ireland