Probably not studs first into his ankle.As for the red card there where exactly is Romero’s foot supposed to go after winning the ball?
The "clear and obvious" term needs binned tbh as it's not what VAR is being used for.VAR is meant to catch a “clear and obvious” error.
An offside by a pixel isn’t clear or obvious.
VAR is being used wrongly IMO
I agree with what you say but exactly the same reasoning can be applied to a linesman's decision on offside. Subjective and open to abuse, and when really tight they can give it whatever way they choose.Yip. Subjective and open to abuse. Plus measuring it to the split second of when the ball was struck. This is why I think there needs to be a margin of error built in for offsides. No way they're as accurate as they like to pretend they are. Quite honestly, if they need to decide if someone is a millimetre onside or a millimetre offside, they can give it whatever way they choose and it's impossible to prove otherwise.
Clear and obvious doesn’t apply to binary matters of fact like offsideVAR is meant to catch a “clear and obvious” error.
An offside by a pixel isn’t clear or obvious.
VAR is being used wrongly IMO
Done to death on a thread after the weekend. Offside is not a part of the ‘clear and obvious error’ protocol. If it was, every offside would be reviewed. They aren’t, as I’m sure you are aware. Just as a corner being given when it should have been a goal kick doesn’t get reviewed, for example.VAR is meant to catch a “clear and obvious” error.
An offside by a pixel isn’t clear or obvious.
VAR is being used wrongly IMO
As already said in the thread. They had to check the offside first as it would have been a goal to Chelsea if Jackson was onside. The offside has to be the first thing they check for that reason.The thing that strikes me with the footage. They spend ages on the off side decision then go back to review the penalty decisions and advise an onfield review, making the offside irrelevant.
If they had reviewed the penalty decision first they could have saved a lot of time. Why would you work back from the final action.
Would it not make sense for them to start with the APP and then work forward from there. Seems daft spending time reviewing a decision that doesn't matter due to a foul/ offside in the build up.
It absolutely does matter when the difference also means a red card.
The fact that people on here are debating the crosshairs, even with the chance to watch many times, shows it is not clear.
The "clear and obvious" term needs binned tbh as it's not what VAR is being used for.
Yes for certain offences like serious foul play and violent conduct the red card would still be issued. So Romero would have walked regardless.They could have still given a red card even if rhe goal was allowed, no?
Correct decision for me but the ref is right on front of the penalty incident and let that go. Why did he choose to ignore an obvious bad challenge?
Offside doesn't fall in to that, same as if the ball is a mm over the line.VAR is meant to catch a “clear and obvious” error.
An offside by a pixel isn’t clear or obvious.
VAR is being used wrongly IMO
Haha, I feel stupid. That makes perfect sense, fair play to them on that front then.As already said in the thread. They had to check the offside first as it would have been a goal to Chelsea if Jackson was onside. The offside has to be the first thing they check for that reason.
Yes, but personally I'd prefer that than all this rigmarole. I'm more than happy to use VAR for offsides when it's clear and obvious IE someone is half a yard on / offside, but the way they're using it, they're still making judgement calls. That wasn't the deal. Clear and obvious was the deal. I know we're apparently going to see fully automated offside calls coming in. I'm sure it still won't be perfect, but I guess it removes the human element from the equation, so it should at least be consistent.I agree with what you say but exactly the same reasoning can be applied to a linesman's decision on offside. Subjective and open to abuse, and when really tight they can give it whatever way they choose.
What a palaver!
It's not the same though. The goal line review system is automated. Offside is manual and the decision is made based on officials deciding where players are at the exact moment the ball is kicked, then deciding exactly where to draw the vertical lines, before the horizontal lines make the offside decision. I agree it's the same in principle, in that the ball is either over the line or it isn't and the player is either onside or he isn't, but in practice, it's very different.Offside doesn't fall in to that, same as if the ball is a mm over the line.
The issue in respect of VAR is how it is defined but, no matter how its defined, it will always come down to minute margins.
I agree with you. I saw footage which seemed to show Wan Bissakas foot was underneath the offside line when it was zoomed in. In the Coventry goal obviously. However does not seem clear and obvious.Yes, but personally I'd prefer that than all this rigmarole. I'm more than happy to use VAR for offsides when it's clear and obvious IE someone is half a yard on / offside, but the way they're using it, they're still making judgement calls. That wasn't the deal. Clear and obvious was the deal. I know we're apparently going to see fully automated offside calls coming in. I'm sure it still won't be perfect, but I guess it removes the human element from the equation, so it should at least be consistent.
I would love to hear that audio….i bet it’s a shambles….we canny give the huns a pen….give us anything….anything!Makes me even more convinced about how they fcuked us over regarding the Sima offside at the Piggery.
That's exactly what I mean. I'd much rather leave a decision like that to the linesman on the park. By all means take a look at it in the VAR room, but when they see it's not clear and obvious either way, leave it with the onfield decision. Cricket does that. There's a margin of error and if the review falls within that margin, then it's umpire's call and they stick with the onfield decision. Been working fine for years.I agree with you. I saw footage which seemed to show Wan Bissakas foot was underneath the offside line when it was zoomed in. In the Coventry goal obviously. However does not seem clear and obvious.
If he was onside the decision would've been a goal with no need for further checks I reckon.Took a Hell of a long time to go through that and a huge faff, not to mention starting with the latest decision point and working in reverse seemed a bit mental. If they knew they were going to check penalty calls earlier in the timeline than the offside, doesn't it make sense to start with them when they make the later decisions irrelevant?
Ultimately probably the right call in terms of the penalty/red card given the high foot onto the ankle on the follow through. Although, plenty would call it harsh, but that's the modern game really.
You can imagine them drawing the line,the thing is you don’t see it from when the ball was played.I would love to hear that audio….i bet it’s a shambles….we canny give the huns a pen….give us anything….anything!
Working well in the CL games , ignorance is bliss, we don’t want to see doctored lines and refs looking at a dodgy camera angles on a pitch side monitor in full sunYeah, will make a huge difference if they can get the automated offside tech rolled out everywhere.
Agree with all of that but it was a penalty and a red card imo.VAR is meant to catch a “clear and obvious” error.
An offside by a pixel isn’t clear or obvious.
VAR is being used wrongly IMO
Collum had serious questions to answer there and we fucked it for ourselves.Makes me even more convinced about how they fcuked us over regarding the Sima offside at the Piggery.
So how would you handle the Spurs/Chelsea incident?That's exactly what I mean. I'd much rather leave a decision like that to the linesman on the park. By all means take a look at it in the VAR room, but when they see it's not clear and obvious either way, leave it with the onfield decision. Cricket does that. There's a margin of error and if the review falls within that margin, then it's umpire's call and they stick with the onfield decision. Been working fine for years.
I'm talking offsides in general and for the vast majority of those it's a straight onside / offside call with no other considerations. When other factors come into play, then yes, obviously the whole situation needs to be assessed.So how would you handle the Spurs/Chelsea incident?
The Linesman gave offside, so its no goal by your suggestion and that decision should stand. Do they then go back and look at the penalty/red card incident - which was before the shot on goal? Of course they do. It would have played out in exactly the same way with, perhaps, a little less time spent looking at the offside. Semi-automated will take care of that next season anyway.
VAR only gets involved in offside decisions if it leads to a goal or penalty, for example. Given these are crucial moments in the game it's only right that they are scrutinised in detail to ensure it's the correct decision. The primary flaw at the moment is time taken establishing and drawing lines. That should be negated, in the EPL at least, with semi-automated tech next season.I'm talking offsides in general and for the vast majority of those it's a straight onside / offside call with no other considerations. When other factors come into play, then yes, obviously the whole situation needs to be assessed.
I know exactly when and why VAR gets involved in offsides, but dispute the current system always ensures the correct decision. And I accept that moving the line moves the point of debate, but nothing is going to remove debate. Still plenty of debate about penalties, fouls in the lead up to goals etc. Anyway, it's just a personal opinion. If you're happy with it as is, good for you. I think it needs reviewed.VAR only gets involved in offside decisions if it leads to a goal or penalty, for example. Given these are crucial moments in the game it's only right that they are scrutinised in detail to ensure it's the correct decision. The primary flaw at the moment is time taken establishing and drawing lines. That should be negated, in the EPL at least, with semi-automated tech next season.
We've been over this, I'm sure, in the offside thread by @Unicorse which, if nothing else, served to reveal how little so many posters knew about offside and VAR (as evidenced by the repeated 'clear and obvious error' bollocks) and the incredible number who couldn't see that moving the line simply moved the point of debate.
I agree you will never remove debate. We might get closer to that when tech takes over completely but its unlikely for no other reason than folk see what they want to see in many cases.I know exactly when and why VAR gets involved in offsides, but dispute the current system always ensures the correct decision. And I accept that moving the line moves the point of debate, but nothing is going to remove debate. Still plenty of debate about penalties, fouls in the lead up to goals etc. Anyway, it's just a personal opinion. If you're happy with it as is, good for you. I think it needs reviewed.
"To stop the offside VAR confusion it should be when there is clear daylight between the attacker and striker"VAR only gets involved in offside decisions if it leads to a goal or penalty, for example. Given these are crucial moments in the game it's only right that they are scrutinised in detail to ensure it's the correct decision. The primary flaw at the moment is time taken establishing and drawing lines. That should be negated, in the EPL at least, with semi-automated tech next season.
We've been over this, I'm sure, in the offside thread by @Unicorse which, if nothing else, served to reveal how little so many posters knew about offside and VAR (as evidenced by the repeated 'clear and obvious error' bollocks) and the incredible number who couldn't see that moving the line simply moved the point of debate.
I was watching the game, there was about 8 minutes extra per halfHow long did that farce take, all the fans at the ground bored shitless waiting for these geeks.