Poll: VAR or No VAR?

[BaZ87]

There won't be any discernible difference i said, Liverpool aren't going to drop 10 yards because of this rule change, they might drop off a few yards, but it won't make any real difference to how the game is played, the average punter won't be able to tell that a team is defending a couple yards deeper than previously. An average pitch is 115 yards in length, a couple of yards isn't going to do anything to how the game is played basically. People here are overstating what impact its going to have..

How can you say there won't be a discernible difference when we've seen one this season as a result of a marginal difference in how offsides are called? Everybody noticed at the start of the season that Liverpool were defending noticeably higher simply because they trusted offsides to be called correctly. That's with 0 change to the actual law. Any of the proposed changes to the offside law will have a far greater effect on how teams defend than the introduction of VAR and if Liverpool are willing to push up a lot more now, you can be 100% certain that we'll drop a lot deeper if any of these changes are made.

I don't accept that.

The average depth or width of a human being is a few tens of centimetres.

You won't suddenly be able to be on-side standing on the goal-line when the defenders are up the pitch.

The depth of a player isn't relevant. If a player is leaning forwards, about to or already sprinting, they'll effectively have a headstart on a defender of anything up to a meter. With forwards already having an advantage over defender's in these foot races (as defenders typically are reacting to a forwards run) it will be 10x harder for defenders to defend balls in behind. The consequence of that is teams will defend much deeper to prevent teams running in behind at all.

 

[mmj_uk]

If you told the athletics people to just use a TV camera situated at angle to the finishing line and to draw lines they would laugh at you, the only way it can be totally accurate is to be DIRECTLY in line with the last man and be of a high enough frame-rate for the captured moment not to be a blur. Anything else is a digitally manipulated interpretation so I don't buy into the "offside is a matter of fact" argument, it's only a matter of fact if you can be 100% accurate which it will never be using the current method.

Even if you go with feet there will be situations where the majority of a strikers body is further away from goal than the defender, offside needs a common sense approach I think while ever you anchor it to a particular part of the body there will be head scratching moments.

 

[BaZ87]

If you told the athletics people to just use a TV camera situated at angle to the finishing line and to draw lines they would laugh at you, the only way it can be totally accurate is to be DIRECTLY in line with the last man and be of a high enough frame-rate for the captured moment not to be a blur. Anything else is a digitally manipulated interpretation so I don't buy into the "offside is a matter of fact" argument, it's only a matter of fact if you can be 100% accurate which it will never be using the current method.

The current method isn't what you think it is though! The hawkeye technology caliberates the cameras to factor in the angle of the replay so that the line going across the pitch is effectively the same as if it was directly in line.

The frame rate is another matter but it's still better than the non var alternative from an accuracy pov anyway.

 

[Trusty]

How can you say there won't be a discernible difference when we've seen one this season as a result of a marginal difference in how offsides are called? Everybody noticed at the start of the season that Liverpool were defending noticeably higher simply because they trusted offsides to be called correctly. That's with 0 change to the actual law. Any of the proposed changes to the offside law will have a far greater effect on how teams defend than the introduction of VAR and if Liverpool are willing to push up a lot more now, you can be 100% certain that we'll drop a lot deeper if any of these changes are made.


The depth of a player isn't relevant. If a player is leaning forwards, about to or already sprinting, they'll effectively have a headstart on a defender of anything up to a meter. With forwards already having an advantage over defender's in these foot races (as defenders typically are reacting to a forwards run) it will be 10x harder for defenders to defend balls in behind. The consequence of that is teams will defend much deeper to prevent teams running in behind at all.

Liverpool haven't started defending massively higher because of any rule changes at all. Klopp has always played with a high line, it's a function of pressing hard in the opponents defensive 3rd, otherwise you leave too much space in the middle.

Liverpool will continue to play a high line, defend high, press hard in the opponents defensive 3rd and move the ball to the front 3 quickly when you have the overload.

None of that will change because Liverpool's defensive line gives a few yards here or there.

 

[BaZ87]

Liverpool haven't started defending massively higher because of any rule changes at all.

Massively is subjective but we 100% have been defending higher since the introduction of VAR. It was noticeable within the first few weeks of the season to the point that Carragher and Neville done something on it on Monday Night Football and if you subscribe to the athletic, there's an article on their about it.

 

[Trusty]

Massively is subjective but we 100% have been defending higher since the introduction of VAR. It was noticeable within the first few weeks of the season to the point that Carragher and Neville done something on it on Monday Night Football and if you subscribe to the athletic, there's an article on their about it.

Would you have noticed if Carragher and Neville had not talked about it?

It's their job to analyse small differences in tactical play, but it isn't obvious to the average fan.

 

[BaZ87]

Would you have noticed if Carragher and Neville had not talked about it?

It's their job to analyse small differences in tactical play, but it isn't obvious to the average fan.

Yes, I did notice. I also noticed how Klopp responded to interviewers questioning him about teams getting in behind our defence and how he'd reply by pointing out they were offside only that the flag wasn't raised because of VAR (and if a goal had been scored they would have been ruled out of course).

It might not be obvious to you but to anybody that watched Liverpool every week, it was clear. And again, this change is a result of just more accurate decisions being made, not a change of the rules. If the rules were changed the difference in defensive lines would be even greater.

I'm not sure if you watched the Liverpool Wolves game the other night. There was an incident in the first half where a Wolves attacker made up about a 2 meter headstart on Joe Gomez (one of, if not the quickest defender in the League) simply because Gomez was having to react to his run, rather than setting off at the same time. Gomez only just beat him to the ball. If the attacker would have been able to start 50cm-1m further forwards and still be onside when the ball is played, he beats Gomez to that ball. If this starts happening to the quickest defenders around, what do you think will happen to almost every other defender? Getting in behind back lines will become too easy and defending will change to counter that and when you end up with almost every side in the League playing with their back line barely beyond their 18 yard box, football will be much worse off.

 

[FoxEye]

Also I don't see the problem with the attacker having the advantage.

@BaZ87 I believe I'm correct in thinking that Liverpool have attacking players as well as defenders? So Liverpool's attacking players will be similarly advantaged over the other team's defenders (as per your claim), probably more so with the attacking talent Liverpool have.

I'd rather have more goals and attacking play, than some tactical masterclass where every goal is chalked off for 2mm off-sides.

That might appeal to fans who like watching 0-0 draws where the defenders rule the show, but I hate to say it, most of us probably find the goals and the forwards more exciting.

Sorry if you happen to be VVD or someone

 

[BaZ87]

I'd rather have more goals and attacking play, than some tactical masterclass where every goal is chalked off for 2mm off-sides.

This is the short-sighted view that I'm talking about. There will be no more goals or attacking play. As soon as teams start conceding more goals as a result of attackers finding it easier to run in behind without being offside, they'll just defend deeper to the point at which it's no longer possible (or at least incredibly difficult) for an attacker to run in behind. The rule will mean there will be less attacking play and less goals.

Liverpool already face teams that defend deeper than they do against most other opponents so it's not going to be massively different for us but when you see a load of 0-0's between mid-table and lower sides because both sets of defences are 20 yards from their own goal then you'll wish the law was never changed.

 

[Trusty]

Yes, I did notice. I also noticed how Klopp responded to interviewers questioning him about teams getting in behind our defence and how he'd reply by pointing out they were offside only that the flag wasn't raised because of VAR (and if a goal had been scored they would have been ruled out of course).

It might not be obvious to you but to anybody that watched Liverpool every week, it was clear. And again, this change is a result of just more accurate decisions being made, not a change of the rules. If the rules were changed the difference in defensive lines would be even greater.

I'm not sure if you watched the Liverpool Wolves game the other night. There was an incident in the first half where a Wolves attacker made up about a 2 meter headstart on Joe Gomez (one of, if not the quickest defender in the League) simply because Gomez was having to react to his run, rather than setting off at the same time. Gomez only just beat him to the ball. If the attacker would have been able to start 50cm-1m further forwards and still be onside when the ball is played, he beats Gomez to that ball. If this starts happening to the quickest defenders around, what do you think will happen to almost every other defender? Getting in behind back lines will become too easy and defending will change to counter that and when you end up with almost every side in the League playing with their back line barely beyond their 18 yard box, football will be much worse off.

I watch every Liverpool game, i noticed a slightly higher line, but that's because i analyse Liverpool weekly for my coaching.

The point still stands, and you won't be able to convince me otherwise, there will no major difference with how a team plays because the defensive line has to adjust a few yards or not. The PL will still have the same flow, philosophy and tactics as it does now between teams.
It's absolutely not true that every side's back line will be just off the penalty area, i've no idea why you think it'll create such a massive change. We'll agree to disagree and we'll review if that's true in the future.

 

[FoxEye]

I don't think you can ever engineer a situation where the attacker doesn't have some kind of advantage. The attacker can have a massive advantage even if he starts well onside. Simply because he's running toward the goal and your defender is either facing away or sideways on.

I'm not sure why you've become so obsessed with the idea that attackers must not have an advantage or everybody will be camped on the goal line.

I play a lot of 7-a-s. We don't even have offside rules. Funnily enough nobody ever camps the goal line. I don't know why, maybe it's just a really bad tactic that takes one of your players completely out of the game, for an occasional chance of a 1-on-1? But anyhow we don't have that problem for some reason.

I find it hard to believe that a minor change to what constitutes offside will lead to attackers camped on the goal line.

I'm sorry but it's really hard to see that as anything other than scare-mongering.

 

[Trusty]

I play a lot of 7-a-s. We don't even have offside rules. Funnily enough nobody ever camps the goal line. I don't know why, maybe it's just a really bad tactic that takes one of your players completely out of the game, for an occasional chance of a 1-on-1? But anyhow we don't have that problem for some reason.

Basically yea, the ball stays on the floor most of the time in 7's so its even harder to get the ball to the forward player, but it's basically the same with 11's. It's just a pain in the butt for the flow of the game, rather it being some demon tactic.

 

[BaZ87]

I watch every Liverpool game, i noticed a slightly higher line, but that's because i analyse Liverpool weekly for my coaching.

The point still stands, and you won't be able to convince me otherwise, there will no major difference with how a team plays because the defensive line has to adjust a few yards or not.
It's absolutely not true that every side's back line will be just off the penalty area, i've no idea why you think it'll create such a massive change. We'll agree to disagree and we'll review if that's true in the future.

So you did notice a change, glad you've admtted that finally and what was the only reason for the change? VAR. So teams are defending differently simply because the current law is being more accurately measured. Now if you're admitting that, to then say you don't think a massive change in the law will result in a big change in the way teams will defend is simply mind boggling.

We'll not have to review this in the future because I don't believe this law will ever be approved. As Dale Johnson said in another one of his tweets, previous changes to offside have been trialled and weren't approved because of the massive negative implications they caused.

I don't think you can ever engineer a situation where the attacker doesn't have some kind of advantage. The attacker can have a massive advantage even if he starts well onside. Simply because he's running toward the goal and your defender is either facing away or sideways on.....

It's almost as if you haven't read my posts where I've stated that attackers already have an advantage. As I've also already pointed out, it's already incredibly difficult for defenders to defend high up the pitch because of this advantage. If you give attackers and even greater advantage it will only make it even harder and that will mean they will stop doing it. It's just common sense, not scare mongerng.

edit: It's actually baffling that you two can't see the consequences of this possible change. Ignore the offside law completely for a minute. Why do teams defend deeper vs Liverpool and City than they do vs most other side? Because Liverpool and City terrorise teams in behind. The easier you make it for a side to run in behind, the deeper defenders will drop. It's incredibly easy to understand.

 

[Trusty]

So you did notice a change, glad you've admtted that finally and what was the only reason for the change? VAR. So teams are defending differently simply because the current law is being more accurately measured. Now if you're admitting that, to then say you don't think a massive change in the law will result in a big change in the way teams will defend is simply mind boggling.

We'll not have to review this in the future because I don't believe this law will ever be approved. As Dale Johnson said in another one of his tweets, previous changes to offside have been trialled and weren't approved because of the massive negative implications they caused.
.

I've already said the defensive line will adjust, but you seem to think that a defensive line shuffling a couple of yards here or there will create some massive change to the overall tactics and philosophy of how a team plays, i'm not sure why that is. Because it doesn't. Liverpools tactics and philosophy hasn't changed because of VAR this season, the defensive line might be slightly different, sure, as i said previously.

We've discussed this in our UEFA badges courses recently, i hope it does pass, it's always been unfair that an attacking players body being at a different angle can count against them, it's football, it should go off the feet, whether you want the daylight between the feet or inline can be open for discussion, thats fine. But in no way is the flow of the game a part of that discussion really.

 

[FoxEye]

Well we've already had one massive, detrimental change.

Having VAR spend several minutes with the rulers out, chalking off 5 or 6 great goals every weekend where the defender was level, give or take 2mm.

That's a massive - and utterly crap - change.

And thankfully - thankfully - it seems the powers that be are in agreement.

Sorry if that's not going to suit Liverpool. There are other teams and fans to consider.

 

[BaZ87]

Sorry if that's not going to suit Liverpool. There are other teams and fans to consider.

I'm not sure if you're just on the wind up or you lack a basic understanding of football. It will benefit Liverpool more than anybody else. We already have to play against sides that sit as deep as possible to prevent us running in behind. There will be no more room for these sides to drop any deeper without being even more suffocated than they already are. It's the quality of football in matches not involving the likes of Liverpool and City that will suffer.

the defensive line might be slightly different, sure, as i said previously.

So zero change in the actual law, just the law being more accurately implemented, has resulted in a difference yet a major change to the law won't make a noticeable difference to the way teams defend?

 

[Trusty]

I'm not sure if you're just on the wind up or you lack a basic understanding of football. It will benefit Liverpool more than anybody else. We already have to play against sides that sit as deep as possible to prevent us running in behind. There will be no more room for these sides to drop any deeper without being even more suffocated than they already are. It's the quality of football in matches not involving the likes of Liverpool and City that will suffer.

So zero change in the actual law, just the law being more accurately implemented, has resulted in a difference yet a major change to the law won't make a noticeable difference to the way teams defend?

Like i said in a previous post, i think your are overstating how big of a change it is. Fans won't really notice the difference in tactical battles between the different sides, that'll stay the same essentially.

 

[BaZ87]

Like i said in a previous post, i think your are overstating how big of a change it is. Fans won't really notice the difference in tactical battles between the different sides, that'll stay the same essentially.

Even Stevie Wonder can see the difference between how a side defends vs Liverpool or City compared to how they defend vs Newcastle (for example) because of the increased likelihood of them running in behind. There is a clear correlation between the more likely an attacker is to run in behind and the deeper a defence plays. It's probably not worth going round in circles anymore though.

 

[FoxEye]

Even Stevie Wonder can see the difference between how a side defends vs Liverpool or City compared to how they defend vs Newcastle (for example) because of the increased likelihood of them running in behind. There is a clear correlation between the more likely an attacker is to run in behind and the deeper a defence plays. It's probably not worth going round in circles anymore though.

That's not new.

"Parking the bus" was a thing long before VAR.

 

[BaZ87]

That's not new.

"Parking the bus" was a thing long before VAR.

It's only a thing when the top sides play the bottom sides. It would become an even bigger thing if this rule change were to happen and would involve sides not capable of breaking down deep defences and as a result lead to more boring matches.