Not sure how I feel about the offside call in the last clip. I don’t see the attacker making an obvious action which clearly impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball. The defender went down super easy with minimal contact. I wonder what VAR would’ve decided if he didn’t fall and kept on his feet there
The fall made the interference obvious. What the attacker did after being offside was not relevant as his position interfered with the defender. Going down 'super easy' is not relevant in the slightest other than that it brought the offside to VAR's attention.
However, the contact does not justify rolling around on the ground like he was shot. Also, it did not restrict him trying to place defense as another defender was also between them and the ball. That is why I have a problem with the call.
What's stopping defenders from locking on to players in an offside position, who aren't involved in the play and are moving normally, and crashing into them like a heat-seeking missile? That's the logical conclusion if that Colorado goal is called back and sets the new standard.
Since when do we have the VAR shouting to stop the game? They are supposed to do their check while the ball is in play and wait until it is out of play and then request a stoppage. This makes the entire process clunky and disrupts the match.
Over 2 minutes to just to decide to recommend a review for the NE penalty without any new angles helping in the end and over 3.5 minutes to finally make a decision. This does not feel like it passes any 'clear and obvious' bar. If it does, then VAR needs to be more efficient in their process.
You’re complaining about them taking the time to get the call right? Lame. Complaining that they are using the tools to make sure the call is correct? Extra lame.
@@DukeTrout I hear you, and there are certainly some injustices which have been overturned by the current process. But, if you have to watch five slo-mo angles to see the infraction, I don't think that qualifies as "more correct".
@@DukeTrout I'm saying they should be much more efficient. There have been some very badly handled VAR processes in recent weeks which could have been half as long if the crew in the booth was better trained and working together The delays are not worth the it for the overall enjoyment of the game. This isn't the NFL.
@@keeperMLT I hear this a lot, but I don't agree with it. Breaking down a play frame by frame instead of looking at the complete natural movement is bad, but slow motion to see if a boom-boom play was a handball or there was contact made is just fine and preferable.
Thanks for these videos. Always very insightful.
Not sure how I feel about the offside call in the last clip. I don’t see the attacker making an obvious action which clearly impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball. The defender went down super easy with minimal contact. I wonder what VAR would’ve decided if he didn’t fall and kept on his feet there
The fall made the interference obvious. What the attacker did after being offside was not relevant as his position interfered with the defender. Going down 'super easy' is not relevant in the slightest other than that it brought the offside to VAR's attention.
However, the contact does not justify rolling around on the ground like he was shot. Also, it did not restrict him trying to place defense as another defender was also between them and the ball. That is why I have a problem with the call.
What's stopping defenders from locking on to players in an offside position, who aren't involved in the play and are moving normally, and crashing into them like a heat-seeking missile? That's the logical conclusion if that Colorado goal is called back and sets the new standard.
@@PeterSoethbut he was still involved in the play when he was offsides. Even if he just tapped the defender it would still be offsides
@@toddm1532 hard for me to think of a downside from having offensive players being more careful to stay onsides.
Since when do we have the VAR shouting to stop the game? They are supposed to do their check while the ball is in play and wait until it is out of play and then request a stoppage. This makes the entire process clunky and disrupts the match.
Over 2 minutes to just to decide to recommend a review for the NE penalty without any new angles helping in the end and over 3.5 minutes to finally make a decision. This does not feel like it passes any 'clear and obvious' bar. If it does, then VAR needs to be more efficient in their process.
I want the VAR review to be done without slow motion. If you can't see it at full speed, it isn't clear and obvious.
You’re complaining about them taking the time to get the call right? Lame. Complaining that they are using the tools to make sure the call is correct? Extra lame.
@@DukeTrout I hear you, and there are certainly some injustices which have been overturned by the current process. But, if you have to watch five slo-mo angles to see the infraction, I don't think that qualifies as "more correct".
@@DukeTrout I'm saying they should be much more efficient. There have been some very badly handled VAR processes in recent weeks which could have been half as long if the crew in the booth was better trained and working together The delays are not worth the it for the overall enjoyment of the game. This isn't the NFL.
@@keeperMLT I hear this a lot, but I don't agree with it. Breaking down a play frame by frame instead of looking at the complete natural movement is bad, but slow motion to see if a boom-boom play was a handball or there was contact made is just fine and preferable.
The pass back to the keeper should have restarted with an Indirect Free Kick for Black