VAR Discussion thread

Augme

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Apply the UEFA / FIFA system, piggyback on their development stream and job done.

I don't get the love for the UEFA/FIFA system. In the world club game one of the worst decisions was ever made after the ref got to see it at the side of the touchline.

osarusan

ebbsy wrote: »

If both attacker and defender's bodies cross each other then that should not be offside.

It is not difficult.

You will eventually come across a situation where a fraction of the attacker's trailing foot overlaps a fraction of the defender's foot, and you'll need a replay to determine that.

No matter where the line is, there will always be marginal calls that make the line look silly.

.G.

The Fifa/uefa system for offside is no different to the premier league system. There is of course a difference in whether the pitch side monitor is used by the referee but thats never used for offside anyway as its a binary decision with no subjectiveness.

The IFAB set the protocols for VAR use and every league uses those. The only area the premier league has deviated from that is on the use of the monitor.

ebbsy

osarusan wrote: »

You will eventually come across a situation where a fraction of the attacker's trailing foot overlaps a fraction of the defender's foot, and you'll need a replay to determine that.

No matter where the line is, there will always be marginal calls that make the line look silly.

Just the upper body perhaps ?

beggars_bush

.G. wrote: »

Whats your username on bluemoon mate?

what is bluemoon? mate

Bridge93

How does VAR calculate the millisecond in which the ball is played when dealing with offside? Given a mm on or off is being deemed an acceptable margin to make a call on, there must be some fool proof way in which the lads in the shed are able to pinpoint the exact millisecond the ball is passed?

beggars_bush

If Liverpool win the league, will the four guys at Stockley Park qualify for a medal?

.G.

beggars_bush wrote: »

what is bluemoon? mate

Its a conspiracy theory forum.

Ultimately the argument with VAR is just a different one to what we all had before. Previously we all complained about refs and lino's getting stuff wrong we thought they shouldn't have got wrong, now we complain that the VAR is getting the right but we don't agree with the margins.

For me yesterday the Wolves game showed its value. Without it Liverpool wrongly lose that game 1 nil. With it the correct outcome was achieved based on the laws as they currently stand.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

beggars_bush wrote: »

what is bluemoon? mate

It's an anti-Liverpool forum where people get together and bitch about anything that can be used as an excuse for Liverpool winning the Premeir League. VAR, scheduling, injuries, conspiracty theories, Pep not having enough money, and so on. Anything except Liverpool actually being genunely good enough to be champions on merit.

Liam O

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

It's an anti-Liverpool forum where people get together and bitch about anything that can be used as an excuse for Liverpool winning the Premeir League. VAR, scheduling, injuries, conspiracty theories, Pep not having enough money, and so on. Anything except Liverpool actually being genunely good enough to be champions on merit.

Kind of like RAWK so, only for City fans and not Liverpool?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Liam O wrote: »

Kind of like RAWK so, only for City fans and not Liverpool?

City fans...?

Ha ven't been to RAWK - what comments are you referring to that claim other teams are lucky and the world's against Liverpool?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

.G. wrote: »

Its a conspiracy theory forum.

Ultimately the argument with VAR is just a different one to what we all had before. Previously we all complained about refs and lino's getting stuff wrong we thought they shouldn't have got wrong, now we complain that the VAR is getting the right but we don't agree with the margins.

For me yesterday the Wolves game showed its value. Without it Liverpool wrongly lose that game 1 nil. With it the correct outcome was achieved based on the laws as they currently stand.

This is the thing: everone complains about Liverpool gettign the VAR decisions; no one actually points out that the decisions are actually correct and none of them can point to any situation where a decision that beenfited Liverpool was actually wrong.

Complain about the rules, sure - but the rules are conssitent. Not nessecarily right, but concistent.

.G.

Once again Dale Johnson from ESPN is doing his excellent Monday review of VAR from the latest round of games on twitter. He's well worth a follow.

Here's his take on the offside tech.

So, it's the Monday VAR thread which, as you might expect, starts with a chunk about offside.

This should explain how we've got to where we are now, and the issues behind various solutions.

But let's be clear at the start, offside will not change before next season.
Before early in 2019, the only offside tech available was the use of one line, across a pitch, which did not take into account camera angle.

This meant that offside decisions with VAR could be totally down to luck, depending on the position of the camera.
Take this Harry Kane offside from the FA Cup last season.

Kane was adjudged to be ONSIDE from the VAR image.

After the game, Chelsea produced their own camera angle which told a different story and suggested he was OFFSIDE.

So the position of the camera decided offside.




Hawkeye had been developing a new method of calculating offside, to remove this inconsistency.

Hence, early in 2019 the 3D crosshair system arrived.

This enabled VAR operators to calculate the position of all players on the pitch accurately, creating a virtual offside line.
The crosshair system meant that it was no longer relevant where the cameras were positioned, because it automatically accounted for the angle as well as where players were releative to the pitch and to each other.

Hence, you get much greater accuracy on offside decisions.
Obviously, what we have found is that accuracy is pretty abhorrent. But it is NOT a problem just for the Premier League.

This system is in almost all major leagues and comps. They have the exact same problem. This one is not down to Mike Riley.

Here's some non-Prem examples.






So, how do we fix it?

This is difficult, because the key overriding consideration here is that a general law change will affect ALL of football, not just leagues with VAR.

Any change will affect all of football for a full season, so it has to be completely thought through.
It might be that the only viable change here is to add a margin of error, as determined by Hawkeye who will know after a year of use what these parameters are.

Obviously, we just create a new "decision point" for people to argue over. But no solution can remove this.
The IFAB will not want to make a fundamental change to the laws because of VAR - and some suggestions would change the fabric of the game at all levels.

It is crucial that VAR does not rule the Laws of the Game, which is why margin of error on tech may be the best option.

He's still tweeting at the moment so more being added.

https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/status/1211626123135782914

noodler

Thanks for the insight Dale.

.G.

noodler wrote: »

Thanks for the insight Dale.

CSF

FitzShane wrote: »

It cannot be changed mid-season. That would be worse than what is currently happening.

The only thing consistent with the current instance of VAR rules, specifically the offside lines, is that it is consistent for all 20 teams, for and against.

Changing it mid-season would mean for example Norwich v Spurs Pukki has a goal ruled offside marginally and they lose out on 2 points and in the reverse fixture with changed rules, hypothetically Kane scores a marginal offside goal which is ruled onside after the rule change. Only Norwich get screwed this way.

The rules have to stay the way they are this season, but hopefully next season we see a change to the offside rule and a sort of 'buffer' or margin of error introduced for the offside decisions - a 6 inch buffer or something to allow for a slight difference in time of when the ball is actually played. If you are in and around that buffer you are onside. If you are going to mms to decide whether you are in the buffer or not, then just give it offside as you already are getting the benefit of the buffer, so trying to get a 2nd advantage is too much.

They changed the threshold for clear and obvious (from the point where they were overturning almost literally nothing) after a few games. I guess this is different because they’d require a change of rules rather than a change of guidelines, but ultimately they can do what they want. If the clubs agree with the consensus and want the current way changed, then I’m sure they can go ahead.

If the clubs decide they want the current way to continue, then it probably doesn’t matter what the average fan wants anyway.

CSF

noodler wrote: »

Thanks for the insight Dale.

He is very good. People might not agree with how things operate, but a good point to begin from when complaining is understanding exactly how it operates (you still see tonnes of people confused that they’re not applying clear and obvious to offsides) and this guy’s Twitter explains it all really clearly.

.G.

Also from my pal Dale, clear and obvious was used in Australia, they changed to the current system like everyone else because of things like this:-



This was offside on the pitch. VAR didn't overrule as not clear and obvious without the line added, TV company then added the line after the game and showed it was the wrong call, arguments carried on as they do now. Changes nothing.

Utopia Parkway

Dale Johnson every weekend on Twitter.

j8wk2feszrnpao

.G. wrote: »

Also from my pal Dale, clear and obvious was used in Australia, they changed to the current system like everyone else because of things like this:-



This was offside on the pitch. VAR didn't overrule as not clear and obvious without the line added, TV company then added the line after the game and showed it was the wrong call, arguments carried on as they do now. Changes nothing.

And that is the problem you'll have if you introduce the concept of looking at it with your eye (without lines). TV will still show multiple replays and insert a line. Then the moaning will start..... "refs are killing the game".

VAR is providing a level of accuracy that we've never seen, and is shown (as per the Wolves offside) that it can calculate it really well. I'm ok with making changes to provide an advantage to the attacking team if that's what people want, but t does need to be defined into a law/protocol that can be applied evenly.

I reckon SKY love this stuff, and they hype it up to the max. I reckon managers/players use it as well to deflect. Coady didn't mentioned that Wolves didn't defend a simple long ball, but they also had two great chances to score if Jota and Vinagre played an easy pass rather than shoot from tight angles. But that analysis gets lost amonst the fury when you can point to something else rather than yourself.

Fitz*

beggars_bush wrote: »

If Liverpool win the league, will the four guys at Stockley Park qualify for a medal?

Why would they?

beggars_bush wrote: »

The only way of ending 30 years without the title for Liverpool was to bring in a system that's bent and can be manipulated.
The whole of the country knows it too

Oh, it's because I see you are 'one of those'.

noodler

FitzShane wrote: »

Why would they?




Oh, it's because I see you are 'one of those'.

It's good work in fairness.

Leaves people in no doubt.

PhlegmyMoses

Those are good posts from him to explain to people who are unaware of how VAR is being used. It reinforces my opinion, and he seems to agree, that it is ultimately not a good use of the technology though and something needs to give, even accepting that decisions are technically correct.

Bridge93

The technology is just that. Technology. There is little wrong with the technology or data it produces. It is how it is interpreted and applied that is causing the problems. Hopefully it’s extended teething problems and it’ll correct itself to the brilliant asset it should be

Bridge93

My view of VAR in any sport is it’s there to avoid the howlers getting through. There will always always be contentious decisions that are so tight you’ll have people arguing for and against. VAR is not there for them nor should it be. It can’t be taken to be 100% accurate. Once it catches the bad decisions and avoids injustices then it’s doing it’s job. We’re replacing marginal human error with potentially marginal machine error on these mm calls.

Speaking about offside I feel the rugby model with forward passes should be followed. Put the maths away. Show the officials the replay if they see any obvious reason with their eyes to overturn their onfield call then do. Otherwise go with the onfield call. You’ll always get moaners.

Yesterday for me summed VAR up perfectly. It would’ve been an injustice for Liverpool to be denied their goal and VAR did what it was brought in for. It would not have been an injustice for Wolves goal to stand. They are trying to apply an exact science to an inexact law with technology not sophisticated enough yet to do so. The offside law was brought in to stop attackers getting an unfair advantage. The law wasn’t written with the precision VAR is attempting to apply in mind

Augme

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Those are good posts from him to explain to people who are unaware of how VAR is being used. It reinforces my opinion, and he seems to agree, that it is ultimately not a good use of the technology though and something needs to give, even accepting that decisions are technically correct.

Football is the only sport in the world were the intorudction of technology and getting decisions correct based on what the rules of the game are is causing such a massive issue with fans. Maybe the only thing that needs to change I'd football fans? It would help if they became a bit smarter.

Bridge93

Augme wrote: »

Football is the only sport in the world were the intorudction of technology and getting decisions correct based on what the rules of the game are is causing such a massive issue with fans. Maybe the only thing that needs to change I'd football fans? It would help if they became a bit smarter.

In fairness apart from maybe tennis (where the decision is instantaneous but I’d still have issues with their system) it’s the only sport I can think of where fans and players are excluded entirely from the decision making process. No one can see what’s going on, what’s being said etc. Even the ref can’t see which is ridiculous. Other sports use it simply to assist decisions not make them for them. Yet cricket, rugby etc still include the fans in the decision process. It’s bound to wind people up when there are long delays and they can’t see why

PhlegmyMoses

Augme wrote: »

Football is the only sport in the world were the intorudction of technology and getting decisions correct based on what the rules of the game are is causing such a massive issue with fans. Maybe the only thing that needs to change I'd football fans? It would help if they became a bit smarter.

No it actually isn't. I watch Rugby, stuff like forward passes are done with the eyes. Refs regularly take common sense approaches to situations and are given leeway to do so.

And my issue isn't with the technology. I think that the Tech is great and it was brilliant for the Liverpool goal the other night. My issue is that in this particular instance it is not enhancing anything and is not helping to apply the spirit of the law. Then offside law was not brought in to penalise somebody with a toe offside. This technology has seen us go too far down the rabbithole and away from what that law is supposed to be penalising.

Also, lay off the "I am smarter than you" nonsense. It is cringey beyond belief and doesn't lend itself to a good discussion.

j8wk2feszrnpao

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

And my issue isn't with the technology. I think that the Tech is great and it was brilliant for the Liverpool goal the other night. My issue is that in this particular instance it is not enhancing anything and is not helping to apply the spirit of the law. Then offside law was not brought in to penalise somebody with a toe offside. This technology has seen us go too far down the rabbithole and away from what that law is supposed to be penalising.

We understand what it was brought in for. But we see offsides given out wide and near the halfway lines. Do we no longer give offside in those situations cause it's not what the law was brought in for?

The offside law, as it currently stands, means that if a toe is offside, then you are offside. There's nothing that states, "ah sure let it go". That's why I keep coming back to needing a new definition or protocol for VAR. They are currently calling it as it's written, so if it needs to be changed, then give then the guidelines.

In terms of killing the game or atmosphere, it's kinda rubbish. Liverpool fans were euphoric when it was chalked off. And the Dan Gosling winner was one of the most happy celebrations I've seen.

Augme

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

No it actually isn't. I watch Rugby, stuff like forward passes are done with the eyes. Refs regularly take common sense approaches to situations and are given leeway to do so.

And my issue isn't with the technology. I think that the Tech is great and it was brilliant for the Liverpool goal the other night. My issue is that in this particular instance it is not enhancing anything and is not helping to apply the spirit of the law. Then offside law was not brought in to penalise somebody with a toe offside. This technology has seen us go too far down the rabbithole and away from what that law is supposed to be penalising.

Also, lay off the "I am smarter than you" nonsense. It is cringey beyond belief and doesn't lend itself to a good discussion.

That's because forward passes have to be done with eyes and lines don't work for a forward passes as the ball travelling forward doesn't mean it is a forward pass. Rugby refs are only given leeway on subjective decisions. If a rugby player scores a try but their big toe the side line then that try would be ruled out, and rightly so. There is never a case of "oh but sure it is only his big toe, that doesn't count we will award the try."

So what was the law brought in for? Is it to rule a foot offside? A leg? Which is it? If you have the technology their to get the decisions right then use it and apply the actual laws of the game.

I never see the offside argument used for goal line decisions. The rules is that the whole of the ball has to be over the line for a goal. They use Hawkeye to judge. Shoukd we change the time to now include some of the ball? In the city gd Liverpool game last year there was an incident were there about a few mms in the decision. I didn't see any outcry then to change the rules or to ignore those few mms. Why is being done for offside?

It might not lend itself to good discussion, but it is true. People need to use a big of logic and cop on when discussing issues. I have seen so many people give out about it but then offer to sensible alternative. At this stage I think people just want to moan for the sake of moaning and all logic just goes out the window.

PhlegmyMoses

munstermagic11 wrote: »

We understand what it was brought in for. But we see offsides given out wide and near the halfway lines. Do we no longer give offside in those situations cause it's not what the law was brought in for?

The offside law, as it currently stands, means that if a toe is offside, then you are offside. There's nothing that states, "ah sure let it go". That's why I keep coming back to needing a new definition or protocol for VAR. They are currently calling it as it's written, so if it needs to be changed, then give then the guidelines.

In terms of killing the game or atmosphere, it's kinda rubbish. Liverpool fans were euphoric when it was chalked off. And the Dan Gosling winner was one of the most happy celebrations I've seen.

I'm perfectly okay with giving offsides out wide etc. You would absolutely benefit as a fast player by being two yards offside out wide. I don't think we even need to get that abstract though. Have a look at the decisions this weekend. Technically correct, but they feel abhorrent, to quote the bauld Dale from earlier. The Pukki one in particular felt absolutely ridiculous.

If you want me to give a suggestion, that single yellow line on the example he has given looks pretty good to me. Get the onfield ref to look at the big screen with the image the VAR team can provide with a singular yellow line for the foot of the last defender. If you can't eyeball that into being offside and need a secondary line drawing angles to mitigate for error of parallax etc, then we have gone too far. And I always want it to err on the side of the attacker, but that's just me, happy for others to argue otherwise. Also, people don't need to have a solution to think that something isn't working well. My solution may not be palatable to others either..

The motto for VAR should be for the technology to aid, not make, the decision. And the onfield ref should always make the final call, not the guy in the booth, and it should be shown in stadium and mic'd up for home viewers.

On you final point, I have never said it kills the atmosphere or anything like that. I just dont like how it is being implemented in this very specific scenario.

Harry Palmr

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/dec/30/var-should-only-be-used-for-clear-and-obvious-offside-errors-say-law-makers

VAR technology should only be called on to reverse “clear and obvious” mistakes regarding offside, according to the general secretary of the law-making International Football Association Board.

The weekend’s Premier League fixtures featured a number of marginal offside decisions which were checked by VAR, with goals ruled out for Wolves, Crystal Palace, Norwich, Brighton and Sheffield United.

Lukas Brud said the Ifab will reissue guidance on best practice regarding VAR to competitions which use it, probably after its annual general meeting at the end of February next year, which will include information on offsides.

In general terms, that advice will be that technology cannot definitively make a ruling on offside as it can over whether a shot has crossed the goal line, and that therefore VAR should only be used to correct “clear and obvious” mistakes.

“Clear and obvious still remains - it’s an important principle. There should not be a lot of time spent to find something marginal,” Brud told PA Sport.

“If something is not clear on the first sight, then it’s not obvious and it shouldn’t be considered. Looking at one camera angle is one thing but looking at 15, trying to find something that was potentially not even there, this was not the idea of the VAR principle. It should be clear and obvious.”

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Sheffield took lead against Man City, again very tight, But the blue line starts a foot apart from red line, and then the lines merge as they cross the pitch.



Sometimes it feels they are determined to find an offside rather than prove it wasn't

VAR trying everything to give the title to City. It's a conspiracy!!

Seriously though. That's the rule needing change. Firmino's should have stood, this should have stood and the Wovles one should have stood, but by the strict interpretation of the rule, they've out.

PhlegmyMoses

Harry Palmr wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/dec/30/var-should-only-be-used-for-clear-and-obvious-offside-errors-say-law-makers

This is what people are asking for pretty much.

j8wk2feszrnpao

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

On you final point, I have never said it kills the atmosphere or anything like that. I just dont like how it is being implemented in this very specific scenario.

Wasn’t saying that you said it, apologies if that’s the way it came across.

I hope they come up with an agreement. Managers/refs get together in the Summer and reach a consensus. If the players/managers could agree with the refs on how it should be used/implemented, and ended their whining, it would appease most fans as well.

j8wk2feszrnpao

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

This is what people are asking for pretty much.

But it was clear and obvious for VAR that his foot was offside. Maybe as you suggest you remove the lines, they can’t call it, and it stands. I just feel that will lead to similar complaints that managers/players/fans/media will still have a moan on those decisions, which may take away goals as well (as that graph showed).

It was also clear and obvious that there was no handball, and yet Coady had an issue with it.

Trigger

Seen this tweet by lineker, makes sense.. how can you judge by millimetres when the player has moved 13cm between frames.. a bit of leeway is needed.

https://twitter.com/GaryLineker/status/1211607290903769088?s=09

noodler

Glad we are moving away from the pretense that the lines are 100% accurate.

.G.

It's already under discussion.

https://twitter.com/DaleJohnsonESPN/status/1211697029002469378

LuckyLloyd

This is a completely normal part of implementing technology - you adapt and improve over time.

osarusan

One idea to deal with margin of error could be to have a 'thick' line for the defender (a line that represents say 12 inches on the pitch) and only if the attacker is beyond that line is it considered offside.

PhlegmyMoses

Trigger wrote: »

Seen this tweet by lineker, makes sense.. how can you judge by millimetres when the player has moved 13cm between frames.. a bit of leeway is needed.

https://twitter.com/GaryLineker/status/1211607290903769088?s=09

I find it hard to believe that the footage that they are using run at 50 fps. That is **** grade compared to what we could get, so I think that they have to be wrong with that part, or else the technology is not using it's full capability, which is almost even more ridiculous. But they make the point that I have been making about the moment when the ball has been released for a pass and where the receiver is at that moment. That seems incredibly difficult to get right. Couple that with how quick the other two players are moving in any given moment and it is not the super accurate representation that we are being told it is, just another approximation of a moment in time that may or may not be correct.

Quazzie

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that the footage that they are using run at 50 fps. That is **** grade compared to what we could get, so I think that they have to be wrong with that part, or else the technology is not using it's full capability, which is almost even more ridiculous. But they make the point that I have been making about the moment when the ball has been released for a pass and where the receiver is at that moment. That seems incredibly difficult to get right. Couple that with how quick the other two players are moving in any given moment and it is not the super accurate representation that we are being told it is, just another approximation of a moment in time that may or may not be correct.

HD on live TV is minimum 60fps.

PhlegmyMoses

Quazzie wrote: »

HD on live TV is minimum 60fps.

Yeah, I think that there is some pseudo maths going on there using incorrect information. That's not to say that I support how VAR is being used there though!

j8wk2feszrnpao

Trigger wrote: »

Seen this tweet by lineker, makes sense.. how can you judge by millimetres when the player has moved 13cm between frames.. a bit of leeway is needed.

https://twitter.com/GaryLineker/status/1211607290903769088?s=09

I had to laugh a little. Go with the onfield decision, that is way more inaccurate, than with the VAR decision

VAR was brought in cause Lineker and his ilk sat in a studio, watching multiple replays (taking their time about it) and then slating officials for getting minimal decisions wrong.

Maybe we do need another season without VAR

Nunu

munstermagic11 wrote: »

I had to laugh a little. Go with the onfield decision, that is way more inaccurate, than with the VAR decision

VAR was brought in cause Lineker and his ilk sat in a studio, watching multiple replays (taking their time about it) and then slating officials for getting minimal decisions wrong.

Maybe we do need another season without VAR

You’re seeing most replies on this thread as VAR or anti VAR. that’s not the point most of us are making here re offsides. I am pro VAR.

Of course VAR is fair more accurate than a refs on field decision with offsides but the main point being made by most is if using all VAR replays the player looks level to the naked eye stop the deliberation there, benefit to the attacker. Don’t bring in the right angles lines etc which is taking way too long and in all honesty I don’t trust 100% anyway in the incredibly fine margin decisions we saw over 2 days.

CalamariFritti

I said it before on another thread. Making or trying to make millimetre decisions is not in the spirit of the game. Two players that are level will always have one shoulder or a foot sticking out this way more than the other player. But they're still level as far as the game of football is concerned. Or should be anyway.

We're now in that territory that golf was always slated for. Having seemingly arbitrary rules with penalties for situations that didn't make a difference to the outcome of the game in the first place.

Once you have VAR you gotta have solid metrics. I understand that. But the current ones dont serve the game well. You cant have minutes of silence after every goal while the situation is checked by the legal department. Total buzzkill. You need to come up with something that has a certain degree of precision but can be observed with a single look at it. This triangulating foot positions bullsh1t while the whole stadium holds their breath in agony is killing the game.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Nunu wrote: »

You’re seeing most replies on this thread as VAR or anti VAR.

Well, some are just saying VAR is s**t. But I acknowledged that there are some that are saying they are unhappy with the marginal calls, which I understand. But I haven't seen a solution posted yet (just moaning from a number of people).

Nunu wrote: »

if using all VAR replays the player looks level to the naked eye stop the deliberation there, benefit to the attacker.

Which will result in the same complaints we previously had, that they are getting it wrong. I'm not disagreeing with your solution, I'd agree with it largely; but TV will over analyze it (maybe add the lines), managers will complain that the decision was wrong, players will find an excuse other than themselves, and the moaning will just be directed elsewhere.

j8wk2feszrnpao

CalamariFritti wrote: »

This triangulating foot positions bullsh1t while the whole stadium holds their breath in agony is killing the game.

People keep throwing out this line, and it's utterly meaningless.
Are grounds less full? Is there less of a TV audience? Are players/managers/fans leaving the game? No to all the above.
We've a few months into a new system to try improve the game. Maybe it's needs tweaking, a change, whatever. But the OTT hyperbole of "killing the game" is so juvenile.

I'd rather a correct decision than a stab at it.

Either use VAR for offsides or go back to to the old way. Don't half use it, and subsequently have incorrect calls even though the technology is there. That would be ridiculous.