Everton vs RS

Made 4 Gwladys wrote:

Yankthattoffee wrote:

Made 4 Gwladys wrote:just saw this on Facebook      

Do you think that's been shopped? If that was what VAR was seeing, how can it be disallowed? That's worse than I thought.
Hold my calls Mildred, get me Stockley Park on the blower.

hmm .could be faked I guess... but I'm not so sure Yank ... watching on the match vids it looks so damn close

I've seen a couple like this, but the angle of the line is all wrong I think. Looking at it when you can also see the six yard box line, he is just offside.

As the goal was scored, I didn't really celebrate because I thought VAR would get involved and instinctively felt it would be offside. I hate that - the whole crowd around me is going nuts and I'm holding back just in case, it takes the joy away. I mean, if it had been given I would have been delighted, but you want to celebrate without fear of some cunt two hundred miles away fiddling with his computer for five minutes before breaking your heart or giving you the green light to snog high five the lovely young mum sitting next to you.

As good a 0-0 as I can remember.
More-Pay a cooler head needed. The whole crowd probably put the shys up him. Pressure and expectation huh?
Some thoughts....
Has anyone ever seen bigger calves than Tark?
Why do players seem to dislike the number 12?
Is this the best back 4 we've had in several years?
Why didn't another CL team come in for Gana Gueye. Just so cool under pressure as soon as he came on. From protecting than ball on the edge of the area, to playing for a throw in by shinning one of their players. Baines was great at that.

Can we get a better writer of chants in Gladdy?
I've tried several in the pub over the years. They work there, but Gladdy just let me down. drunken
Onana's should be the easiest with "Na Na Hey Hey" Simple shyt boys.
Those in a union should get a big banner and start chanting "More pay!"
After scoring 4 against Blackpool, I had the pub singing "Louie Louie Oh Baby Louis Saha!" It's simple shyt again
Big Luke's was "What's that coming over the hill, Is it a monster? It's Lukaku?
Upper Bullens in no place for a bard.

My talents are wasted.

Made 4 Gwladys wrote:

Yankthattoffee wrote:Dick Van Dyke. What a piece of utter shithousery.
That was never an effort to get the ball. Aimed straight at the ankle.
Allan got done for less. Stranding over the lad and giving him comforting pats don't cut it with me.

Yeah I don't see how that is not a red.

Late. Check.
High. Check.
Studs up. Check.

To the tune of Ob la di:

Iwobi Onana Everton wo-oh Gana Garner Onana!

Armchair wrote:

Made 4 Gwladys wrote:

Yankthattoffee wrote:Dick Van Dyke. What a piece of utter shithousery.
That was never an effort to get the ball. Aimed straight at the ankle.
Allan got done for less. Stranding over the lad and giving him comforting pats don't cut it with me.

Yeah I don't see how that is not a red.

Late. Check.
High. Check.
Studs up. Check.

Some former ref on BT Sport later explained why, by the letter of the law, it wasn't a red - although a still picture looks really bad, he didn't actually put any force into the challenge at that point, he kind of just left his leg hanging out. Then the foot went down towards Onana's foot, and that's where the force came in, as his body weight transferred over to that foot. So because the force hit the foot, not the shin, yellow card.

Don't shoot the messenger. My gut feeling was red when I saw it and I haven't changed my mind. To me it's dangerous play because he's out of control and regardless of his force, he can't control Onana's momentum. Had Onana been moving forward quicker, that could have been horrible.

It is incredible really - I watch some pretty complex sports, cricket, rugby, American football, and all are officiated so much better than football, the most simple team game in the world. I suspect this was the weekend that VAR was put on notice. It'll be gone in three years, max.

Armchair wrote:

Made 4 Gwladys wrote:

Yankthattoffee wrote:Dick Van Dyke. What a piece of utter shithousery.
That was never an effort to get the ball. Aimed straight at the ankle.
Allan got done for less. Stranding over the lad and giving him comforting pats don't cut it with me.

Yeah I don't see how that is not a red.

Late. Check.
High. Check.
Studs up. Check.

Because its the media darlings. VVD can do no wrong. Imagine exactly the same tackle had been Pickford again on the loppy cunt. They would have been calling for him to go to prison

With VAR, I'm kind of swinging back to my original position:  if someone's going to fuck it up, I'd rather it was the ref on the pitch, than some cunt with a computer in a studio.  Considering how stupid, or at least inconsistent, some of the VAR decisions are at the moment, is it any worse if a ref or linesman gets it wrong and it stands?

The least I'd like to see is more emphasis on the clear and obvious error.  So, for example, with Coady's goal - that was close enough for a goal to be a reasonable decision by the ref and linesman, so the goal should stand even if, technically, the ref might have called it wrong.  In the case of a blatant hand ball on the wrong side of the ref, VAR could intercede.

it would allow the VAR cunt a more subjective view, but then football is never an exact science, it's a sport.  And Arsenal's disallowed goal would have stood, because the ref had a perfect view of the incident and deemed it fair.  And if, instead of seeing a slow-mo over and over again on a screen, he'd seen the whole thing again in real time, he'd probably have stuck with his decision, because - as Jimmy Floyd said at half time - it's not a foul every time one player touches another player without playing the ball. Eriksson went down too easily, and the goal should have stood.

hairy cataract wrote:With VAR, I'm kind of swinging back to my original position:  if someone's going to fuck it up, I'd rather it was the ref on the pitch, than some cunt with a computer in a studio.  Considering how stupid, or at least inconsistent, some of the VAR decisions are at the moment, is it any worse if a ref or linesman gets it wrong and it stands?

The least I'd like to see is more emphasis on the clear and obvious error.  So, for example, with Coady's goal - that was close enough for a goal to be a reasonable decision by the ref and linesman, so the goal should stand even if, technically, the ref might have called it wrong.  In the case of a blatant hand ball on the wrong side of the ref, VAR could intercede.

it would allow the VAR cunt a more subjective view, but then football is never an exact science, it's a sport.  And Arsenal's disallowed goal would have stood, because the ref had a perfect view of the incident and deemed it fair.  And if, instead of seeing a slow-mo over and over again on a screen, he'd seen the whole thing again in real time, he'd probably have stuck with his decision, because - as Jimmy Floyd said at half time - it's not a foul every time one player touches another player without playing the ball. Eriksson went down too easily, and the goal should have stood.

We also need to consider something that I've been banging on about for years - that so many officials appear to have never actually played the game, ever, in their lives. Anthony Taylor, in particular is someone I've mocked in the past as having probably had a referee's kit when he was 8 years old, when everyone else at that age is wearing their club colours. I can picture him jokingly giving his mum a yellow card for puttiing broccoli on his dinner plate. I'm not sure how far-fetched that actually is.

VAR, in theory, should work perfectly well. It seems to work well, objectively, for offside. Even though I'd change the offside law to make it more attacker friendly, the fact is that VAR works fine for offside as the law currently stands. Coady was offside when he scored, I have no issue with that.

Where VAR is shit, is where it turns a subjective decision on the field into a subjective decision in a computer room. This is where knowledge of the game is important, and where it's hilariously proving my Anthony Taylor theory correct. Because anyone who has ever played a single game of football in their lives will know that Jarred Bowen did not foul Mendy yesterday, that Mendy play-acted because he knew he'd fucked up, and between them the VAR and match officials combined to give a decision that brings the game into disrepute. And that's because, if you slow the replay down and go by the absolute essence of the law, yes there's contact. You have to have played the game, at least once, to know that the contact was entirely incidental.

And what's the result of all this? It just means play-acting and diving become more prevalent, because players know they might get away with it even if it's reviewed on video. Jokes, as my lads would say. Bin it off, fuck it off, until they can be trusted to use it properly.

Rotterdam 1985 wrote:

hairy cataract wrote:With VAR, I'm kind of swinging back to my original position:  if someone's going to fuck it up, I'd rather it was the ref on the pitch, than some cunt with a computer in a studio.  Considering how stupid, or at least inconsistent, some of the VAR decisions are at the moment, is it any worse if a ref or linesman gets it wrong and it stands?

The least I'd like to see is more emphasis on the clear and obvious error.  So, for example, with Coady's goal - that was close enough for a goal to be a reasonable decision by the ref and linesman, so the goal should stand even if, technically, the ref might have called it wrong.  In the case of a blatant hand ball on the wrong side of the ref, VAR could intercede.

it would allow the VAR cunt a more subjective view, but then football is never an exact science, it's a sport.  And Arsenal's disallowed goal would have stood, because the ref had a perfect view of the incident and deemed it fair.  And if, instead of seeing a slow-mo over and over again on a screen, he'd seen the whole thing again in real time, he'd probably have stuck with his decision, because - as Jimmy Floyd said at half time - it's not a foul every time one player touches another player without playing the ball. Eriksson went down too easily, and the goal should have stood.

We also need to consider something that I've been banging on about for years - that so many officials appear to have never actually played the game, ever, in their lives. Anthony Taylor, in particular is someone I've mocked in the past as having probably had a referee's kit when he was 8 years old, when everyone else at that age is wearing their club colours. I can picture him jokingly giving his mum a yellow card for puttiing broccoli on his dinner plate. I'm not sure how far-fetched that actually is.

VAR, in theory, should work perfectly well. It seems to work well, objectively, for offside. Even though I'd change the offside law to make it more attacker friendly, the fact is that VAR works fine for offside as the law currently stands. Coady was offside when he scored, I have no issue with that.

Where VAR is shit, is where it turns a subjective decision on the field into a subjective decision in a computer room. This is where knowledge of the game is important, and where it's hilariously proving my Anthony Taylor theory correct. Because anyone who has ever played a single game of football in their lives will know that Jarred Bowen did not foul Mendy yesterday, that Mendy play-acted because he knew he'd fucked up, and between them the VAR and match officials combined to give a decision that brings the game into disrepute. And that's because, if you slow the replay down and go by the absolute essence of the law, yes there's contact. You have to have played the game, at least once, to know that the contact was entirely incidental.

And what's the result of all this? It just means play-acting and diving become more prevalent, because players know they might get away with it even if it's reviewed on video. Jokes, as my lads would say. Bin it off, fuck it off, until they can be trusted to use it properly.

I'd agree with you about the offside if it was instant.  But, when they're drawing lines for hours on end, while the fans in the ground have no idea what's happening, and it feels like it's happening in every game for every goal, then the game suffers horribly.  And then VAR goes beyond its remit of correcting "clear and obvious errors".  If it's a choice between endless delays, but the correct decision every time, and letting the game have some kind of a natural flow (including fans being able to celebrate a goal as soon as they can see the linesman hasn't flagged or the ref blown up), then I'd say we should live with the occasional borderline decision on offside being wrong.

Back in the days before VAR, the telly would replay the goal and the commentator would only pick up on a potential offside that wasn't given if it was really obvious.  So, for example, with Coady's goal, it would have looked pretty much in line even on a normal slow-mo replay - you actually had to start rocking it back and forth and drawing lines to be sure.  Fans might have argued about whether it was offside or not after the game, but it wasn't in any way an obvious error to give the goal.

So I'd say VAR should have - say - ten seconds to make a call on offside, and if it can't do it within that time frame then the original decision stands.  When they have the technology to make a call on every decision within that time frame, then VAR will be good enough to use.  Until that time, fuck it off and let the refs and linesmen do their jobs.

hairy cataract wrote:

Rotterdam 1985 wrote:

hairy cataract wrote:With VAR, I'm kind of swinging back to my original position:  if someone's going to fuck it up, I'd rather it was the ref on the pitch, than some cunt with a computer in a studio.  Considering how stupid, or at least inconsistent, some of the VAR decisions are at the moment, is it any worse if a ref or linesman gets it wrong and it stands?

The least I'd like to see is more emphasis on the clear and obvious error.  So, for example, with Coady's goal - that was close enough for a goal to be a reasonable decision by the ref and linesman, so the goal should stand even if, technically, the ref might have called it wrong.  In the case of a blatant hand ball on the wrong side of the ref, VAR could intercede.

it would allow the VAR cunt a more subjective view, but then football is never an exact science, it's a sport.  And Arsenal's disallowed goal would have stood, because the ref had a perfect view of the incident and deemed it fair.  And if, instead of seeing a slow-mo over and over again on a screen, he'd seen the whole thing again in real time, he'd probably have stuck with his decision, because - as Jimmy Floyd said at half time - it's not a foul every time one player touches another player without playing the ball. Eriksson went down too easily, and the goal should have stood.

We also need to consider something that I've been banging on about for years - that so many officials appear to have never actually played the game, ever, in their lives. Anthony Taylor, in particular is someone I've mocked in the past as having probably had a referee's kit when he was 8 years old, when everyone else at that age is wearing their club colours. I can picture him jokingly giving his mum a yellow card for puttiing broccoli on his dinner plate. I'm not sure how far-fetched that actually is.

VAR, in theory, should work perfectly well. It seems to work well, objectively, for offside. Even though I'd change the offside law to make it more attacker friendly, the fact is that VAR works fine for offside as the law currently stands. Coady was offside when he scored, I have no issue with that.

Where VAR is shit, is where it turns a subjective decision on the field into a subjective decision in a computer room. This is where knowledge of the game is important, and where it's hilariously proving my Anthony Taylor theory correct. Because anyone who has ever played a single game of football in their lives will know that Jarred Bowen did not foul Mendy yesterday, that Mendy play-acted because he knew he'd fucked up, and between them the VAR and match officials combined to give a decision that brings the game into disrepute. And that's because, if you slow the replay down and go by the absolute essence of the law, yes there's contact. You have to have played the game, at least once, to know that the contact was entirely incidental.

And what's the result of all this? It just means play-acting and diving become more prevalent, because players know they might get away with it even if it's reviewed on video. Jokes, as my lads would say. Bin it off, fuck it off, until they can be trusted to use it properly.

I'd agree with you about the offside if it was instant.  But, when they're drawing lines for hours on end, while the fans in the ground have no idea what's happening, and it feels like it's happening in every game for every goal, then the game suffers horribly.  And then VAR goes beyond its remit of correcting "clear and obvious errors".  If it's a choice between endless delays, but the correct decision every time, and letting the game have some kind of a natural flow (including fans being able to celebrate a goal as soon as they can see the linesman hasn't flagged or the ref blown up), then I'd say we should live with the occasional borderline decision on offside being wrong.

Back in the days before VAR, the telly would replay the goal and the commentator would only pick up on a potential offside that wasn't given if it was really obvious.  So, for example, with Coady's goal, it would have looked pretty much in line even on a normal slow-mo replay - you actually had to start rocking it back and forth and drawing lines to be sure.  Fans might have argued about whether it was offside or not after the game, but it wasn't in any way an obvious error to give the goal.

So I'd say VAR should have - say - ten seconds to make a call on offside, and if it can't do it within that time frame then the original decision stands.  When they have the technology to make a call on every decision within that time frame, then VAR will be good enough to use.  Until that time, fuck it off and let the refs and linesmen do their jobs.

I pretty much agree. What I'm saying about offside is based on the assumption that we have to keep VAR. Given that an objectively correct decision on offside can be arrived at with VAR, I've got less of an issue with that, although I'd amend the way VAR assesses offside. My beef with VAR is the way the game is being delayed due to terrible subjective decisions being made on review. I'd rather fuck that part of it off tomorrow, and rely on the subjective decision-making of the on-field referee.

What I've advocated for on offside since VAR became a thing is to tweak it to benefit the attacking team more. After all, it's only VAR that is making these hairline decisions. From the Championship down to the local Sunday league, if you're level then you're onside, same as it's been for decades.

So, if VAR is to stick around then I think any part of the body that is level with the defender should mean you're onside. So if your entire body is offside apart from the heel of your foot then it's onside. I would rather see more absolute bangers like McAllister's goal yesterday be allowed to stand. Given that they're now measuring offside, the old concept of "he's level" doesn't apply when VAR is involved, they have to measure something consistent. That would be my change anyway. And then if you're ruled to be 2 inches offside because that's the gap between your heel and the last defender, well, you can't complain, because the rule has been changed to benefit the attacking team anyway.

Incidentally this would be no different to the change they made to the offside rule when I was still playing - it used to be that level meant off. They changed it so that level was onside. A good call, which they justified by saying they wanted to give the attacker more of the benefit of the doubt.

But yeah, I agree with you, the waiting around is annoying. I'm more used to that because I watch the NFL, and this has always been the way of things there - most scoring plays are reviewed. It's not part of football culture though, and I hate it. I'd happily fuck VAR off right now to be honest. Although Henry Winter has commented this morning that the standard of VAR officiating in European games this week is likely to be far better. He's placing the blame squarely on English referees, not VAR itself, and I see his point. Even a good VAR decision doesn't remove that waiting around though, and still destroys one of the things that makes the game great - that immediate joy and celebration at a goal being scored.

Rotterdam 1985 wrote:

hairy cataract wrote:

Rotterdam 1985 wrote:

hairy cataract wrote:With VAR, I'm kind of swinging back to my original position:  if someone's going to fuck it up, I'd rather it was the ref on the pitch, than some cunt with a computer in a studio.  Considering how stupid, or at least inconsistent, some of the VAR decisions are at the moment, is it any worse if a ref or linesman gets it wrong and it stands?

The least I'd like to see is more emphasis on the clear and obvious error.  So, for example, with Coady's goal - that was close enough for a goal to be a reasonable decision by the ref and linesman, so the goal should stand even if, technically, the ref might have called it wrong.  In the case of a blatant hand ball on the wrong side of the ref, VAR could intercede.

it would allow the VAR cunt a more subjective view, but then football is never an exact science, it's a sport.  And Arsenal's disallowed goal would have stood, because the ref had a perfect view of the incident and deemed it fair.  And if, instead of seeing a slow-mo over and over again on a screen, he'd seen the whole thing again in real time, he'd probably have stuck with his decision, because - as Jimmy Floyd said at half time - it's not a foul every time one player touches another player without playing the ball. Eriksson went down too easily, and the goal should have stood.

We also need to consider something that I've been banging on about for years - that so many officials appear to have never actually played the game, ever, in their lives. Anthony Taylor, in particular is someone I've mocked in the past as having probably had a referee's kit when he was 8 years old, when everyone else at that age is wearing their club colours. I can picture him jokingly giving his mum a yellow card for puttiing broccoli on his dinner plate. I'm not sure how far-fetched that actually is.

VAR, in theory, should work perfectly well. It seems to work well, objectively, for offside. Even though I'd change the offside law to make it more attacker friendly, the fact is that VAR works fine for offside as the law currently stands. Coady was offside when he scored, I have no issue with that.

Where VAR is shit, is where it turns a subjective decision on the field into a subjective decision in a computer room. This is where knowledge of the game is important, and where it's hilariously proving my Anthony Taylor theory correct. Because anyone who has ever played a single game of football in their lives will know that Jarred Bowen did not foul Mendy yesterday, that Mendy play-acted because he knew he'd fucked up, and between them the VAR and match officials combined to give a decision that brings the game into disrepute. And that's because, if you slow the replay down and go by the absolute essence of the law, yes there's contact. You have to have played the game, at least once, to know that the contact was entirely incidental.

And what's the result of all this? It just means play-acting and diving become more prevalent, because players know they might get away with it even if it's reviewed on video. Jokes, as my lads would say. Bin it off, fuck it off, until they can be trusted to use it properly.

I'd agree with you about the offside if it was instant.  But, when they're drawing lines for hours on end, while the fans in the ground have no idea what's happening, and it feels like it's happening in every game for every goal, then the game suffers horribly.  And then VAR goes beyond its remit of correcting "clear and obvious errors".  If it's a choice between endless delays, but the correct decision every time, and letting the game have some kind of a natural flow (including fans being able to celebrate a goal as soon as they can see the linesman hasn't flagged or the ref blown up), then I'd say we should live with the occasional borderline decision on offside being wrong.

Back in the days before VAR, the telly would replay the goal and the commentator would only pick up on a potential offside that wasn't given if it was really obvious.  So, for example, with Coady's goal, it would have looked pretty much in line even on a normal slow-mo replay - you actually had to start rocking it back and forth and drawing lines to be sure.  Fans might have argued about whether it was offside or not after the game, but it wasn't in any way an obvious error to give the goal.

So I'd say VAR should have - say - ten seconds to make a call on offside, and if it can't do it within that time frame then the original decision stands.  When they have the technology to make a call on every decision within that time frame, then VAR will be good enough to use.  Until that time, fuck it off and let the refs and linesmen do their jobs.

I pretty much agree. What I'm saying about offside is based on the assumption that we have to keep VAR. Given that an objectively correct decision on offside can be arrived at with VAR, I've got less of an issue with that, although I'd amend the way VAR assesses offside. My beef with VAR is the way the game is being delayed due to terrible subjective decisions being made on review. I'd rather fuck that part of it off tomorrow, and rely on the subjective decision-making of the on-field referee.

What I've advocated for on offside since VAR became a thing is to tweak it to benefit the attacking team more. After all, it's only VAR that is making these hairline decisions. From the Championship down to the local Sunday league, if you're level then you're onside, same as it's been for decades.

So, if VAR is to stick around then I think any part of the body that is level with the defender should mean you're onside. So if your entire body is offside apart from the heel of your foot then it's onside. I would rather see more absolute bangers like McAllister's goal yesterday be allowed to stand. Given that they're now measuring offside, the old concept of "he's level" doesn't apply when VAR is involved, they have to measure something consistent. That would be my change anyway. And then if you're ruled to be 2 inches offside because that's the gap between your heel and the last defender, well, you can't complain, because the rule has been changed to benefit the attacking team anyway.

Incidentally this would be no different to the change they made to the offside rule when I was still playing - it used to be that level meant off. They changed it so that level was onside. A good call, which they justified by saying they wanted to give the attacker more of the benefit of the doubt.

But yeah, I agree with you, the waiting around is annoying. I'm more used to that because I watch the NFL, and this has always been the way of things there - most scoring plays are reviewed. It's not part of football culture though, and I hate it. I'd happily fuck VAR off right now to be honest. Although Henry Winter has commented this morning that the standard of VAR officiating in European games this week is likely to be far better. He's placing the blame squarely on English referees, not VAR itself, and I see his point. Even a good VAR decision doesn't remove that waiting around though, and still destroys one of the things that makes the game great - that immediate joy and celebration at a goal being scored.

I don't watch much NFL, so are all scoring plays reviewed automatically or is it only when a man in a stripey shirt throws down his handkerchief? If the latter, then I wouldn't be averse to our refs being given hankies to throw down if they're not sure about something. At least the onus would be on the fuckers to say "I'm sorry, I was thinking about what to get from the chippy tonight and missed that incident, so can we have a little look please?"

hairy cataract wrote:

Rotterdam 1985 wrote:

hairy cataract wrote:

Rotterdam 1985 wrote:

hairy cataract wrote:With VAR, I'm kind of swinging back to my original position:  if someone's going to fuck it up, I'd rather it was the ref on the pitch, than some cunt with a computer in a studio.  Considering how stupid, or at least inconsistent, some of the VAR decisions are at the moment, is it any worse if a ref or linesman gets it wrong and it stands?

The least I'd like to see is more emphasis on the clear and obvious error.  So, for example, with Coady's goal - that was close enough for a goal to be a reasonable decision by the ref and linesman, so the goal should stand even if, technically, the ref might have called it wrong.  In the case of a blatant hand ball on the wrong side of the ref, VAR could intercede.

it would allow the VAR cunt a more subjective view, but then football is never an exact science, it's a sport.  And Arsenal's disallowed goal would have stood, because the ref had a perfect view of the incident and deemed it fair.  And if, instead of seeing a slow-mo over and over again on a screen, he'd seen the whole thing again in real time, he'd probably have stuck with his decision, because - as Jimmy Floyd said at half time - it's not a foul every time one player touches another player without playing the ball. Eriksson went down too easily, and the goal should have stood.

We also need to consider something that I've been banging on about for years - that so many officials appear to have never actually played the game, ever, in their lives. Anthony Taylor, in particular is someone I've mocked in the past as having probably had a referee's kit when he was 8 years old, when everyone else at that age is wearing their club colours. I can picture him jokingly giving his mum a yellow card for puttiing broccoli on his dinner plate. I'm not sure how far-fetched that actually is.

VAR, in theory, should work perfectly well. It seems to work well, objectively, for offside. Even though I'd change the offside law to make it more attacker friendly, the fact is that VAR works fine for offside as the law currently stands. Coady was offside when he scored, I have no issue with that.

Where VAR is shit, is where it turns a subjective decision on the field into a subjective decision in a computer room. This is where knowledge of the game is important, and where it's hilariously proving my Anthony Taylor theory correct. Because anyone who has ever played a single game of football in their lives will know that Jarred Bowen did not foul Mendy yesterday, that Mendy play-acted because he knew he'd fucked up, and between them the VAR and match officials combined to give a decision that brings the game into disrepute. And that's because, if you slow the replay down and go by the absolute essence of the law, yes there's contact. You have to have played the game, at least once, to know that the contact was entirely incidental.

And what's the result of all this? It just means play-acting and diving become more prevalent, because players know they might get away with it even if it's reviewed on video. Jokes, as my lads would say. Bin it off, fuck it off, until they can be trusted to use it properly.

I'd agree with you about the offside if it was instant.  But, when they're drawing lines for hours on end, while the fans in the ground have no idea what's happening, and it feels like it's happening in every game for every goal, then the game suffers horribly.  And then VAR goes beyond its remit of correcting "clear and obvious errors".  If it's a choice between endless delays, but the correct decision every time, and letting the game have some kind of a natural flow (including fans being able to celebrate a goal as soon as they can see the linesman hasn't flagged or the ref blown up), then I'd say we should live with the occasional borderline decision on offside being wrong.

Back in the days before VAR, the telly would replay the goal and the commentator would only pick up on a potential offside that wasn't given if it was really obvious.  So, for example, with Coady's goal, it would have looked pretty much in line even on a normal slow-mo replay - you actually had to start rocking it back and forth and drawing lines to be sure.  Fans might have argued about whether it was offside or not after the game, but it wasn't in any way an obvious error to give the goal.

So I'd say VAR should have - say - ten seconds to make a call on offside, and if it can't do it within that time frame then the original decision stands.  When they have the technology to make a call on every decision within that time frame, then VAR will be good enough to use.  Until that time, fuck it off and let the refs and linesmen do their jobs.

I pretty much agree. What I'm saying about offside is based on the assumption that we have to keep VAR. Given that an objectively correct decision on offside can be arrived at with VAR, I've got less of an issue with that, although I'd amend the way VAR assesses offside. My beef with VAR is the way the game is being delayed due to terrible subjective decisions being made on review. I'd rather fuck that part of it off tomorrow, and rely on the subjective decision-making of the on-field referee.

What I've advocated for on offside since VAR became a thing is to tweak it to benefit the attacking team more. After all, it's only VAR that is making these hairline decisions. From the Championship down to the local Sunday league, if you're level then you're onside, same as it's been for decades.

So, if VAR is to stick around then I think any part of the body that is level with the defender should mean you're onside. So if your entire body is offside apart from the heel of your foot then it's onside. I would rather see more absolute bangers like McAllister's goal yesterday be allowed to stand. Given that they're now measuring offside, the old concept of "he's level" doesn't apply when VAR is involved, they have to measure something consistent. That would be my change anyway. And then if you're ruled to be 2 inches offside because that's the gap between your heel and the last defender, well, you can't complain, because the rule has been changed to benefit the attacking team anyway.

Incidentally this would be no different to the change they made to the offside rule when I was still playing - it used to be that level meant off. They changed it so that level was onside. A good call, which they justified by saying they wanted to give the attacker more of the benefit of the doubt.

But yeah, I agree with you, the waiting around is annoying. I'm more used to that because I watch the NFL, and this has always been the way of things there - most scoring plays are reviewed. It's not part of football culture though, and I hate it. I'd happily fuck VAR off right now to be honest. Although Henry Winter has commented this morning that the standard of VAR officiating in European games this week is likely to be far better. He's placing the blame squarely on English referees, not VAR itself, and I see his point. Even a good VAR decision doesn't remove that waiting around though, and still destroys one of the things that makes the game great - that immediate joy and celebration at a goal being scored.

I don't watch much NFL, so are all scoring plays reviewed automatically or is it only when a man in a stripey shirt throws down his handkerchief?  If the latter, then I wouldn't be averse to our refs being given hankies to throw down if they're not sure about something.  At least the onus would be on the fuckers to say "I'm sorry, I was thinking about what to get from the chippy tonight and missed that incident, so can we have a little look please?"

It’s a bit weird, Touchdowns (goals) are reviewed as required (clean catch, receiver interference, both feet grounded etc..) - however within the last two minutes of each half (2 minute warning) all touchdowns are reviewed. The coaches have a “flag” protest to ask for a review of the play and if the challenge is lost they will be docked one of their three timeouts (per half). It actually works quite well, for the same reason as in rugby the officials call the ruling on the field and they are then shown the tapes and - no prompting from the New York HQ- refs make the call have they seen anything to overturn the original call (so in effect Hawkeye in cricket - if in doubt its left to Umpire’s call)

Football should insist on every referee at every time going across to the monitor - as it stands asking them to go as they do is tantamount to a walk of shame (with the exception of Oliver) in that everyone knows they are being told to reverse the decision. As I said in my OP - referees ONLY should decide. They look at the monitor - and taking Rotts amendment watch in normal speed from angles - no slow mo. For offside you can freeze the moment the ball is passed/struck but no lines - if the ref is happy with his call fine, if he needs to make a change then its on him and his judgement.

Clubs need to get used to it.