God knows. I can see that being equally confusing. My preference would be to

just not have it for off sides or alternatively use front/back feet or go back to some form of clear daylight rule.

But then you look at our game on Saturday and arguably 2 goals came from off sides. I still can;t make up my mind as to whether that is an advert for VAR (as Preston arguably might have had a penalty as well so it did impact on the scoreline which could have been closer) or that game is an argument against VAR as I certainly found it massively more enjoyable to watch and ultimately other than a couple of moans i'm not sure anyone really cared that two of the goals came from offside situations.

Posted By: Jim on January 8th 2020 at 09:57:58

Message Thread

Colin just said the worst VAR error he’s seen is Pukki’s goal against Spurs (n/m) (NCFC) - Augustus Pablo, Jan 8, 08:53:07
- IMHO the Man Utd penalty was much worse. (NCFC) - usacanary, Jan 8, 13:41:28
- The long standing ref's principal... no surprises! (NCFC) - Worthing Yellow, Jan 8, 09:22:17
- There have been a few VAR errors but Pukki wasn’t (NCFC) - SCC 28, Jan 8, 09:01:49
  - Course it was ridiculous decision even spurs fans agree (n/m) (NCFC) - loz, Jan 8, 09:03:09
    - A ridiculous decision yep (NCFC) - SCC 28, Jan 8, 09:11:50
      - It was wrong. Worrying though that the premier league are backing the current form of use (n/m) (NCFC) - Jim, Jan 8, 09:12:34
        
        It wasn’t wrong - the technology didn’t malfunction (NCFC) - SCC 28, Jan 8, 09:18:22
        
        it was wrong (NCFC) - grays, Jan 8, 09:22:21
        
        But he wasn’t judged level by the technology (n/m) (NCFC) - SCC 28, Jan 8, 09:28:10
        
        The inherent error in the measurement was far greater than the (NCFC) - dennis moore, Jan 8, 16:21:48
        
        my point is (NCFC) - grays, Jan 8, 09:32:56
        
        Maybe nothing tight enough yet (n/m) (NCFC) - SCC 28, Jan 8, 09:39:53
        
        If the Pukki one wasn;t (even thoiugh it was actually wrong) then there will never be. (n/m) (NCFC) - Jim, Jan 8, 09:51:51
        
        Nonsense (n/m) (NCFC) - SCC 28, Jan 8, 09:56:55
        
        It was wrong. He was not offside. No way. (n/m) (NCFC) - Jim, Jan 8, 09:20:59
        
        Right so no part of his body was offside? (NCFC) - SCC 28, Jan 8, 09:26:47
        
        I don;t believe the technolgy was accurate enough to prove it was offside, I don't (NCFC) - Jim, Jan 8, 09:29:22
        
        The first point is fair regarding proof (NCFC) - SCC 28, Jan 8, 09:43:18
        
        As discussed before when you have a margin of error as they do you cannot be (NCFC) - Jim, Jan 8, 09:47:22
        
        do we end up with two offside rules then? (NCFC) - CWC, Jan 8, 09:52:17
        
        God knows. I can see that being equally confusing. My preference would be to (NCFC) - Jim, Jan 8, 09:57:58
        
        how can you go back to a rule that never existed? (NCFC) - Ralf Scrampton, Jan 8, 10:13:41
        
        Didn't realise that was another bit of "guidance" our refs made up! Its talked about so (NCFC) - Jim, Jan 8, 10:28:39
        
        VMT (n/m) (NCFC) - SCC 28, Jan 8, 10:16:51
        
        Maybe his aura was offside (n/m) (NCFC) - Augustus Pablo, Jan 8, 09:28:44
        
        what if he had a lob on? (n/m) (NCFC) - Ralf Scrampton, Jan 8, 09:36:23
        
        It'd only take a semi tbf. (n/m) (NCFC) - protheroe fitzgibbon, Jan 8, 09:37:56
        
        clearly wrong. But SCC is this boards biggest fan of VAR. (NCFC) - shoddy, Jan 8, 09:15:29
        
        I’m not a fan of VAR’s use in forensic offsides (NCFC) - SCC 28, Jan 8, 09:22:57
        
        I would say that the frame rate and speed of play make it too difficult to judge... (NCFC) - APB, Jan 8, 09:51:13
        
        One line placed at the legal ball-playing part of the defender closest to goal... (NCFC) - Declan, Jan 8, 10:19:37
        
        That sounds a very good suggestion (n/m) (NCFC) - Jim, Jan 8, 10:29:21
        
        A dead heat would be onside though (NCFC) - SCC 28, Jan 8, 09:55:53
        
        Yes. (n/m) (NCFC) - APB, Jan 8, 09:59:52
        
        If? I’d. (n/m) (NCFC) - APB, Jan 8, 09:51:42
        
        I would like to know who owns this technology they are using and appears to have been (NCFC) - Jim, Jan 8, 09:27:13
        
        Well I don’t see why corruption should be involved (NCFC) - SCC 28, Jan 8, 09:31:53
        
        I was thinking more of lobbying rather than corruption. I.e. how this got suddenly rolled (NCFC) - Jim, Jan 8, 09:51:17
        
        Ball over line only has one moving part, like tennis (NCFC) - duke of york, Jan 8, 09:42:03
        
        vmt (NCFC) - CWC, Jan 8, 09:50:22
        
        Agreed but still not clear and obvious error (NCFC) - SCC 28, Jan 8, 09:48:12
        
        If the technology is accurate enough then it is clear (NCFC) - mr carra, Jan 8, 10:40:14
        
        Yes can see a time when these offsides are just as instant (NCFC) - SCC 28, Jan 8, 10:46:08
        
        HawkEye (NCFC) - duke of york, Jan 8, 09:29:18

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.