VAR Discussion

[pineapple stu]

I see the video referee causing a bit of predictable controversy in the Confed Cup. Russia had a penalty appeal, Mexico broke away on a counter, but the ref broke off the attack to go and look at the replay of the penalty incident. He decided no penalty, and so it was a drop ball, which was uncontested as Russia just gave possession back to Mexico - as far away as possible, of course.

Game was stopped for a good 45 seconds in the meantime.

All a bit ridiculous, and would be even more farcical if in any way regular.

[pineapple stu]

And another video call in the second half - Mexico score, and a good 20 seconds pass before the ref decides that actually, he wants a look at the telly. The goal is correctly ruled out for offside. But still, this already looks like going the way of rugby - constant stoppages taking the moment out of the game.

[Hitman]

A Swedish innovation which might make David v Goliath clashes like Sheriff Y.C. v Shelbourne a bit more interesting.


The rules are these: in each tie the lower-ranking team receives the same number of bonus penalties as the number of league divisions they are below their opponents. Four tiers separated Karlslunds and Hidingsta, so our opponents received four spot‑kicks. The lower-ranking team, who also enjoy home advantage in every Eksjohuscup fixture, can choose to take these penalties before the match kicks off, immediately before the second half gets under way or, in perhaps the most bizarre twist of all, a combination of both.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2017/jun/24/swedish-cup-teams-bonus-penalties-orebro-county

[pineapple stu]

This bit -


the cup exists partly to offer smaller clubs the opportunity to claim valuable prize money, which is awarded after each round.

- is probably an issue for the FAI...

I actually run/play in a chess tournament each year which has a similar idea; you get more time (and your opponent gets less) the more your opponent out-rates you (as in, is better than you). The best players still typically win, but it does allow for much lower-ranked players going quite far and as a format, it works quite well.

I wouldn't use it in a serious competition though. The League Cup might be suited to it.

[NeverFeltBetter]

And another video call in the second half - Mexico score, and a good 20 seconds pass before the ref decides that actually, he wants a look at the telly. The goal is correctly ruled out for offside. But still, this already looks like going the way of rugby - constant stoppages taking the moment out of the game.

Was watching today, I was under the impression the ref had asked for a look straight away and it took around 20 seconds for the VAR to give an answer, and then he just ordered a free that Russia took quickly. TV audience at a big disadvantage in understanding whats going on as they moved to that "picture and picture" format showing Russia playing on and then the VAR in their booth at same time. Obviously the VAR needs serious fine-tuning, as does making sure the people watching, stadium and TV, know whats going on. It isn't clear if it's the ref's call to go to the VAR, or of the VAR is in his ear whenever they feel the need. I'd hope that in a years time they get some issues ironed out.

Stu, I think it's fair to say you're fairly adamantly anti-VAR, but do you think that it would be better for the game if Mexico's offside goal had stood? What kind of VAR system would you be willing to tolerate?

[pineapple stu]

That could well explain the delay alright.

I've seen how video officials work in rugby - and I have to note up front I have no time for rugby. But refs can barely make a call these days without checking, the game is extended hugely in length, and there's been some big mistakes made, which kind of negates the point. (And I think there was a penalty incident in the Confed Cup as well which was highly controversial even after VAR?)

Yes, I think it would have been better for the game if the offside goal had stood. It didn't change anything in the event, and Mexico were denied a good counter attack because of it. As in my previous post, I think the VAR decision - however it worked, and what you've said there makes sense - destroyed the moment of the goal. I think if the goal had been allowed, it would have been ruined as a moment for the Mexico fans. A bit like that ghost whistle when Sledge scored in Euro 2012 - I know everyone in the bar I was in thought there was a free out, and then the celebration when we realised the goal stood simply wasn't the same.

I've said before that I don't mind goalline technology because it's instant and doesn't interfere with play. I've also said before that I think a fifth official watching the match on TV, who can give the ref a tip-off on something he's missed, could well work - again, no stopping play. How it works in this instance - checking if a goal was offside or not - I'm not sure. But in the event of a penalty, say, the ref can allow play to go on for a few seconds while the fifth official quickly checks a replay. Not perfect - but I don't see perfection as something to necessarily strive for. The game has coped just fine for 130 years without perfection.

[DannyInvincible]

I've said before that I don't mind goalline technology because it's instant and doesn't interfere with play. I've also said before that I think a fifth official watching the match on TV, who can give the ref a tip-off on something he's missed, could well work - again, no stopping play. How it works in this instance - checking if a goal was offside or not - I'm not sure. But in the event of a penalty, say, the ref can allow play to go on for a few seconds while the fifth official quickly checks a replay. Not perfect - but I don't see perfection as something to necessarily strive for. The game has coped just fine for 130 years without perfection.

But it's not as if football nowadays is anything like the game it was when it was first codified in 1863. Just speaking generally, do you object to all rule-changes since then or where do you draw the proverbial line in the sand after which you feel no further changes can be justified? If you do draw a line at a specific point in history, why that point in particular? If you don't draw a line at a particular point in time, but feel that some of the rule-changes since 1863 have been justified, how or on what basis do you gauge which changes have been justified and which haven't been justified considering you simultaneously don't appear to believe in fine-tuning towards an improved or more "perfect" game?

Perfection is both subjective and often practically unachievable, but can't improvement of the game be at least something for which to strive? That's what rule-makers are hoping to achieve in this instance. Sometimes, a change may work, whilst, on other occasions, the idea may turn out to have been misguided, but I don't think that is any reason to rule out all potential changes. A change that has undesirable consequences can be abandoned and overturned if necessary.

The rules have always evolved (http://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/who-we-are/the-laws/index.html) in line with changes in perceived needs and desires of the footballing fraternity over the past century and a half, so any notion of objecting to change on the basis of maintaining the "purity" or whatever of the game is surely a bit of a myth.

[pineapple stu]

Did you read my post? I think I've been fairly clear as to where I draw the line Danny. Stopping play during a counter-attack to check an offside, and then to re-start with a hop-ball, is not on. Ruining the moment of a goal to go off and check is not on.

The decision I referred to broke caused both of those. So on that basis, the video referral wasn't worth it. Even if it led to the "correct" decision (perfection) - a decision which didn't change the outcome of the match.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Did you read my post? I think I've been fairly clear as to where I draw the line Danny. Stopping play during a counter-attack to check an offside, and then to re-start with a hop-ball, is not on. Ruining the moment of a goal to go off and check is not on.

The decision I referred to broke caused both of those. So on that basis, the video referral wasn't worth it. Even if it led to the "correct" decision (perfection) - a decision which didn't change the outcome of the match.

But isn't the point that we didn't know that at the time? At two up the game is dead and Mexico are cruising into the semi-finals, but with one goal between them the task in front of Russia was much more achievable. I mean, it was a fairly meaningless friendly tournament this time, but the VAR will likely have a decisive impact on a World Cup game next summer, provided it is retained, insofar as it will prevent an illegal goal that goes on to have a consequential impact on the rest of the game. I think that kind of fairness is preferable, even if it comes at the cost of impacting on spectators to a degree.

[pineapple stu]

But isn't the point that we didn't know that at the time? At two up the game is dead and Mexico are cruising into the semi-finals, but with one goal between them the task in front of Russia was much more achievable.
In this instance, yes, but I think it's overlooked that it often isn't as decisive as people make out.

Anyway, you've either overlooked the point I've made, or decided (which is your right) that the above issue trumps it. I don't think it does though. Imagine Ronnie Whelan's goal v the USSR. Hits the back of the net, wild celebrations. Then the ref - in a manner which at best, I think, wasn't very well signed - decides he wants to see if it should be a free out for high feet. There's a pause of 30-45 seconds while the ref looks at it, and then decides to look at the replay. The moment is killed. That's my concern with the VAR as used.

I'm not intrinsically against technology - I quite like the goalline technology, and I've suggested a fifth official watching the match on TV and able to flag things to the ref in real time - but anything which inserts a pause like this into the game is bad for it. It doesn't matter if it clears up what will often ultimately be an irrelevant call, like in this case.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Yes, it is my opinion that certainty over a decision outweighs the emotional connection between fans and the "moment" of a goal, but I completely understand holding the opposite view.

[pineapple stu]

That'd be all well and good if there was certainty, but the experience in rugby shows there isn't. Calls are still wrong there, and I believe - though I'll admit I haven't been paying too close attention - that some wrong calls have already been made in football with video replays. The additional issue then is that rugby referees seem to use video replays as a crutch, and it hinders them making calls because they know they can refer everything back to the video.

That's exactly the kind of stuff football should be trying to avoid. But it's the path the current format is heading towards. Which is why I think it's bad.

[NeverFeltBetter]

There was a contentious penalty decision in the match last night, where a Chile player was, looking at TV replays, very clearly fouled and it wasn't called. Footage here: https://my.mixtape.moe/enhsnz.mp4

It's my understanding that the VAR has the power to inform the ref that an incorrect decision has been made (I mean, without the ref requesting it) and that either didn't happen last night or the ref choose to overrule without a further review.

As I said before, there should certainly be both a simplification of that system - I think the only time the VAR should be involved is if the ref specifically requests it, since the ref on the pitch is still the leading official of the game - and this should be outlined as clearly as possible to both spectators and the TV audience. An awful lot of people I've spoken to about this still don't rightly know how the VAR system currently works, and I think that FIFA has been really bad at communicating this, and I suspect a lot of players are in the same boat. I'd be interested in seeing the results of a player survey after the Confederations Cup on the topic.

While Rugby refs do rely on video referrals, I think they sort of have to far more than football refs will have to (or should be allowed to, to put it another way). More payers to keep an eye on, an intricate part of the game being a mash of opposing players, scores often obscured by said mash of opposing players, etc.

[pineapple stu]

I didn't see the match last night, but here's an article from the Independent (http://www.msn.com/en-ie/sport/football/i-thought-video-referees-would-be-a-good-idea-i-couldnt-have-been-more-wrong/ar-BBDFH01?li=AAdf4rm&ocid=mailsignout) criticising video replays. The main issue is that when it doesn't work, it can really wreck the game's flow. People can overlook this when a correct overrule is seen though.


Early in the second half of the Confederations Cup final, Gonzalo Jara swung an elbow into Timo Werner’s face. The referee Milorad Mazic consulted the VAR and after a four-minute delay he still got the decision wrong.

Here's the incident -

AD4PyVgV95c

The ref has a perfect view, but still goes to the video replay. After holding the game up for 4 minutes watching the incident back, he only books Jara.

The ref needs to trust himself to make a call in real time. I have no problem with something similar to citing coming into effect, and banning players for stuff like this after the event. Yes, it's not perfect either, but at least it should put in their mind that there's no chance of getting away with it - even if the ref misses an incident, they can and will still get banned.

As it is, we already have a complete and unmitigated failure of the system right there, in my opinion.

[DeLorean]

2-0... not such a dangerous lead after all...

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11096/10951284/sky-sports-bust-common-myths-is-2-0-the-worst-lead


The results confirm the obvious in fairness but some interesting stats all the same.

[osarusan]

2-0... not such a dangerous lead after all...

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11096/10951284/sky-sports-bust-common-myths-is-2-0-the-worst-lead


The results confirm the obvious in fairness but some interesting stats all the same.

A bit bizarre in a way...if a team goes 2-0 up and wins 2-1, does it count as a win for a 1-goal lead too?

[DeLorean]

Good question! I think this line might suggest they're only comparing 2-0 leads versus 1-0 leads, but hard to know for sure.


So, a 1-0 winning margin is far more vulnerable than a 2-0 lead.

[pineapple stu]

No, they're comparing 1-goal and 2-goal leads - and then rightly extrapolating that a 1-0 lead is more vulnerable than a 2-0 one.

They could equally have said a 2-1 lead was more vulnerable than 3-1.

But hard to know if, say, that 4-4 draw is included in all four stats.

[osarusan]

http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/40843317

Feyenoord had a goal ruled out and a penalty given against them after the referee, who had initially not given the penalty and instead allowed play to continue (during which time Feyenoord went down the pitch and scored), used VAR to give the penalty.

[pineapple stu]

That's exactly the kind of stuff that'll ruin games I think. You go 2-0 up, and then that's cancelled and there's a penalty against you? It'll completely ruin the drama of a game.

Still, not many ex-LoI players can say they've won the Dutch Super Cup.

[osarusan]

As long as the outcome is correct, I think it's acceptable (and unavoidable).

Certain moments in a game potentially being rendered invalid when an earlier incident is revisited will eventually just become part of the game.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Seeing as how Viteese would be the wronged party in this instance - being denied a penalty that should have been awarded - I feel we should be more concerned about doing justice by them than preserving a sense of drama for a team taking advantage of an officiating error (not that Feyenoord's players did anything wrong in playing the whistle, but that doesn't mean they should be rewarded either).

[DeLorean]

Interesting study here from the BBC - http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/40699431

[NeverFeltBetter]

Is this the unofficial VAR thread?

Tested competitively in England midweek for the FA Cup, League Cup, and again next week for FA Cup replays. A fairly easy intro for the system with nothing really controversial - a few penalty shouts last night, a claimed handball waved away on Monday, etc. The obvious concerns are being repeated every time though:

1. The amount of time it takes to get a decision checked, and knock-on effects this causes on the rest of the game - No easy fix, aside from officials getting quicker with the system the more its used.
2. Communication on what's happening to fans in attendance and fans watching at home - Rugby style mikes seem obvious solution, but officials will presumably resist this.
3. On-pitch ref having final say on everything - Some have noted that if the VAR can be ignored by the refs it will cause disrepute. Perhaps VAR should only be involved if asked specifically by the ref?
4. Players/managers calling for VAR referrals - Make it a bookable offence or introduce a challenge system.

They need to make some decisions on this stuff to make VAR better quick, or else the system will be eviscerated at the World Cup.

[osarusan]

After the (on-field) ref has called for a review, I don't see any reason why the referee/person doing the review can't relay the fact to the crowd through a message/symbol on a scoreboard.

[NeverFeltBetter]

More problems tonight, over a penalty call that either:
A: the ref refused to send to VAR/refuses to listen to VAR
B: that the VAR didn't spot.

More convinced that team instigated challenges are the way to go here. Puts the onus on managers, or captains maybe, and away from the refs. I hope that gets trialled somewhere before the WC.

[osarusan]

More problems tonight, over a penalty call that either:
A: the ref refused to send to VAR/refuses to listen to VAR
B: that the VAR didn't spot.

More convinced that team instigated challenges are the way to go here. Puts the onus on managers, or captains maybe, and away from the refs. I hope that gets trialled somewhere before the WC.

I wouldn't be a fan of team challenges, unless there are strict criteria. I'd imagine that at virtually any corner, the attacking team could ask for a review for holding in the box which would be a penalty.

The problem with VAR in football is that it is being used for stuff that is inherently subjective, like whether a tackle was a foul or not, rather than whether a ball was in or out, caught or not, grounded or not etc. It's not unusual for pundits on tv to still disagree on whether something was a penalty or not, even after watching all the replays, so I don't think the VAR would be any better. When it comes to penalties it's there, like it is in cricket for LBW, to see if there has been a clear and obvious error, rather than simply asking what the right decision should be.

Incidentally, I was delighted to see Morata get the yellow card for abusing the ref, I'd love to see that happen more often.

[CraftyToePoke]

More problems tonight, over a penalty call that either:
A: the ref refused to send to VAR/refuses to listen to VAR
B: that the VAR didn't spot.

More convinced that team instigated challenges are the way to go here. Puts the onus on managers, or captains maybe, and away from the refs. I hope that gets trialled somewhere before the WC.

Its weaknesses were on show tonight alright, and after such a good showing the previous night in the Leicester match for the offside goal.


Maybe a team manager an have a pre determined number of interventions per game or something, like time outs are used. I would agree, it needs to be taken away from the players en masse because you can already see where its going with them beginning to brandish imaginary tellies like they do red cards and that will become standard every time they feel somethings not gone their way.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Oh, I agree completely about limits. Two a game per side maybe.

[pineapple stu]

Another dodgy VAR call today - Manchester United with a seemingly perfectly good goal ruled out against Huddersfield. Apparently this was what the VAR produced to check the offside -

https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/var1.jpg?w=620&h=323&crop=1

The linesman had gotten the call correct initially - but surely it undermines the entire point of video replays the decisions being made are so clearly wrong?

It'd also be a concern if decisions like this - a simple offside call - are being subject to VAR as it could lead to a huge percentage of goals being double-checked, which would completely ruin the emotion of the goal in the first place.

You can watch the goal in real time here (https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/5602633/manchester-united-juan-mata-goal-disallowed/)

[NeverFeltBetter]

Is it wrong? Dodgy image for sure. Don't know what that's about. But it looks to me like this knee and head are ahead of the last defender.

https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/alexis1.jpg?w=620&h=462&crop=1

Barely, but barely or not doesn't matter. It's my understanding that if a part of your body you can score with is in that position, the flag should be raised.

But those lines... had the system been calibrated correctly? Strange issue to be inherent in the system, if so.

[pineapple stu]

Is that the exact moment when the ball was played though?

It looks it - but was it half a frame further back? TV replays can't - by definition - deal in half a frame (which I presume is 1/48th of a second, unless they're using high-speed cameras) 1/48th of a second doesn't sound like much, but it's easily enough for a player to move an inch or two - which I think we can agree is all that's in the call. (For example, two players running in opposite directions at Olympic 100m speed, which clearly isn't what happened here, would move by 16 inches relative to each other in 1/48th of a second)

There used to be a bit in the offside rule about the benefit of the doubt going with the attacking player; I can't find that in the current guidelines. I think it would apply here though, if it is still there.

I'm also curious as to who called for the replay. The referee should surely trust his linesman as he had by far the better view. Did the linesman then ask for his call to be double-checked? And are we going to get to a position where goals are going to be double-checked as a matter of routine, like how tries are routinely checked in rugby? That would be an absolute disaster.

[osarusan]

An absolute disaster? Why?

I understand the argument that the pause while checking a goal deflates the atmosphere, but if it can be done quickly, I think it is a price worth paying.

I would be more concerned about reviews for holding or grabbing in the area, which could really result in a penalty or free out from every single corner.

I actually think VAR will work best with offside, because it is, for the most part, a purely visual decision, rather than a decision where a player has felt the slightest of contact and thrown themselves to the ground, which is a subjective decision.

[pineapple stu]

An absolute disaster? Why?

I understand the argument that the pause while checking a goal deflates the atmosphere, but if it can be done quickly, I think it is a price worth paying.
I think the indications so far are that it can't be done quickly enough.

I remember when St Ledger scored against Croatia in the Euros, there was a whistle in the crowd just before St Ledger got his head to the ball. I - and a few others in the bar around me - thought the ref had given a free out. When we realised - just a few seconds later - that the goal had stood, our reaction was way more muted than if the whistle hadn't gone.

Maybe I'm biased by that experience, but that completely killed the goal for me. And that's the way other goals will go as well. I don't think it's a price worth paying.

[NeverFeltBetter]

Its a fair point regards when the ball was played and frames per second. But for the weird issue with the image displayed id be inclined to trust the machine over the human eye of the linesman though.

In line with my issue with the lack of communication to fans, I think the FA should make a statement on this incident to at least explain why the image was so off.

For what is worth, Mata in the post match interview indicated his approval for video refs,and id love to see more players canvassed on risk attitude.

[BonnieShels]

I think the indications so far are that it can't be done quickly enough.

I remember when St Ledger scored against Croatia in the Euros, there was a whistle in the crowd just before St Ledger got his head to the ball. I - and a few others in the bar around me - thought the ref had given a free out. When we realised - just a few seconds later - that the goal had stood, our reaction was way more muted than if the whistle hadn't gone.

Maybe I'm biased by that experience, but that completely killed the goal for me. And that's the way other goals will go as well. I don't think it's a price worth paying.

I had the exact same experience in Poznan. Such a shame given it was the only bloody goal we scored.

[NeverFeltBetter]

In line with my issue with the lack of communication to fans, I think the FA should make a statement on this incident to at least explain why the image was so off.



The company made a statement: https://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2018/0218/941645-technical-issue-to-blame-for-wonky-var-lines/

They claim that the VAR and TV audience were shown two different images, and appear to stand over the call.

[DeLorean]

They'll get VAR to a good place eventually I'm sure, it's absolutely necessary in my opinion and there'll always be far more goals that don't need to be reviewed (such as Lukaku's two in the same game). It looks like they got the Mata one correct, by hook or by crook!

The biggest issue for me is the stupidity of the offside rule and differentiating between various body parts! Remember the 'daylight' rule? That was far more clear cut and also benefited the attacker. This body parts nonsense must be a nightmare for linesmen.

[osarusan]

The biggest issue for me is the stupidity of the offside rule and differentiating between various body parts! Remember the 'daylight' rule? That was far more clear cut and also benefited the attacker. This body parts nonsense must be a nightmare for linesmen.
I think that however it is defined, there will be instances that make it look worse than others. I actually think it is ok right now. I think a body part is more objectively identifiable than 'clear daylight'.

I know what you mean about the body parts thing making it a nightmare for linesmen, but I'd say even more so for the video ref. The main concern will be that drawing VAR lines will mean we have to consider it more forensically. If an inch of a player's kneecap is beyond the line, is that offside? 3 inches? 6 inches? Pardon the pun, but where do we draw the line? Prior to VAR, it was all a bit less defined -even if the slow-motion replays showed how tight it was, the decision was already made.

I think though that the Lovren/Kane non-offside of a few matches ago showed how that aspect of the law needs to be revised.

I'm against the idea of appeals (unless very very narrow limits are given on what can be appealed) because, as I said eariler, I think there could be penalties or free kicks against the attacking side appealed for and given at every corner.

[pineapple stu]

In fairness, if the definition of offside is "clear daylight", that still means it's possible have as close a call as the Mata one. If there's clear daylight between the players except for the attacker's trailing foot, is that offside?

A close offside is a close offside however it's defined.

[osarusan]

In fairness, if the definition of offside is "clear daylight", that still means it's possible have as close a call as the Mata one. If there's clear daylight between the players except for the attacker's trailing foot, is that offside?

A close offside is a close offside however it's defined.

Define clear daylight. I don't think it is easy to do, and the example you give shows that.

For VAR to work with (the usual) offsides, I think they will just draw a line across the pitch along the part of the defender's body that is closest to his own goal, and if any part of the attacker's body (apart from arms) is beyond that line, even if it just an inch of his boot or knee or nose, it will be offside.

I think it would be the easiest and most consistent way of doing it, but it certainly doesn't give the benefit of the doubt to attackers. There would be no more benefit of the doubt.

[OwlsFan]

Define clear daylight. I don't think it is easy to do, and the example you give shows that.

For VAR to work with (the usual) offsides, I think they will just draw a line across the pitch along the part of the defender's body that is closest to his own goal, and if any part of the attacker's body (apart from arms) is beyond that line, even if it just an inch of his boot or knee or nose, it will be offside.

I think it would be the easiest and most consistent way of doing it, but it certainly doesn't give the benefit of the doubt to attackers. There would be no more benefit of the doubt.

Wouldn't it be simpler to say if any part of the attacker was beyond any part of the last defender? Make life easier ?

[osarusan]

Wouldn't it be simpler to say if any part of the attacker was beyond any part of the last defender? Make life easier ?

That is what I said, or at least, was trying to say. There is an exception made in the rulebook for the hands and arms though, as you can't score goals with them.

[NeverFeltBetter]

In regards this kind of thing, there's also potential for offside flags to become something similar to thrown flags in American Football, in that play will continue until the ball goes dead/the attack stops. Otherwise, you could have a situation where the flag goes up, the defenders stop, the attacker keeps going, scores, and VAR then declares he was onside the whole time and the goal stands, to the annoyance of the stopped defenders. But then how long should play be allowed to develop? Would every offside have to be checked?

Which is why I again think that a challenge system is the way to go.

[DeLorean]

Wouldn't it be simpler to say if any part of the attacker was beyond any part of the last defender? Make life easier ?

Or the opposite, if any part of the last defender is in line with any part of the attacker then it's onside. That gives the benefit to the attacker and makes things just as straight forward for the linesman. It's basically the daylight rule worded another way. It's cat the way it is I think.

[osarusan]

Or the opposite, if any part of the last defender is in line with any part of the attacker then it's onside. That gives the benefit to the attacker and makes things just as straight forward for the linesman. It's basically the daylight rule worded another way. It's cat the way it is I think.

So, as an example, this would be onside? Because of the position of the left foot of the defender nearest the bottom of the screen:

http://2g.pantip.com/cafe/supachalasai/topic/S13043825/S13043825-16.jpg

I don't think that is any easier for the linesman at all, If anything, I'd say it's more difficult in real time, as the overlap between defender and attacker might be much smaller (just heels, say). And with VAR, any rule should be easy to apply with time and technology.

EDIT: Here is another one - too big to embed, so just click here (http://topbet.eu/news/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/offside2.jpg). Ignore the 3 Argentineans who are offside by any measure, and just look at the one whose heel is in line with the side/shoulder of the German defender at the other end of the area. Offside or not?

Anyway, whatever it is, as long as it's consistent it should eventually work, and defenders and attackers will adapt.

[DeLorean]

Yeah, they're both onside under the criteria of my last post. The second one would be particularly difficult to call I accept, but there are going to be tough calls either way and these will always go to the VAR anyway, I assume. Why not actually give the benefit to the attacker, instead of paying lip service to the notion? Linesmen might get into the habit of keeping the flag down unless they're very sure it's offside, I wouldn't have a problem with that.

[osarusan]

Hard for me to consider the second example as onside, but, whatever the rule is, as long as it's consistently applied, VAR should work.

With your rules, I think we'd see a lot of incorrect calls initially at least, but then it shouldn't be based on which calls linesmen are most likely to get right live. And as neverfeltbetter said earlier, we might see things develop whereby there is a tendency to play on unless absolutely certain, and then go back to check.

[DeLorean]

Hard for me to consider the second example as onside

Fair enough, I find it hard to consider Mata offside because of a kneecap, but that's just the way it is.

[pineapple stu]

Dutch side sue FA over wrong VAR decision - https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/roda-jc-demand-eight-minutes-match-be-replayed-after-var-wrongly-interferes

[Quote]a controversy has developed in Holland after a recent cup game between Roda JC and Willem II. With the score 2-2, VAR stepped in to disallow a Roda goal (which would have put them ahead 3-2) on account of a handball.

Incorrectly, they insist, because the VAR's authority only relates to the moment during which the goal was actually scored, not the passage of play which preceded it - and, to be fair, they have a point [\quote]
Tis no secret I don't like the VAR, but I can't really blame it for this. Clubs need a root up the hole at times; this is akin to suing because a referee got a decision wrong. Though it does raise the question as to how far back does the VAR go?