Going down to an illegal goal is worse. It's not fair, it's not British. I'm still annoyed about Burney's penalty against us, when we should have had a penalty.
The technology tells us whether it thinks it's 1cm (or whatever the measurement is) offside or not. What would you like the rule to be, would you like it to allow a goal unless the attacker is at least 20cm offside? Where would you draw the line, and how would that make it better?
Agreed, and maybe we'll just have to learn to look at the game better, so we can judge whether something is likely to be ruled out. Some goals are nowhere near offside, and no one from the opposition has hit the ground, so they're really unlikely to be ruled out. We can see when it looks close to offside, so we'll have to wait for a second.
What?
I know. I think VAR can make the game better, you think it's the end of football (apologies if that's not quite what you've said, I don't remember the detail).
Yes I accept it's not the same. The lino will still flag if he thinks it's offside. If he doesn't flag, loads of people will still celebrate. If, like me, you're a little more cautious, you'll only celebrate if it looked good, and when it's a really tight call you'll hold your breath - exciting stuff.
Well we don't have to, but we can pay more attention to offside decisions if we choose. To be fair, that is easier for me, as I sit in line with the 18 yard line, and high enough up to have a fair view of the other end. Others won't be in a good position to see. Most will just cheer regardless. How many goals were scored at the weekend, and how many were ruled out by VAR?
Like I said before:
Right, so there's your answer to my question above. You'd draw the line at 'daylight' between the players. So we're going to be pausing it and looking at whether it's 1mm of daylight, or not. If it's not, the goal stands, and if it's 1mm, the goal is ruled out. Presumably the daylight has to be between each player's torso. Sometimes there will be 1mm of daylight between the bodies, but the defenders leg will be stretched towards the goal, and may even be ahead of the attacker, meaning that although there is daylight between the players, the striker isn't offside anyway. Or maybe he is by 1mm. I really can't see what you've gained by this change.
So we'll be looking at the trailing leg of the striker, and seeing if it overlaps the stretched out front leg of the defender by 1mm. Decisions will be as tight as they are now, but it will give a decent advantage to strikers. The problem with this is that it's really changing the offside law. The current system means even a little offside is offside, but at least it's the same law we've always had, just enforced more accurately. Changing it as you suggest would be strikers don't have to run off the shoulders of the defender, they can actually be ahead of them. If it goes that way I'll be fine with it, but I still don't see the advantage over what we have this season (as I say, it's still going to be mm decisions on whether the feet overlap). Murray would certainly be pleased, but the change would come too late for him.
But you also know that you're not getting relegated because some shit official couldn't see an obvious offside.
And at what point, in your opinion, is it clear and obvious? Put 'clear and obvious' in the rule book and you're going to get extremely different decisions in each game, as it gets interpreted differently. You need to come up with a specific rule.
