Club Should Demand VAR in Scottish Football

[CraigyBoy]

51 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

A major, and a wee touch of common sense, is being brought in, initially in Holland, Italy & Sweden, change to the VAR ruiling on offside.

As most people have seen, it's the interpretation of the rules, not VAR, that's the problem.

Now the WHOLE body of the attacker, not his finger, has to be in front of the defender to be deemed offside.

Definitely the way forward 

[jaybee]

2 hours ago, faraway saint said:

A major, and a wee touch of common sense, is being brought in, initially in Holland, Italy & Sweden, change to the VAR ruiling on offside.

As most people have seen, it's the interpretation of the rules, not VAR, that's the problem.

Now the WHOLE body of the attacker, not his finger, has to be in front of the defender to be deemed offside.

i like it, common sense at last perhaps

 

[Slarti]

A major, and a wee touch of common sense, is being brought in, initially in Holland, Italy & Sweden, change to the VAR ruiling on offside.
As most people have seen, it's the interpretation of the rules, not VAR, that's the problem.
Now the WHOLE body of the attacker, not his finger, has to be in front of the defender to be deemed offside.

I like it, but you know it will just lead to arguments about whether the attacker's big toe is or isn't ahead of the defender.

[StanleySaint]

The question now raises its head that if FIFA are changing the rule to that extent is VAR required for offsides or is this the first step to single official at a match with technology covering all the 'minor' decisions? Just a thought.

[FTOF]

6 hours ago, Slarti said:

9 hours ago, faraway saint said:

A major, and a wee touch of common sense, is being brought in, initially in Holland, Italy & Sweden, change to the VAR ruiling on offside.
As most people have seen, it's the interpretation of the rules, not VAR, that's the problem.
Now the WHOLE body of the attacker, not his finger, has to be in front of the defender to be deemed offside.

I like it, but you know it will just lead to arguments about whether the attacker's big toe is or isn't ahead of the defender.

No it won't.

[faraway saint]

10 minutes ago, FTOF said:

No it won't.

That made me laugh..................

[Cookie Monster]

I like it, but you know it will just lead to arguments about whether the attacker's big toe is or isn't ahead of the defender.

I'd have liked it, taller longer legged forwards can be a bigger step ahead of those wee pesky ones.

[portmahomack saint]

13 hours ago, faraway saint said:

A major, and a wee touch of common sense, is being brought in, initially in Holland, Italy & Sweden, change to the VAR ruiling on offside.

As most people have seen, it's the interpretation of the rules, not VAR, that's the problem.

Now the WHOLE body of the attacker, not his finger, has to be in front of the defender to be deemed offside.

Great idea 

The argument will move from the attackers Toe and Nose to his Heel and Arse....   John McGinn's valuation just went up another 20 million 

[Callum Gilhooley]

Point on the “Entire body “ part of the proposed change, surely it needs to be “only the parts of the body a player can legally score with “ 

Some smart arse CF could place their hand on the body of a defender without fouling and claim to be onside .

it’s all getting a wee bit messy !, btw, for me the example given above , the player is clearly offside . 😏

[guinness]

14 hours ago, faraway saint said:

A major, and a wee touch of common sense, is being brought in, initially in Holland, Italy & Sweden, change to the VAR ruiling on offside.

As most people have seen, it's the interpretation of the rules, not VAR, that's the problem.

Now the WHOLE body of the attacker, not his finger, has to be in front of the defender to be deemed offside.

That should be offside in my opinion.

[faraway saint]

It'll result in more goals being scored so a big "👍" from me.

[stlucifer]

800

I think this is going too far the other way. That player MUST be deemed offside. Almost his entire body is in front of the defender.

A sledgehammer to crack the proverbial nut.

For me the rule should be "clearly offside". If it takes a video ref six go's in slow motion from multiple camera angles to see what the official didn't, then the player is  onside. Simple as that.

VAR was introduced to ASSIST the on field officials missing clear and obvious decisions. Not micro analyzing.

ETA

I see from the quotes that faraway doesn't even understand the rules as the stand now. Surprise, surprise. 

Quote: "Now the WHOLE body of the attacker, not his finger, has to be in front of the defender to be deemed offside"'.

The rules as they are wouldn't deem the player offside in that scenario.

Edited July 3, 2023 by stlucifer

[faraway saint]

3 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

 

For me the rule should be "clearly offside". If it takes a video ref six go's in slow motion from multiple camera angles to see what the official didn't, then the player is  onside. Simple as that.

VAR was introduced to ASSIST the on field officials missing clear and obvious decisions. Not micro analyzing.

Can't you see that "clearly offside" means next to nothing?

What part of the player is clearly offside, as the previous rule, his hand?

This change will, as I've said previously, give the advantage to the forwards, rewarding attacking play and result, hopefully, in more goals, something most people would be in favour of. 

[faraway saint]

50 minutes ago, stlucifer said:

 

ETA

I see from the quotes that faraway doesn't even understand the rules as the stand now. Surprise, surprise. 

Quote: "Now the WHOLE body of the attacker, not his finger, has to be in front of the defender to be deemed offside"'.

The rules as they are wouldn't deem the player offside in that scenario.

Eh? 

[jaybee]

7 hours ago, Callum Gilhooley said:

Point on the “Entire body “ part of the proposed change, surely it needs to be “only the parts of the body a player can legally score with “ 

Some smart arse CF could place their hand on the body of a defender without fouling and claim to be onside .

it’s all getting a wee bit messy !, btw, for me the example given above , the player is clearly offside . 😏

not offside within this new interpretation, so long as there is no gap between the attacker and defender, then the attacker is onside, perhaps not perfect .....as per your example of a sneaky attacker holding on to a poor unsuspecting defender......... but certainly a considerable improvement on the current (pardon the pun) state of play, surely.

[jaybee]

6 hours ago, faraway saint said:

It'll result in more goals being scored so a big "👍" from me.

i think more goals that it should deliver will be to the whole games' benefit

[Callum Gilhooley]

On 7/3/2023 at 7:17 PM, jaybee said:

not offside within this new interpretation, so long as there is no gap between the attacker and defender, then the attacker is onside, perhaps not perfect .....as per your example of a sneaky attacker holding on to a poor unsuspecting defender......... but certainly a considerable improvement on the current (pardon the pun) state of play, surely.

I understand if these new rules are applied , he’s not offside but we’ve now gone from a toenail making them offside to a glimpse of a heel making him onside. Still gonna have 5 minutes of ref holding his earpiece then studying 6 playbacks . ( and still f**king it up !)
Get it as VAR VAR away as possible  😬

[faraway saint]

22 minutes ago, Callum Gilhooley said:

I understand if these new rules are applied , he’s not offside but we’ve now gone from a toenail making them offside to a glimpse of a heel making him onside. Still gonna have 5 minutes of ref holding his earpiece then studying 6 playbacks . ( and still f**king it up !)
Get it as VAR VAR away as possible  😬

Aye, coz it's always 5 minutes THEN studying 6 playbacks. 

Here's some FACTS.....................and the new rule, if it becomes accepted across the board will almost certainly see more goals and still get the VAST majority of decisions correct. 

The majority of VAR checks have been silent with just 17 on-field reviews from 223 checks. The longest on-field review was just short of six minutes and the average is at 2.33 minutes. When taking all checks into account the average is 51 seconds.

"It has done what it was meant to have done, it’s improved a number of decisions,” Maxwell said. “It’s not perfect no-one said it was going to be, but it’s working and it’s helping the referees get more decisions right which is why we brought it in.

"Obviously there has been a bit of frustration about the time it has taken. It’s a new process, nobody was entirely sure how it was going to work. If you look at the stats we are not a million miles away from the time it takes VAR globally to reach a decision. It does take time to get it right.

 

[Callum Gilhooley]

21 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Aye, coz it's always 5 minutes THEN studying 6 playbacks. 

Here's some FACTS.....................and the new rule, if it becomes accepted across the board will almost certainly see more goals and still get the VAST majority of decisions correct. 

The majority of VAR checks have been silent with just 17 on-field reviews from 223 checks. The longest on-field review was just short of six minutes and the average is at 2.33 minutes. When taking all checks into account the average is 51 seconds.

"It has done what it was meant to have done, it’s improved a number of decisions,” Maxwell said. “It’s not perfect no-one said it was going to be, but it’s working and it’s helping the referees get more decisions right which is why we brought it in.

"Obviously there has been a bit of frustration about the time it has taken. It’s a new process, nobody was entirely sure how it was going to work. If you look at the stats we are not a million miles away from the time it takes VAR globally to reach a decision. It does take time to get it right.

 

How can they say the average is 2.33 then say the average is 51 seconds ?? 🤷‍♂️

I was obviously behind my facetious with my timings ( something that has obviously eluded you ). 
if the average is s just 51 seconds - wonder why so many matches had so much added time 🤔

I simply don’t think VAR has added anything to the game - I’d much rather have a ref make a mistake than some panel 100 miles away make the decision .

it’s just not for me thank you 👎

[Slarti]

How can they say the average is 2.33 then say the average is 51 seconds ?? [emoji2369]
I was obviously behind my facetious with my timings ( something that has obviously eluded you ). 
if the average is s just 51 seconds - wonder why so many matches had so much added time [emoji848]
I simply don’t think VAR has added anything to the game - I’d much rather have a ref make a mistake than some panel 100 miles away make the decision .
it’s just not for me thank you [emoji107]

The average on field review time is 2 33 minutes, the average of all checks is 51 seconds. At least I think that's what it's saying. [emoji2369]

[faraway saint]

2 minutes ago, Callum Gilhooley said:

How can they say the average is 2.33 then say the average is 51 seconds ?? 🤷‍♂️

I was obviously behind my facetious with my timings ( something that has obviously eluded you ). 
if the average is s just 51 seconds - wonder why so many matches had so much added time 🤔

I simply don’t think VAR has added anything to the game - I’d much rather have a ref make a mistake than some panel 100 miles away make the decision .

it’s just not for me thank you 👎

It's fairly simple, the ON FIELD reviews are, on average 2:33 secs, taking into account ALL checks (checks being done behind the scenes) this drops to 51 seconds, not that hard really.

If you're questioning the 51 seconds and can't see that additional time is added for injuries, substitutions, players rolling around the pitch etc then maybe you're not trying too hard.

I would rather the CORRECT decision was made rather than a human error that could cost us a league place or advancing in a cup, suppose it takes all kinds.

As for a panel 100 miles away, I have no idea why the distance is important? 

It was the first season it was used in Scotland, plenty of errors were made but this was the case in England which has improved. There's no reason to think this won;t happen in Scotland, and it's already improved the amount of correct decisions. 

 

 

[Slarti]

I would rather the CORRECT decision was made
 
 

I would rather all decisions, right or wrong, were in our favour - but I'm biased.

[faraway saint]

PS It was always going to split the fans, as much as I see it as an improvement it has been badly managed at times.

It's no big deal if it's not for you, major changes are usually seen by many as a bad move.

Time will tell. 

[exiledfan]

VAR is as good as the quality of the officials using it and the quality of the ref on the pitch. Standards in Scotland were rock bottom last season. The SFA will never acknowledge that as it's a closed network.

I think it's time that an independent governing body was set up by referees looking at standards in all top countries for consistency with audit results published. Money would be better spent here than on VAR. 

[jaybee]

2 hours ago, Callum Gilhooley said:

I understand if these new rules are applied , he’s not offside but we’ve now gone from a toenail making them offside to a glimpse of a heel making him onside. Still gonna have 5 minutes of ref holding his earpiece then studying 6 playbacks . ( and still f**king it up !)
Get it as VAR VAR away as possible  😬

been thinking about it, and it should be pretty straightforward, ie any gap and the attacker is onside and if it looks like a defender is stretching his hand out purely to grab a bit of attacker so there is no gap, then the ref can rule accordingly if he thinks its cheating then give the goal.  As I say seems clear to me anyway