Steve Nicol vs. Ian Darke: Offside rule sparks HEATED debate about VAR | Premier League
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 січ 2020
- ESPN FC's Dan Thomas sits down with Steve Nicol, Stewart Robson and Ian Darke to address the state of VAR in the Premier League. Darke says the offside rule needs to change to "clear daylight" as soon as possible and thinks it will. Nicol retorts that VAR is fine and changing the offside rule will further degrade the art of defending in the Premier League.
Subscribe to ESPN UK: bit.ly/1oGUzVA
Follow ESPN UK across multiple platforms:
/ espnuk
/ espnuk
www.espn.co.uk/ - Спорт
Steve is hilarious bro, this dude just kills me😂😂 Steve "complete and utter" Nicol
Well, it's true, the bigger the margin the more likely the defenders will back up more resulting less attacking defensers.
However, there are frames of 0.04 seconds which could cause that difference, depending on the frame.
Marwan Monajjed man he just complain cuz he is a defender
Ian Darke is one of the true voices of football.
Was a great boxing commentator for sky as well back in the day.
Best commentator in football. His voice and energy are unmatched, Tyler, Drury and many more, They’re all great but Ian Darke is the OG
“HEATED” it feels as though I’m watching sky sports😂
I usually never agree with Nicol but this time I agree with everything he said
Not so long ago people demanded var because of the wrong decisions now they getting right decisions and complaining
Lol exactly
Only lines I want are up my nose
🤣🤣
Tootski.
Legend 👌👌👌
“if I’ve got a brain”, that’s yet to be confirmed Mr Nicol.
so you don't need a brain to be a top class footballer?
@@SiddharthVaz as a pundit he's braindead
@@yournan116 doesnt make sense what u said. He is talking about football as an ex prof player and manager, which means he knows the game tactically, mentally, physically and whichever other way there is. You may not like his views or his style, but 200%, he knows more than you about football.
I am in agreement with Nicol the art of the offside line and well-drilled defenders will be an art of the past, you either are on or off - simple as, just take less time to make decisions!
Defenders work hard to get these strikers slightly offside now they must get them majorly offside....wow.Those 30 or so decisions given off will be 30 goals allowed, here comes 4 6 scorelines and no more clean sheets.
How come no one ever Complains about Goal line technology when the ball is 99% over the line but obviously its not given because it must be 100% because thats what we basically have with offside now if your 99 % on and if you go on to score a goal it shouldn't stand because your 1% Offside ?
It’s because the old adage was “give the striker the benefit” if he was ever so slightly offside with the naked eye. That was never the case with the ball crossing the line. AND, goal line technology takes a matter of seconds to decide goal or no goal.
Agree with stevie here on this rare occasion 😂
Ryan Lad you shouldn’t he’s talking rubbish
It's ridiculous. Them overturning the decision on the field by looking at millimeters. It should only be overturned if it is an obvious error. The one with the two two heals (I think it was West Ham) was insane. Only overturn if it is obvious. If it close don't overturn, stick with the call on the field.
And the thicker line is required to establish the boundaries of, 'obvious', with any practicality, in the applied practice of the assisted judgement. So VAR needs some adjustment, this is not surprising.
Stevie doesn't like it thick and deep and Darke
Increasing the thickness of the line if there is any overlap, stick with the call on the field
Exactly. I do wonder about football sometimes. As a tennis man I am used to hawkeye, although to be fair that is easier to implement. But cricket has to be the example to use. As Peter Walton said, "Umpire's Call". If there is doubt and it is inconclusive then they must stay with the original decision of goal. It is bizarre and baffling how the Premier League have turned a straightforward VAR situation into an absolute crisis.
make the line the diameter of a ball
The arguement of whether a player is offside or not will never go away , this is as close as you can get to knowing whether a player was offside or not down to centimeters and we're saying it's to good now? We need to make it worse? Really?
What we got from this is: stevie doesn’t like it deep 😉
The PL claims that they use 50fps cameras to determine the point of contact of the pass. Let's say there might be 5 frames where it showed contact. Common sense tells me, they would use the first frame that they deem the first contact was made to determine the offside decision. It might not be 100% accurate but at this time, what can be more accurate than this?
If a ref misses a clear and obvious offside then we can look at VAR. When we break down things to millimeters, beyond the naked eye then we ruined the game. Being offside by a finger or a toe is negligible, and shouldn’t count. Rather it should be ON-side. There should be a margin of error. All systems work with a margin of error.
If not then every decision on the pitch should be VAR reviewed because it could affect a team in either a positive way or negative way.
But of course we can’t do that, we bring in technology as a helper. To help the referee look at things he/she missed and not to put down the game as black and white (that’s for the video games).
The line won't be a yard thick as Steve Nicol assumes. Its thickness would depend on the error that can occur when measuring when the ball leaves the foot. If it's a 240 fps camera and the ball is hit at 100kmph then in 1/240 second (one frame) it's a distance of 12 cm. Thus the line has to be of the order of 10 cm unless they start using higher speed cameras.
Moreover they don't need a thicker line. They can just consider it not to be offside unless the difference is atleast 10 cm or something. The tolerance should be 10 cm or similar.
@@JunaidHasan23 why not use the clear daylight rule tho
I dont see this as a solution
How do they adjust this for varies angles of camera & the proximity to the playing field
& keep it completely accurate calculations for all teams in one league
@@GretarorGujohnsen-rt4kh How do you define "clear daylight" it has to have an objective meaning. That is why we must agree on an amount. According to me it's about 10 cm. If its more it's clear daylight. And regarding multiple cameras, I feel that VAR people have multiple camera and their software accounts for that.
@@JunaidHasan23As I understand this concept of clear daylight or at least in my mind - my understanding of it
It means or it should mean that there is at least a visible (ON CAMERA) diffrence between the last part of an attacker & defender
so in my mind that can be as tight as you want it to be
1mm or 1cm
Just as along you could put the tiniest of lines between them that either of them supposedly touches
It would also just be a way of officially giving the attacker the benefit of the doubt
& every time any of his body part is in line with any of a defenders
We should start calling that "being level" with him
The amount of offside decisions that are resulting because of 1cm or 4 cm of your shoulders being offside
To me its simply ludicrous because for example
How often or how many goals do you see being scored with them shoulders
Almost none - Zero - during the whole season
So why should we be disallowing so many goals
The recent Zaha & Pukki offsides calls when their feet are seemingly completely level for example
when this is a body part that quite simply is almost never is used to score a goal
No one is also taking into the account the time these decisions make or the fact that the VAR lines are being drawn manually by a person. Some of these lines have already been proven to not be straight in all cases and have sometimes been wonky. the VAR doesn't even have a side on view
No one wants to wait 3 minutes for a decision if it turns out it was just someones big toe or armpit that was offside
I'd guess much of the time that's being taken at the moment is used (wasted) trying to line up the image of the defender and attacker with the moment the ball is played. A moment which in many cases is surely near impossible to eactly see.
A greater margin of error must be allowed, maybe ABOUT 10cm. I stress the word "about" because if a line of strictly 10cm is declared then time will be lost again trying to determine if the error was 10.0001cm or 9.9999cm again.
And another side point, I don't think players' flailing arms really need to be taken into consideration with offsides.
For me when you're off you're off
Yes by definition, but the whole point of the video was whether the offside rule should be changed
@@jacob8949 because people cant accept that there is an offside rule
it shouldn't be changed, if you're of you're off simple as, everyone wanted VAR because they thought linesman were inept and not getting it right and now look
@@howells192 only idiots with no knowledge of football like you wanted VAR.
@@iStrong113 Football is no justice idiot 🤦. You want justice? There is more problems with Var than without Var since its on🤣🤣🤣. Are you watching the games ?🤦.
There IS offside in ice hockey
The radius or the diameter (whichever appropriate) of a standard football "ball" can be made the tolerance for offside!
The average length of human foot is another option!
Or Run video for 0.2 seconds after the ball is played
If attacking player goes from :
Onside to Offside-》 Onside
Onside to Onside -》Onside obviously
Offside to Onside -》 Onside
Offside to Offside -》 Offside
@@3rd_world633 Makes sense!
Makes sense
Yep.. should be scientific!
@@3rd_world633 Yep.. should be scientific
Sadly no matter what the rule is people will still complain
Why are people complaining about the right decisions? I’m so confused
Because it's not 100% the right decision. Establishing exactly when the ball comes off the players foot is more of the problem. With a pre determined line an offsides call will be more accurate.
Gehn Saavedro but Pedro Neto goal was offside so it was given offside people should just accept it’s not like because we are seeing low scoring games or anything like that we are getting right decisions
Gehn Saavedro and in any other decade the ref may have given offside as well
Stevei worried about Liverpool's offside trap 😂😂😂😂😂😂
Exactly, itll ruin certain types of defending.
Very heated
Im with Stevie 100% on this, but something needs to change. I think we should just give var 60 sec to make their mind up if they cant its no offside or it is offside. That cant take 4 min every time
offside is offside, what's the point of the offside rule if it's not being measured correctly
The way it is now it's just ridiculous. Why not zoom in microscopically.
I rarely agree with Steve, but I’m with him on this. Whatever tolerance or “thicker line” is given, people are still going to argue down to the mm. If tech states it’s offside, let us accept that and move on.
“Natural justice” is a joke and was even worse. Reasonable doubt always went to the more popular/bigger teams. Just look at how many offside or non offside calls were rightfully overturned.
Accuracy is a science Stevie, you should try reading up about it, it's maddening at certain levels.
You just have to know when to say "Hey, that's near enough for our requirements.".
Who was last player to score with an armpit?
Can't believe this conversation has deteriorated into discussing the "THICKNESS" of a line.The mere fact that they are talking about line thickness is an indication of the silliness of the rule. The rule is silly and the conversation is silly.Darke' suggestion is the only adult solution proposed. One has to ask what is considered to be a advantage in positioning between the offensive and defensive player, because that's what the offside rule is designed to control. Advantage of offensive over defensive. Can it be reasonably argued that an shoulder or a heel is truly an advantage for an offensive player over the defender at the time the ball is played. It would be a difficult sale. However it is reasonable to believe an advantage would be discernible if there is "daylight" or at the very least, the majority of the offensive players body is in front of the defender. Standing next to someone and being a shoulder or heel in front does not seem to be an advantage. However standing directly in front of that person IS an distinct advantage. I would urge IFAB to go the route of the suggestion of Mr Darke and Others. Daylight
The benefit of the doubt should go to the defender because the attacker is always more likely to get the ball when running in behind.
But the rule for decades is that when unsure, the benefit of the doubt goes to the attacker.
@@yt.personal.identification
Yes i disagree with it. The attackers get a headstart when trying to run in behind. Its unfair for defenders
@@onlyallahisworthyofworship5599 The rule doesn't say defenders have to face in the opposite direction to attackers.
There is no benefit if they are both in line.
@@yt.personal.identification
There is when the defenders want to catch them offside. Players who make runs from deeper positions are at an advantage since they will be closer to top d
Speed
@@onlyallahisworthyofworship5599 Yes, but that is a choice and not a requirement.
If a defender tries to catch someone offside, and mess it up and are facing the wrong way then they need to fix their defending, not the rules.
I dont think they should use a line. It should be like 5 cm thick wall (like for goal technology), because players can be offside with legs, knees, shoulders ets., and therefore it shouldn't be a line but a 3m tall wall and if you see a body through it, it is offside . Done
It should be like the out of bounds rule (think of this World Cup’s goal by Japan, the base or the ball was beyond the line before crossed, but the side edge of the ball was still on the line, keeping it IN bounds) offsides should give the striker a stride of leeway… any overlap between attacker and defender when the ball is played is still on side… this would incentivize attackers to make runs and increase the score count. Too many games tie or end up being decided with PK’s.
The old slippery slope mania from Nicol....a BS argument.
JD Stan how
It's called exaggeration...Nicol is saying that a minimal change in the thickness of the line will cause defenders to play yards deeper...total bullshit. You're welcome.
I reckon the whole body should be off side, because the point of offside is gaining an advantage, a striker being a toe nail ahead of the defender is not a unfair advantage, not really an advantage at all.
This is competitive sport. Those cms mean more to a player like Aguero who can use it to score game winning goals. There needs to be a change, in how VAR is shown to the public. Decisions are correct. They can only get better as science does and till then a fraction offside is a goal to a player who can use it to his advantage.
Where is the HEATED part?? ESPN with the clickbait title.
The reason its level, is as Steve says, you as a player use your naked eye to judge the level, if you have to calculate any extra buffer, you simply can't, in game, So as defender who cannot make that judgement you will have to drop back , and the attacker pushes up, so you drop back, and on and on , because level is the only eye judgment you can confidently make in a live game
If the entire circumference of the ball must be over the ball in order for it to be a goal then same should apply to an offside rule. A players entire body must be offside
Change the law that says the entire body has to be behind the defender end of problem
Stevie, the people of Liverpool miss you mate.
Get rid of the not interfering with play rule.
The advantage should always go to the attacker. HOW DO YOU KNOW WHEN THE BALL WAS PLAYED? THE EXACT MOMENT. Stevie Nicol is about as thick as they get. He answered none of the real questions. You can't pretend to narrow things down to an exact science if you don't include all the variables. Daylight simplifies it. Clear and Obvious. If it's too tight to tell with the naked eye the advantage should go to the attacker.
"advantage should go to attacker"... Who says so? It's only when it's in ur favor u'd think so I'm certain . U'd definitely get the same uproar when it goes against ur team. So let me get this str8, u make the line thicker giving the attacker a 3 cm advantage, what happens when he's 31mm ahead? Doesn't it still not come down to that 1mm?
The daylight offside is the only thing that makes sense
People should not be judged offside by millimetres or their big toe
Or by the back of their heel with back to goal
They should install & implement the daylight rule & give the adventage to the attacker
Let him enjoy the benefit of doubt
& call every time its super close but not daylight as the new "being level"
Which currently clearly is a term that does not exist
@@kra.7671 Its the old ideology of playing football the attacker should or even shall always enjoy the benefit of doubt
Goals are what win games & we surely want more goals I would think
@@GretarorGujohnsen-rt4kh the old ideology? Ha! Is that the reason they changed the rule in the first place, to keep up with old traditions? Again, we all want goals unless it's against the team we root for so the problem will exist as long as the decision goes against the team we back. Ur subjective statement about " clear daylight" will surely create more drama. As in goals( it's either the ball is over the line or not) so should it stay with offsides, u're either ahead of the play or not, even if by a mm.
@@GretarorGujohnsen-rt4kh If you want more goals why on earth would you want this change to the offside law? The only consequence of this law would be deeper defences, and more defensive players in that defence, making it both harder to score goals against them, and harder for them to score goals when they get the ball because all their players are so deep in their own third.
If you want more goals, you should want nothing to do with this proposal. If anything, you should want the law changed back to including players who are clearly interfering with play (like, say, being in the middle of the pitch) as actually being adjudged as being 'interfering with play'. That is, giving more benefit to the defender, so that they are able to take more risks.
He really just complained about open attacking end-to-end football. Those are the best matches, always, no matter which side you support or as a neutral. Coming from a defender.
So as a defender you wouldn't mind the attacker having cms or inches advantage over your offside line? You must be a sweeper defender 🤣
@@daverobertson4821 Absolutely not. Stop blowing things out of proportion, if it's not visible to the naked eye it definitely isn't an advantage. So what if I have to move literally an inch backwards or, which makes more sense because Nicol is an idiot, move an inch forward because when you're defending by an inch you're clerly not covering the run you're playing an offside trap. This is one of the lowest scoring games in the world, it needs goals. Nobody pays good money to go watch their team play out a 0-0.
Steve 100% right people won’t stop complaining therefore we stick the offside rule
Making the defenders line "thicker" is not going to change anything. What if the attackers line is right alongside the defenders line, how are you sure there isn't a mm of overlap? I generally don't agree with Nicol but here I do. Every rule change in football in recent years has benefitted the attackers and not the defenders.
Defenders have had to change their behavior, it's about time attackers change theirs. If they want to be certain of being onside then be onside, they can look right across the line.
I watch football for goals and beautiful plays, not garbage pl defensive teams. It should always reward offense.
@@satsuma1754 on the whole I agree but as Nicol said you'll see more teams get even more defensive, sit deeper and deeper and pack the midfield against forwards with pace. Think of how many managers in the PL play with a defensive mindset right now, if this is implemented they will get even more defensive and will have no encouragement to be more attack oriented.
@@jimd3532 you have a point
Agree with Stevie completely. We should be perfecting the current technology in order to get decisions quicker and more accurately, rather than changing the laws all together. Clear Daylight is a silly idea, because if you change the laws to allow a buffer of 2 inches, some players would still be offside by 2.1 inches, then you back to where you started.
Do it like MLS! Just have the ref go to the monitor and make the call. It’s not that hard.
I believe most fans prefer to see goals rather than stopping the game for mm of boots as Offsides. Defenders need to come up with new ways of defending.
steve nicol making a fool of himself on national television, as always
Glifosfato how
How? This is the only team where I think he had a strong point
So what's the problem with deeper defensive lines? Playing high up the pitch is meaningless if you only have possession and cant score
The problem is that it encourages the exact opposite thing that people who want to change the offside rule claim they want. Teams playing with a higher line encourages a faster, free flowing game, and unsurprisingly playing with a deeper line encourages the opposite.
Think of it like a Chinese finger trap: if you want to encourage a more attacking game, then allow defenders to take more risks. If you want to encourage a more defensive game, then just make it harder and harder to defend. Not conceding goals is a really, really important part of the game. Making it harder to avoid conceding just means teams will have to try even harder to defend.
Stevie's right. If you can't be sure that offside is offside then defenders can't rely on the offside trap and they'll sit deeper. They should just go on the players' feet so you don't get the ridiculous lines through armpits and whatnot.
The hockey rule would make sense and its not that hard to understand. Its offsides passed a certain point makes it easier for the referees to see because its a smaller area to watch and it opens up the field for play.
For offsides, relying on the "naked-eye" when using VAR will spark more biased accusations against VAR refs. It becomes even more subjective. Aren't we trying to eliminate subjectivty as much as possible when it comes to offsides? This ref might say he can see it was offside while another ref might say he can't see the difference. If u really want to change it, allowing a fixed measurement for margin of error is the best solution for me. Otherwise, stick with the technology. Either u trust the technology or u don't. Me personally, I trust the technology to make the correct decision a lot more than the linesmen's on-the-fly decisions when it comes to offside so there u go.
so when exactly did the ball get released? plus you do know the lines drawn on the pitch are drawn manually right? meaning that its never going to be correct. THIS JUST SOUNDS A LOT MORE SUBJECTIVE DOESNT IT? plus this whole issue only started when they changed the rules to any part of the body scorable. it should have been left, judged by the foot of both the defender and the attacker. because if you are going to start cancelling goals because of armpits then those linesmen are irrelevant because they are never going to see that, and it also means that they are trying to say that the attacker and defender can never be levelled, and that was the whole idea of VAR, to allow us to see a replay and give a better verdict but not to be drawing lines on the fucking pitch.
@@donald4364 Read my other comment in this video regarding the point of contact of the pass. I'm not gonna rewrite it. Whatever it is, with VAR, it's as accurate as we can get even if it isn't 100%, More accurate than refs judging with only their naked-eye. I don't think anyone can deny that
Steve Nicol can’t comprehend basic ideas- nothing changes
People want to see more goals, they don't care about defending. This has become an embarrassment for the Premier League. Many of these goals disallowed would have been allowed before VAR. The players were level and the attackers used to get the benefit of the doubt. Grealish's goal was ridiculous. It was knocked off because of the heel of a player who was not involved in the play. Var will be fixed because it is bad for business.
Stevie talking total nonsense here. Over 25 goals have been ruled out in the pl this season on marginal offsides. Goals make the game better and thereby giving a slight advantage to the attacker makes sense in the these circumstances. The thicker line seems to be the best suggestion so far. Another commonly suggested one is, that only a part of the attackers body needs to be onside for it be a valid goal.
And how many goals and penalties have VAR awarded that refs didn’t call? Useless argument 🤦🏾♂️
Why dont they GPS all the players ?
To steal a line from the best football analysis show Poet & Vuj; if the lines overlap, the attacker should get the benefit of the doubt. And to add to that, the lines should be as thick as the error in the measurement.
Bilbo Baggins likes footy?
Coming from an Arsenal player saying you shouldn't be relying on offside when their team was the greatest proponents of it
Speakin of thick, how about that Stevie Nicol.
"Offside is offside, no matter how marginal" makes zero sense if you can't accurately measure the last point of contact with the ball.
Jacob Tudball
THIS! 👌🏿
So let the human on the side of the pitch measure to the best of his ability exactly when "the last point of contact with the ball" whilst using his other spare eye to check the man running in behind the defence. See how completely blind to the problem you actually are when the technology is going against you? Just make up a problem and a solution that doesn't realistically work. If you make the line thicker and the person is offside by 1mm then the difference of the two overlapping lines is only 1mm regardless of the size of the line...How dumb can you people be?
@@ColeDaniels Sorry, are the PL hiring chamaeleons as linesmen now? I hope you're joking because that's just mental .
We don't know if giving a margin for error by making the line thicker works as it hasn't been tried yet, and if the likes of Jürgen Klopp think it's a good idea then it should at least be considered.
As much as I can't stand VAR, scrapping it now would be more trouble than it's worth and we'd be back to square one.
If VAR stays then linesman are pointless. Why isn't every call by the linesman being checked then? It seems that only when it results in a goal that VAR gets used. So many great/crucial goals have been spoiled by VAR. The decision should be in favour of the attacker. If not, there will be a lack of goals in football and it'll make the game less exciting. VAR should go in my opinion
If a team had a goal disallowed for offside reason solution is to score a goal not offside then no issue to talk about specially if the team wins.
There’s no need to change anything none of this happens if other leagues and where getting right decisions
Gather one or more groups of people (not less than 10 per group), both football fans AND non-football fans.
Gather up a hundred or so photos showing potential off-side positioning and have the people state whether off-side or not within 5 seconds. If no answer is given within the time-frame, then it's not off-side.
Compare the results and based on that, determine what the thickness of the VAR line should be in order to match the group data.
Then test that against another hundred photos to see if the group(s) now match what the VAR would have determined.
Just go through this process rather than having endless discussions based on personal beliefs.
Of course Nicol defends VAR. It only helped his team win the EPL.
LiVARpool!
Why cant they just gave 360 pitch cameras with a program to identify offside , so offcials watching is not needed , its called the instabt its offside.
FA and Pundits are so inclined to make Liverpool win the league that neutrals are now thinking that Football as a game is busted.
Aerial view of the offside would be nice too, and a force field effect when they show the replay kinda like in the game pubg so you can tell if the last defender kept the player on or offside.
You mean a plane.
these telescopic lenses that are showing offsides are not fair, because the players don't have a means to know if they are offside or not, it should be clear and obvious based on the naked eye, using natural player capabilities. When lenses and zoomed in magnified camera lenses are used, it's like adding robots to the game. The human aspect of it is lost.
Classic Steve Nicol - thick as a plank! He didn’t even understand what the thicker line would do - and was just arguing for the sake of it!
I didn't know Steve Nichol played for Liverpool until I saw this.
why is the view always slanted?? why can't we see the straight line.. Var is weird
All a load of BS, clear daylight etc it's meant to be used to overturn clear mistakes. If you need draw a line to determine an offside then the pitch decision should be retained. If an offside is obvious to VAR without a line then the ref should view the monitor
Ian Darke is 💯% correct...the VAR ref should see it with his own eyes and if he can’t make a clear call within 5secs or less then it’s no offside, simple as
22ple Pte. Ltd. that’s not fair at all
This is the first time stevie had a point and argued it well lol
Steve Nicols about as knowledgable and confident the result would be deeper defending as he was about Sheffield United being relegated
Many people thought that. Don't play smart. What Wilder has done so far is dignifying to admire.
They were favourites to get relegated
@@LoftusBlake They were. But where are they now? In 8th.
If you cant see in 60 sec DONE it should not be offside.
Starting the year off with a bandaged forehead seems about right for Stewart Robson...
Stevie is right... offside is offside. but the playing of the ball needs to be included and it needs to be a faster process. I can't believe people are moaning about this.... we don't moan about goal line tech and that comes down to millimeters
Nobody (defenders) would not notice a difference
Stevie loves saying it’s objective but with the current technology it just can’t be measured objectively
wslgva I agree but it will be difficult, I can’t see them doing that anytime soon
@@zalemdreams And how is a defender or an attacker supposed to have any idea if they're onside/playing onside? How will an accuracy down to the millimetre help the players on the pitch?
@@zalemdreams You are so dumb 🤣....Nobody was relegated because of Bad decision 🤣. Stop talking about football if you are the kind of kid, who is crying for every mistakes 🤦
A thick line is not the solution, is just moving the problem to a different spot! If the make the line, let's say 10cm, what will happen when a player is 10cm an 3 mm out? The discussion will be "when was the ball touched for the last time?" Because nobody know when exactly to start maturing the outside distance!
FIFA needs to find a way of maturing when was the ball touched for the last time, so then they can mature the distance!
VAR should just be for handballs and penalties. I agree if you're off you're off but I also hate these 1-0 2-1 scorelines we need the 4-5 scorelines back at least for a bit
Mate I'm from the Netherlands and we haven't gotten this problem. Var works fine for us. And broad daylight is an even more vague term which would make the game worse.
Stevie Nicol actually made some valid points for once
Offside is offside. Teams should stop complaining and train on scoring onside goals. Steve is completely right. The worst of all is the Souness law, that will be scandalous, I'm surprised a former great like Souness is more concerned about his reputation than about the beautiful football game
Ian Darke absolute legend.
Why does everyone think this "technology" is so accurate? It's just some ponce placing 2 lines wherever HE thinks the players were when the ball is released. There needs to be a margin of human error there just does
Steve is getting senile. Pls get him off
For me it goes to VAR, if it is not clear and obvious, then the refs decision stands. Offside was bought in to stop goal hanging, not a player 50 yards from goal with his toe offside.
Ian darke is by the far the nicest man in the world lol
How many times people have been an armpit offside or an inch offside, and the same fans complaining against VAR were the ones pushing for it coz of such stupid refereeing.
Stevie Nicol just doesn't get it does he?
I disagree with Stevie, people are not perfect, and can't be held to these precise measurements.
Funny how the ball can be 98%over the goal line but not a goal and everyone agrees but if a player is offside it's a "people arent perfect" argument instead of a "work harder at staying onside" issue.