You'll see me in court

[Geoff Parkstone]

To me its simple. VAR is not like for example tennis where a ball can be clearly in or out.

Take a leaf from cricket - offside is a bit judgemental, not fixed lines to see. So is LBW judgemental. So in cases where there is a degree of doubt, used "referee's call". Make the linesmen and ref make decisions to be judged. Don't just sit back and cop out of decision making, make the officials do their jobs, give them the benefit of the doubt and only overturn if it is hopelessly wrong

[ramAnag]

To me its simple. VAR is not like for example tennis where a ball can be clearly in or out.

Take a leaf from cricket - offside is a bit judgemental, not fixed lines to see. So is LBW judgemental. So in cases where there is a degree of doubt, used "referee's call". Make the linesmen and ref make decisions to be judged. Don't just sit back and cop out of decision making, make the officials do their jobs, give them the benefit of the doubt and only overturn if it is hopelessly wrong

Except in 1966!

Beyond that I think I agree with you, but are there not ‘fixed lines’ drawn onto the screen in Stockley Park? I thought that was the point and that Jota’s goal, for instance, against Fulham on Sunday was given because the ‘lines’ actually touched.

As regards my comparison with photo finishes in athletics, Swale. With equal respect I can’t see the difference. Yes one is measuring the finish and the other is measuring something more like the beginning of a ‘race’ between defender and attacker but, technology wise, they are very much the same in that they are both measuring who is in front by the tiniest of margins at a specific moment.

[Geoff Parkstone]

In tennis there are clear lines delineating in or out painted on the ground. In football, at least as regards offsides, there are not. They are subsequently superimposed by VAR and IMHO don't always seem to be particularly straight or in right place. If VAR was used for goal line crossing or even throw ins, that's clear. For offside decisions it's flawed and there needs to be leeway to go with refs call when it's tight, or be specific benefit of doubt given to attackers (unless they are ManU).

[ramAnag]

In tennis there are clear lines delineating in or out painted on the ground. In football, at least as regards offsides, there are not. They are subsequently superimposed by VAR and IMHO don't always seem to be particularly straight or in right place. If VAR was used for goal line crossing or even throw ins, that's clear. For offside decisions it's flawed and there needs to be leeway to go with refs call when it's tight, or be specific benefit of doubt given to attackers (unless they are ManU).

Not really disagreeing with you, GP and your tennis example is clearly correct…but in cricket you know as well as I do that there is no actual coloured strip down the centre of the wicket and ‘Hawkeye’ also manages (miraculously) to determine the projected trajectory of the ball. Likewise in rugby there are seldom any lines to determine offsides, which are more widespread than in football, or forward passes and yet decisions seem to be accepted far more gracefully in cricket and both rugby codes.

Shouldn’t be beyond the technicians to come up with a foolproof system, indeed they probably already have, it’s the occasional fools that implement it that need ‘proofing’.

[MadAmster]

... now reading that the Red Dogs are looking to sue Sky and Gary Neville over comments made...

Notts Floriat, the gift that keeps on giving.

[SithHappens]

... now reading that the Red Dogs are looking to sue Sky and Gary Neville over comments made...

Notts Floriat, the gift that keeps on giving.

Yeah. And Sky announced yesterday they had heard from sources that the Forest media team had to stop a communication going out from 'Senior' officials at the club at half time, they wanted to issue a statement at half time questioning the impartiality of the officials.

[swaledale]

Except in 1966!

Beyond that I think I agree with you, but are there not ‘fixed lines’ drawn onto the screen in Stockley Park? I thought that was the point and that Jota’s goal, for instance, against Fulham on Sunday was given because the ‘lines’ actually touched.

As regards my comparison with photo finishes in athletics, Swale. With equal respect I can’t see the difference. Yes one is measuring the finish and the other is measuring something more like the beginning of a ‘race’ between defender and attacker but, technology wise, they are very much the same in that they are both measuring who is in front by the tiniest of margins at a specific moment.

The difference rA is that with athletics, the finishing line is a fixed point and is always the same point. Its essentially the same as judging whether a ball has crossed a painted line on the pitch, it either has or it hasn't. Whereas with offside it can be anywhere in the defending teams half and the line is drawn often from what I've seen several times by the VAR operators in order to reach a conclusion. Frankly its nonsense, under the laws of the game offside was not meant to be scrutinised to this extent, and for other offences surely it should just be used to pick up an incident where the ref has missed it? Then there's the distorting effect of slowing down tackles et c. its simply ruining the spontneity of the game IMO>

[Ramshank72]

I don't see how it can be done with 100% accuracy without shooting lasers across the whole pitch. The decision is always going to be distorted by camera angle and perspective. If you have to draw a line to work out if it's offside or not, then it's not a clear and obvious error, and the linesman needs to be given the responsibility of making the decision.
Just scrap it, it's not added any enjoyment to the game.

[ramAnag]

The difference rA is that with athletics, the finishing line is a fixed point and is always the same point. Its essentially the same as judging whether a ball has crossed a painted line on the pitch, it either has or it hasn't. Whereas with offside it can be anywhere in the defending teams half and the line is drawn often from what I've seen several times by the VAR operators in order to reach a conclusion. Frankly its nonsense, under the laws of the game offside was not meant to be scrutinised to this extent, and for other offences surely it should just be used to pick up an incident where the ref has missed it? Then there's the distorting effect of slowing down tackles et c. its simply ruining the spontneity of the game IMO>

Sorry, we’ll have to agree to differ on the athletics comparison. Agree about it ruining the spontaneity of the game but, as I’ve said, that’s what we (football fans) have to decide on. Do we want to increase the chances of making the correct decision or do we want to retain the spontaneous joy of goals being given without the current scrutiny? The two are not necessarily compatible but I suspect it is going to prove difficult to put the genie back in the bottle.

[Ramshank72]

it is going to prove difficult to put the genie back in the bottle.

That's the problem, the genie is worth £££.