[Football] The "delaying the offside flag and letting it play out" thing

[thedonkeycentrehalf]

I'm going to go against the grain here and say that, if you have VAR, then you have to delay the flag if there is any doubt otherwise there's no point having it. If you are 100% sure then of course flag. In this particular case although it was fairly obvious, because (if i remember rightly) it was one of those where attacker and defender run in opposite directions there is only a split second difference between on and off even if the still image looks really clear. Of course we could do away with VAR and solve the problem.

I agree to an extent - the bigger question is why the semi-automated offside did not alert the Assistant straight away to say it was offside at which point she would have put her flag up and the game stopped. Was it not in operation, did it malfunction or was it ignored?

 

[Pavilionaire]

These passages of play where it is palpably obvious a player is offside have always worried me. In this example the attacker is yards offside, meaning the defenders will have to lunge in to have any hope of halting the attack, thereby increasing the risk of injury on both sides.

I see our own Buonanotte was underneath a pile of Awoniyi when he collided with the post. That could have been much worse for Facundo.

 

[lost in london]

Anyone who thinks linesmen should flag immediately if they think it is offside isn't thinking this through logically.

If your team is attacking and the lino flags an offside that wasn't offside and stops play as a result, you would be furious. Better to let play run on, the goal be scored (or not), and then chalked off (or not) for offside after.

So it's understandable to let VAR decide where the lino has any doubt and let play go on. The alternative (lino flagging and stopping play incorrectly) is worse.

Maybe I'm missing something but I have never understood the pundits getting so mad about this.

 

[Deadly Danson]

I agree to an extent - the bigger question is why the semi-automated offside did not alert the Assistant straight away to say it was offside at which point she would have put her flag up and the game stopped. Was it not in operation, did it malfunction or was it ignored?

That's not how the semi- automated system works. Once the play has completed the VAR operators decide if there is a close offside call - if it's obvious to the naked eye they call it, if not they refer to the semi-automated system which calls it. It's only really there to save drawing lines.

 

[Badger]

Anyone who thinks linesmen should flag immediately if they think it is offside isn't thinking this through logically.

If your team is attacking and the lino flags an offside that wasn't offside and stops play as a result, you would be furious. Better to let play run on, the goal be scored (or not), and then chalked off (or not) for offside after.

So it's understandable to let VAR decide where the lino has any doubt and let play go on. The alternative (lino flagging and stopping play incorrectly) is worse.

Maybe I'm missing something but I have never understood the pundits getting so mad about this.

He's so far offside though. You could even see him hesitate when he goes for the ball knowing he's offside. This is definitely one of those cases when the flag should have gone up immediately.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

He's so far offside though. You could even see him hesitate when he goes for the ball knowing he's offside. This is definitely one of those cases when the flag should have gone up immediately.

Although, referring to a separate argument (and assuming that still is taken at exactly the right moment), if we were playing with the proposed daylight rule it would be extremely marginal and we'd need to be getting the set squares and compasses out to check it.

 

[Deadly Danson]

He's so far offside though. You could even see him hesitate when he goes for the ball knowing he's offside. This is definitely one of those cases when the flag should have gone up immediately.

But that's a still image and he's still only one yard off - a millisecond earlier or later and he's onside because the players are going in opposite directions. When Neville and Carragher ran the line for Sky a year or two back they were the hardest to call and they invariably got it wrong.

 

[Badger]

But that's a still image and he's still only one yard off - a millisecond earlier or later and he's onside because the players are going in opposite directions. When Neville and Carragher ran the line for Sky a year or two back they were the hardest to call and they invariably got it wrong.

In this case, he really wasn't onside a millisecond earlier.

I agree with the rule to not raise the flag if it's tight and there's a clear goal-scoring opportunity. There needs to be a bit of common sense applied though, when it's so obviously offside.

 

[lost in london]

He's so far offside though. You could even see him hesitate when he goes for the ball knowing he's offside. This is definitely one of those cases when the flag should have gone up immediately.

Perhaps, perhaps not, I'm not a lino, but I was being a bit more general rather than looking at this specific case.

Also it's not fair for some to criticise the lino / rules for being responsible for an injury putting someone in a coma, it was hardly inevitable that would be the end result of this through ball.

 

[Deadly Danson]

In this case, he really wasn't onside a millisecond earlier.

I agree with the rule to not raise the flag if it's tight and there's a clear goal-scoring opportunity. There needs to be a bit of common sense applied though, when it's so obviously offside.

I do agree - in this instance the lino I think would have been nearly 100% sure she was correct - she's generally excellent - and probably should be allowed to flag but so often it's tighter than it looks and woe betide any lino who is sure they are correct and flags and gets it wrong.

 

[Brian Munich]

Also it's not fair for some to criticise the lino / rules for being responsible for an injury putting someone in a coma, it was hardly inevitable that would be the end result of this through ball.

This is the bit I don’t get. It’s not as if allowing a game of football to carry on means that the subsequent passage of play is any more dangerous than the rest of that game of football.

Some people are blaming the officiating for the injury in the same way that you might criticise a rugby ref for allowing play to continue after a collapsed scrum.

 

[tedebear]

It’s not though, is it? Driving at 100 is clearly more dangerous than driving at 70. Someone being a couple of inches offside doesn’t make the subsequent passage of play any more dangerous than the other 89 minutes of football.

But its not the speed in question, either you are breaking the law or you are not.

 

[Brian Munich]

But its not the speed in question, either you are breaking the law or you are not.

I’m not quite sure what your point is. It’s rare that a speeding driver actually gets pulled over; you just get a notice of prosecution along with a photo a week or two later.

 

[tedebear]

I’m not quite sure what your point is. It’s rare that a speeding driver actually gets pulled over; you just get a notice of prosecution along with a photo a week or two later.

If youre offside, why not call it when it happens. If you break the law they call it when it happens, not wait to see what happens next...Thought it was kind of clear, apologies if not...

 

[Brian Munich]

If youre offside, why not call it when it happens. If you break the law they call it when it happens, not wait to see what happens next...Thought it was kind of clear, apologies if not...

It’s because refs and linesmen are human and make errors when making split-second decisions using only the naked eye and their judgement, so allowing it to play out enables the use of VAR to confirm or reverse their decision. The rozzers dont have to make such judgement; they use calibrated speed cameras.

Besides, they don’t call it when it happens. If you get flashed doing 80, no one stops you and you’re allowed to carry on doing 80, despite the fact that it’s objectively less safe than going 70.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It happens occasionally. I'm sure there are people on here who've suffered significant injury but not realised it immediately. Again: if the player says it feels OK, then unless there is visually a very obvious injury or it's a head injury where the player quite transparently doesn't know what day it is, then the medics will go with what he says, and keep an eye on him. Players generally want to play and they're used to getting knocks and running them off. Medical staff can only recommend a player come off: they can't physically drag them from the field.

The Bournemouth player (Scott?) carried on after getting elbowed in the face the the other week and it later transpired he had a fractured jaw. If he or the club medics had suspected a fracture, I'm sure they'd have told him in no uncertain terms he was coming off, but he presumably said he thought it was alright, just a bit sore. Rather more famously, Bert Trautmann carried on with his neck fracture, albeit they probably had no sub keeper back them anyway and the physio was probably some chain smoking backroom guy with a bucket and sponge.

It has not been presented this way but Scott got a second wallop in the face later on by someone not Mings and it looked like that was the clincher.

Yes, bad things happen. But the players need to not be exposed to needless risk.
Playing on when there is a clear offside, with a defender then doing something dangerous to deal with the attacking team's unfair advantage.... well...that's not OK and is fixable.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It’s because refs and linesmen are human and make errors when making split-second decisions using only the naked eye and their judgement, so allowing it to play out enables the use of VAR to confirm or reverse their decision. The rozzers dont have to make such judgement; they use calibrated speed cameras.

Besides, they don’t call it when it happens. If you get flashed doing 80, no one stops you and you’re allowed to carry on doing 80, despite the fact that it’s objectively less safe than going 70.

Maybe VAR should intervene quickly over offsides. It could do so. But it only does so if a goal is scored.
And the anti-VAR contingent are presumably against VAR doing refereeing for offside.

 

[Rodney Thomas]

Leicester physios once let a player stay on after treatment at the Withdean. He took about two steps and went down injured before being helped off the pitch. Turned out he’d broken his leg and they’d try to let him “run it off”.

Those were the days

 

[dsr-burnley]

Maybe VAR should intervene quickly over offsides. It could do so. But it only does so if a goal is scored.
And the anti-VAR contingent are presumably against VAR doing refereeing for offside.

Quickly? One of Burnley's goals last year took five and a half minutes. For it to intervene quickly enough to be useful, it would need to be about two seconds.

The answer is simple. Go back to the old offside. In front is offside, behind is onside, level is onside, and stop pretending that "level" was ever meant to mean to the nearest inch. The linesman can make his judgement based on the torso rather than the toe, just like they do in lower leagues, and if the VAR man can't see clearly in 5 seconds from a still photo who is in front, then they are level.

 

[el_ciddy]

I think the lino’s, in the Prem at least, were doing a good enough job with flagging offsides before this rule change. Frankly I don’t think putting decisions under the microscope of slow motion and freeze frames by VAR has improved football significantly enough, whilst also introducing a few new negatives. Marginal decisions by officials in football have not been solved and some of the error making has just been moved to different people or technology.

For offsides specifically,when its a couple of inches of a player’s toe or shoulder that’s been shown offside by VAR, after they have decided when the ball was actually passed forward. Are they stopping the video in the right place consistently, when the ball leaves the foot or when the player touches it? I’m sure a few frames makes a difference when they then look along the line. It’s too much. Marginal decisions have just become more marginal.

It would be better to just put the onus back on the lino to call it as the see it in the moment. Unfortunately I don’t think they can revert this specific “play on” rule whilst VAR is looming over the officials beceause just like with referees, we have seen them more and more often failing to make any decision knowing that they can just defer to VAR.