Watching the cricket Woakes takes a 'wicket' and camera's show it's a no bail. Apparently umpires now don't call no balls unless they are obvious but check if a wicket falls. Clearly wrong because although the game is speeded up the batting side may be denied a run.

However would it not be an idea in football that if a linesman flags for offside that play continues and that it is only checked if a goal is scored before the defending side gains controlled possession?

As ever I'd be interested in your thoughts.

But then the attacking side could just retain possession of the ball. They could use this as a tactic for winding down the clock. Also how longer would it be before the offside is cancelled if the attacking side don't score.

Blackandamber wrote:But then the attacking side could just retain possession of the ball. They could use this as a tactic for winding down the clock. Also how longer would it be before the offside is cancelled if the attacking side don't score.

I agree. In Rugby Union when the ref says advantage he uses his / her discretion on how long it lasts and how much advantage is gained. I have seen advantages last from 10 seconds to almost 2 minutes plus before he /she decides to call a halt to the play.
Forget the technology IMO and go with the officials decisions be they right or wrong as its always been in the game we all love to watch....
Goal line technology maybe but thats it IMO

It's often not the technology at fault but the people using it. The best rugby ref in the world (Nigel Owens) will ask for the TMO to look at something while the game continues and will allow the game to flow either until the ball goes dead or the TMO spots the offence he was looking for. Many other rugby refs stop the game for every TMO check.

I think VAR will eventually work and what we currently see are the teething problems you get when anything new is introduced. I think you'll get to a stage where the referee will be speaking to those in the VAR studio before the game and they will agree what infringements they will be looking for and what will be lower priorities. Some the nonsense decisions such as the tip of the toe being offside will no longer be given and the glaring errors will be. And football will carry on.

I watch very little RU these days and one reason is the ridiculous lengths of time teams are given to exploit advantage in penalty situations when attacking. I''m sure it used to be the same as for knock-ons and forward passes. .

George Street-Bridge wrote:I watch very little RU these days and one reason is the ridiculous lengths of time teams are given to exploit advantage in penalty situations when attacking. I''m sure it used to be the same as for knock-ons and forward passes. .

I tend to think the ref should have a minute timer on his watch and if there is no advantage gained within this time then he blows for the offence. But I guess referees tend to take into account field position and the likelihood for the team with advantage to score points when allowing an extended period of advantage time.

Stan A. Einstein wrote:Watching the cricket Woakes takes a 'wicket' and camera's show it's a no bail. Apparently umpires now don't call no balls unless they are obvious but check if a wicket falls. Clearly wrong because although the game is speeded up the batting side may be denied a run.

However would it not be an idea in football that if a linesman flags for offside that play continues and that it is only checked if a goal is scored before the defending side gains controlled possession?

As ever I'd be interested in your thoughts.

They've decided that "not flagging" until play is dead is the only way to avoid interfering.

I should declare an interest here, as Southampton have had two goals against chalked off for offside so far this season.

The first the flag went up immediately, the ref failed to acknowledge it, and it was shown to be correct by VAR when Burnley carried on playing despite the early flag and put the ball in the net (there would have been a riot if it had stood, the "stoppage" was so obvious from the defence, and VAR should never have been needed but the ref didn't react to the flag quickly enough). The linesman was 100% correct, it was pretty obvious, the ref should have stopped the game long before the chance arose anyway.

The second time was on Saturday, when it appeared basically the entire Sheffield United side was offside from the set piece and McBurnie (who wasn't offside) didn't get the goal because Egan attempted to head it in front of the net. The flag didn't go up, which was an appalling oversight from the lino, especially when the Saints players all immediately knew the goal wouldn't count and displayed as much it was mentioned by the commentator.

I think VAR is hopeless and has achieved nothing, wrong decisions are unchallenged, whilst many correct ones take too long to be rendered, also preventing the officials from concentrating on their decision-making and undermining them. I can't see how else the flagging situation can work though - if they don't flag people get annoyed at the "slow" decision-making/flag, if they flag wrongly if affects players on the pitch no matter how they're meant to play to the whistle, and it doesn't allow the opportunity for review.

If the assistant is going to flag but play continues, what does the assistant do next?

A) take himself out of the game by staying in position with his flag up?
B) put his flag back down and continue to take an active part by catching up and keeping up with play?
C) keep his flag up and try to keep up with play while continuing to flag?
D) not flag in the first place but communicate the offside to the referee via his headset?
E) other?

VAR is perfect for helping the correct decision to be made. It is not VAR that is wrong, it is the way it is used. Gino Wijnaldum was manhandled by the throat in the Liverpool v Newcastle game at the weekend. He got dragged to the floor. It happened at the edge of the 6 yard box with no obscured view. What is the point of having the bloody thing if it cannot be used for an obvious offence. I am beginning to think that it may actually be bad for the game.

pembsexile wrote:VAR is perfect for helping the correct decision to be made. It is not VAR that is wrong, it is the way it is used. Gino Wijnaldum was manhandled by the throat in the Liverpool v Newcastle game at the weekend. He got dragged to the floor. It happened at the edge of the 6 yard box with no obscured view. What is the point of having the bloody thing if it cannot be used for an obvious offence. I am beginning to think that it may actually be bad for the game.

My question as always is "why didn't the official see it?".

SJG99 wrote:

pembsexile wrote:VAR is perfect for helping the correct decision to be made. It is not VAR that is wrong, it is the way it is used. Gino Wijnaldum was manhandled by the throat in the Liverpool v Newcastle game at the weekend. He got dragged to the floor. It happened at the edge of the 6 yard box with no obscured view. What is the point of having the bloody thing if it cannot be used for an obvious offence. I am beginning to think that it may actually be bad for the game.

My question as always is "why didn't the official see it?".

After seeing the penalty given against Liverpool tonight , what is the ******* point ???

It was brought in to correct decisions incorrectly awarded ?
Penalty was given , VAR was consulted . Obviously not a penalty , yet the rules state that VAR is there for "obvious wrong decisions made by the officials" ???
WTF ??? The ref got it wrong by awarding the penalty , yet VAR wasn't allowed to over rule his decision as it wasn't "obvious" ???

Well , roger me with a fish fork !!! There's me thinking VAR was there to put wrong decisions right ???
Scrap the lot I say ..... ruining the game

Corpaboy wrote:

SJG99 wrote:

pembsexile wrote:VAR is perfect for helping the correct decision to be made. It is not VAR that is wrong, it is the way it is used. Gino Wijnaldum was manhandled by the throat in the Liverpool v Newcastle game at the weekend. He got dragged to the floor. It happened at the edge of the 6 yard box with no obscured view. What is the point of having the bloody thing if it cannot be used for an obvious offence. I am beginning to think that it may actually be bad for the game.

My question as always is "why didn't the official see it?".

After seeing the penalty given against Liverpool tonight , what is the ******* point ???

It was brought in to correct decisions incorrectly awarded ?
Penalty was given , VAR was consulted . Obviously not a penalty , yet the rules state that VAR is there for "obvious wrong decisions made by the officials" ???
WTF ??? The ref got it wrong by awarding the penalty , yet VAR wasn't allowed to over rule his decision as it wasn't "obvious" ???

Well , roger me with a fish fork !!! There's me thinking VAR was there to put wrong decisions right ???
Scrap the lot I say ..... ruining the game

Absolutely, I’ve always thought it’s only useful to ascertain objective facts like in and out of play, over the goal line etc. What’s the point of referring it on a matter of opinion? It is just that , an opinion just like the original ref’s opinion.

Amberexile wrote:If the assistant is going to flag but play continues, what does the assistant do next?

A) take himself out of the game by staying in position with his flag up?
B) put his flag back down and continue to take an active part by catching up and keeping up with play?
C) keep his flag up and try to keep up with play while continuing to flag?
D) not flag in the first place but communicate the offside to the referee via his headset?
E) other?

E) throw a tantrum , throw down his flag and tell the ref that if he / she isnt going to listen / take notice of their decision they can ref the game themselves without their help.
Do a pirouette and storm off down the tunnel whilst hurling abuse at the incompetent ref like the rest of the crowd

Read a great story about VAR this evening. Today in a game in Germany a penalty was awarded because of VAR, nothing unusual about that. However, the player was not even on the pitch. He was a sub warming up behind the goal and kicked the ball back as it was going out of play. However, the ball had not crossed the line and the ref awarded a penalty.

The problem with VAR is that it is absolute. It's decisions are invariably correct but the way it is used is complete madness. What a crazy way to run the game.

It appears to me that football has allowed a monster to develop in VAR because it has taken away to some extent the final say of the referee. Whilst the use of the TMO in rugby is not perfect, it doesn't have the same level of criticism or controversy because the referee still has the final say, after he is able to see the slow-motion replays, thereby taking sole responsibility for the decisions. Unfortunately football referees do not seem to be watching those replays, and are therefore in my opinion being allowed to neglect their responsibilities.