Var improving?

[CAMiller]

I do think that the offside rule needs looking at with VAR and I have said before that maybe they could make it so that if any part of a player is onside, even if it's your hand, then the player should be deemed onside, and would rule out a player being a toenail offside as it stands at the moment.
Or even make it that if any part of your foot is onside, then the player is deemed onside because players making runs are usually leaning forward and sometimes their feet are onside but their chest and head aren't.....just a thought. UTM

But if you think about it Ronners it makes no difference as far as VAR is concerned as a line is a line is a line wherever it's drawn so there will still be marginal decisions and in one of your examples a player might be onside by a toenail instead of offside by one. Admittedly it does make a difference to the game with respect to where players can position themselves, but to VAR it's just a black and white decision.

[avondalemiller]

...i'm not too fussed about VAR 1 way or another, it's still someones opinion after all.

What would be better is the Ref to answer the why and why nots during the game, and maybe wire them up to the live broadcast at the time.Like Rugby......
....thing we have to remember is that everyone on the pitch is trying to cheat and con him......maybe we could start here if we want to change things???

[CAMiller]

...i'm not too fussed about VAR 1 way or another, it's still someones opinion after all.

What would be better is the Ref to answer the why and why nots during the game, and maybe wire them up to the live broadcast at the time.Like Rugby......
....thing we have to remember is that everyone on the pitch is trying to cheat and con him......maybe we could start here if we want to change things???

Tim Howard was one of the summarisers of the Spurs v Liverpool game yesterday here in the US and he said that during his playing time our own Howard Webb was by far the best referee as he at least took time to explain his decisions to players and didn't just wave them off with an "It's my decision" attitude like many seem to do today.

[flourbasher]

So Trevor Kettle when Rotherham were on the attack and you rightly stopped the game for treatment to a Cambridge player why did you give the ball to their keeper for a free kick?

Answer
A - I make up the rules
B - I don't know what I'm doing
C - I'm senile
D - I'm particularly vindictive towards Rotherham

[CAMiller]

So Trevor Kettle when Rotherham were on the attack and you rightly stopped the game for treatment to a Cambridge player why did you give the ball to their keeper for a free kick?

Answer
A - I make up the rules
B - I don't know what I'm doing
C - I'm senile
D - I'm particularly vindictive towards Rotherham

E - All of the above

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

Tim Howard was one of the summarisers of the Spurs v Liverpool game yesterday here in the US and he said that during his playing time our own Howard Webb was by far the best referee as he at least took time to explain his decisions to players and didn't just wave them off with an "It's my decision" attitude like many seem to do today.

Marginally better than the “ my mate” stuff some refs do with celebrity players using their first names.

[Ronners]

But if you think about it Ronners it makes no difference as far as VAR is concerned as a line is a line is a line wherever it's drawn so there will still be marginal decisions and in one of your examples a player might be onside by a toenail instead of offside by one. Admittedly it does make a difference to the game with respect to where players can position themselves, but to VAR it's just a black and white decision.

It makes a difference as far as goals go CAM, to me I think its nit picking when a goal is ruled out for offside by a toenail, even though by the letter of the law its correct and is 100% proof.
However to say if any part of a player is onside is allowed, then more goals will be scored, and to be offside, then all of you has to be offside, which if you are then it doesn't seem as bad as the current rule. UTM

[CAMiller]

It makes a difference as far as goals go CAM, to me I think its nit picking when a goal is ruled out for offside by a toenail, even though by the letter of the law its correct and is 100% proof.
However to say if any part of a player is onside is allowed, then more goals will be scored, and to be offside, then all of you has to be offside, which if you are then it doesn't seem as bad as the current rule. UTM

The question is should you change the laws of the game just because you now have the technology to better apply the laws? The law always was if any part of a player is ahead of the last defender when the ball is played, he/she is offside. Why change that now? They didn't feel the need to change the goal/no goal law when goal line technology was introduced.

You could argue that the entire offside law should be abolished. Why have a law to prevent goals in a game where scoring them is one of the key objectives?

[Ronners]

The question is should you change the laws of the game just because you now have the technology to better apply the laws? The law always was if any part of a player is ahead of the last defender when the ball is played, he/she is offside. Why change that now? They didn't feel the need to change the goal/no goal law when goal line technology was introduced.

You could argue that the entire offside law should be abolished. Why have a law to prevent goals in a game where scoring them is one of the key objectives?

Actually CAM the offside law hasn't always been like that although its had more than a few tweaks since 1990. UTM

https://www.football-stadiums.co.uk/...e-in-football/