You'll see me in court

[Andy_Faber]

So Notts are considering their options lol now Barcelona are doing the same and explicitely not ruling out legal action regarding a non-goal in the Barca/Real match

Question is, is the game we 'love' slowly losing the plot?

[swaledale]

Its lost it I think! Having seen the "offside" given against Coventry for their "goal" which would have seen them in the FA Cup Final and then finding out it was apparently Atwell (not a favourite amongst derby fans for some horrendous decisions against us) it seems to me that we are heading towards utter chaos. I mean what sort of bloody jobsworth looks at that offside and figures its marginal so I'll favour the defending team in that situation?

As for the Forest lot, yes they had some shocking decisions go against them but threatening legal action is a nonsense.

[SithHappens]

So Notts are considering their options lol now Barcelona are doing the same and explicitely not ruling out legal action regarding a non-goal in the Barca/Real match

Question is, is the game we 'love' slowly losing the plot?

They are bad yes but this one makes me feel sick

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football...s/ckmj4gedjr5o

[MadAmster]

I'm still failing to understand how a decision that took several minutes to decide that the Coventry player was about 3mm offside falls under the "clear and obvious error" category...

[ramAnag]

…and that is absolutely the point,MA. The argument cannot be about VAR. VAR did its job, just as a similar system has doubtless done for scores of photo finishes in athletics over the years. The decision was as marginal as it gets as even Mark Robins - surely the one person to emerge out of all this with any credit - accepts. A ‘toenail’ offside, was his verdict…so, offside then.

Was it a ‘clear and obvious error’…of course it wasn’t, but that is where everything comes down to interpretation and unfortunately that interpretation and decision was left to two individuals who’s competence is regularly called into question.

[MadAmster]

…and that is absolutely the point,MA. The argument cannot be about VAR. VAR did its job, just as a similar system has doubtless done for scores of photo finishes in athletics over the years. The decision was as marginal as it gets as even Mark Robins - surely the one person to emerge out of all this with any credit - accepts. A ‘toenail’ offside, was his verdict…so, offside then.

Was it a ‘clear and obvious error’…of course it wasn’t, but that is where everything comes down to interpretation and unfortunately that interpretation and decision was left to two individuals who’s competence is regularly called into question.

Ah, but, "clear and obvious" is the FIFA instruction as to how VAR should be used. It was Sky and the EPL who first spent the millions on the technology to be able to judge to the millimetre. In the beginning other National FAs couldn't afford it. As it became cheaper they followed. I am most adamant in my opinion that the Coventry decision was not a "clear and obvious error by the ref's assistant". IMO, he got it right. Too close to call with the human eye so the "benefit of any doubt" went to the attacker, and, almost too close to call taking 4 minutes of close scrutiny using some very expensive hard- and soft-ware. Ergo, it was not a clear and obvious error.

[ramAnag]

Ah, but, "clear and obvious" is the FIFA instruction as to how VAR should be used. It was Sky and the EPL who first spent the millions on the technology to be able to judge to the millimetre. In the beginning other National FAs couldn't afford it. As it became cheaper they followed. I am most adamant in my opinion that the Coventry decision was not a "clear and obvious error by the ref's assistant". IMO, he got it right. Too close to call with the human eye so the "benefit of any doubt" went to the attacker, and, almost too close to call taking 4 minutes of close scrutiny using some very expensive hard- and soft-ware. Ergo, it was not a clear and obvious error.

I completely agree with you. The question though remains…what do we, as fans, actually want?
In this case the decision arrived at by VAR was correct…the Coventry player was, by the most minuscule of margins, offside, but, by definition, there can be no ‘clear and obvious’ error where such tiny margins are concerned.

Had the context of the decision been less emotive and the situation/consequence more dispassionate then I suspect little would have been said but we do, imo, have to be clear about what we want and expect from VAR.

We have introduced technology that allows us to make the correct judgement call for the most difficult of decisions. That’s why we have VAR, but then when it results in an unpopular and unromantic outcome it seems we still moan. Can’t have it both ways.

[swaledale]

Ah, but, "clear and obvious" is the FIFA instruction as to how VAR should be used. It was Sky and the EPL who first spent the millions on the technology to be able to judge to the millimetre. In the beginning other National FAs couldn't afford it. As it became cheaper they followed. I am most adamant in my opinion that the Coventry decision was not a "clear and obvious error by the ref's assistant". IMO, he got it right. Too close to call with the human eye so the "benefit of any doubt" went to the attacker, and, almost too close to call taking 4 minutes of close scrutiny using some very expensive hard- and soft-ware. Ergo, it was not a clear and obvious error.

I'd agree, in that its not VAR that's the issue, but the manner in which the FA have implemented it and the jobsworths who are responsible for the decisions.

It should be simple, use it to clarify a decision where the ref or ass ref may have got it wrong. In every other game where VAR wasn't being used Coventry's goal would have stood. If we go down to that kind of scrutiny on decisions, you may as well remove the person running the line and use an AI machine.

For the sake of the game offside, which after all was introduced to stop "goal hanging" should always favour the attacker where its marginal. Nobody would have challenged Coventry's goal but for VAR.

I'm also at a loss as to how Attwell became a "top" referee, he is often noted as having made contentious decisions and this one tops the lot. Completely destroyed the integrity of the game this has.

With respect rA, the finishing line judgement on athletics is there to judge the finish, its a clear line, drawn in advance with the camera set up to record the athletes as they cross it, there is no such clear line in an offside, its drawn by the VAR operators after the event and can vary widely, so there is a big difference.

[Andy_Faber]

I'd agree, in that its not VAR that's the issue, but the manner in which the FA have implemented it and the jobsworths who are responsible for the decisions.

It should be simple, use it to clarify a decision where the ref or ass ref may have got it wrong. In every other game where VAR wasn't being used Coventry's goal would have stood. If we go down to that kind of scrutiny on decisions, you may as well remove the person running the line and use an AI machine.

For the sake of the game offside, which after all was introduced to stop "goal hanging" should always favour the attacker where its marginal. Nobody would have challenged Coventry's goal but for VAR.

I'm also at a loss as to how Attwell became a "top" referee, he is often noted as having made contentious decisions and this one tops the lot. Completely destroyed the integrity of the game this has.

With respect rA, the finishing line judgement on athletics is there to judge the finish, its a clear line, drawn in advance with the camera set up to record the athletes as they cross it, there is no such clear line in an offside, its drawn by the VAR operators after the event and can vary widely, so there is a big difference.

Easy answer. Give the VAR job to fourth umpires

[MadAmster]

Seen some footage now.

#1 - Yes, there's contact. No, it's not enough to cause the Tree to be felled. Not every contact is a foul and, IMO, this one wasn't. Yes, I've seen them given but it's the given ones that are wrong. No penalty.

#2 - yes, there was contact between arm and ball. Given what Young was actually doing at that moment, competing for the ball and he'd just run a dozen yards to get there, his arm is not in an unnatural position and it's not handball. No penalty.

#3 - Seen them given too, and quite rightly so. Ref signals ball played, no penalty. It's clear and obvious that Young did not play the ball. Tw@twell should have told the ref that and said "accept my decision that you got it wrong or go and see the monitor". IMO a penalty