GWT: PL Matchbox 20

[hatterson]

Why do you think too close to call should go to the attacker?

"Tie goes to the attacker/offense" is basically a staple in every sport as it creates more offensive chances. It also already exists in the offside rule. If you're level with the last defender, you're onside. This would just be saying "if it's literally too close to tell, even on freeze frame, if someone was level or 2 millimeters closer, just count it as level"

The advantage to defenders you're describing is a defender literally saying "I'm counting that linesman won't call this right, so I'm gonna let this dude run behind me/step up on him" which seems completely backwards.

The mental idea of "crap they might review this and notice he's not offside" would matter if you're talking about a distance large enough for a human being to recognize and react to in real time, but that's not what anyone is talking about. A defender is incapable of judging "hey he's definitely onside, I need to track this run" vs "he's within the margin of error, I don't need to track it the same"

 

[YNWA14]

"Tie goes to the attacker/offense" is basically a staple in every sport as it creates more offensive chances. It also already exists in the offside rule. If you're level with the last defender, you're onside. This would just be saying "if it's literally too close to tell, even on freeze frame, if someone was level or 2 millimeters closer, just count it as level"

The advantage to defenders you're describing is a defender literally saying "I'm counting that linesman won't call this right, so I'm gonna let this dude run behind me/step up on him" which seems completely backwards.

The mental idea of "crap they might review this and notice he's not offside" would matter if you're talking about a distance large enough for a human being to recognize and react to in real time, but that's not what anyone is talking about. A defender is incapable of judging "hey he's definitely onside, I need to track this run" vs "he's within the margin of error, I don't need to track it the same"

Yeah, that's fair.

I guess my main point is that they're using the technology right now to the best of its ability. If they were to change that because they don't feel it's within the 'spirit of the game' or true to the rules, or changed the rules to accommodate that, I'd be fine with it. I can see why some people would prefer it that way. I just also don't have a problem with them taking a frame that is the closest possible that they can get right now and using the line on that to determine the offside to the best of their ability; I think it's just as valid and offside is offside, though as @The Abusement Park mentioned I don't want them taking 10 minutes to do it either.

 

[gary69]

IFAB will likely clarify the use of VAR for the next season at least and emphasise the 'clear and obvious' part.

Lukas Brud, general secretary of the International Football Association Board, said: "With VAR we see some things that are going in a direction that we may need to re-adjust."

He said the body would reissue guidance on VAR's use after its annual general meeting in February.
"If you spend multiple minutes trying to identify whether it is offside or not, then it's not clear and obvious and the original decision should stand," he said.
He added: "What we really need to stress is that 'clear and obvious' applies to every single situation that is being reviewed by the VAR or the referee.

"We will be communicating to all competitions that are using VAR some updates in the coming weeks, because we are observing some developments that are not particularly the way they should be."

VAR 'should not be too forensic' - football law-makers set to issue guidance