Terrible performance by those 2 guys in Atlanta last night

[Sean Miller Fan]

Absolutely no excuse for Tim Weah to punch a dude and leave his team playing a man down. There's VAR now so you can't get away with that. Was Jester in town with some reservations in Buckhead with some IG models or something that he had to get to? That's the only thing that makes sense.

And Berhalter, my God. You are up a goal vs Panama. Playing a man down or not, you absolutely need to get out of there with a point.

This country deserves far better than what we saw in Atlanta last night.

 

[Pitt79]

VAR cost them the game IMO, if it was 10 years ago without it, that 1st goal counts and there's no red card and they aren't stuck defending a 72-minute power play

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

VAR cost them the game IMO, if it was 10 years ago without it, that 1st goal counts and there's no red card and they aren't stuck defending a 72-minute power play

VAR was correct though. I dont like how VAR disallows goals if someone left big toe is 2 cm offsides especially if the player scores with his head.

 

[Pitt79]

VAR was correct though. I dont like how VAR disallows goals if someone left big toe is 2 cm offsides especially if the player scores with his head.

I've watched soccer for years and until VAR I thought I knew what offsides actually is? is it like a TD in football where any part of your body breaks the plane? Can other players who never touch the ball during that play be offsides? Or your whole body needs to be offsides? Meanwhile in soccer the ball is inbounds even if touching the sideline.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

Absolutely no excuse for Tim Weah to punch a dude and leave his team playing a man down. There's VAR now so you can't get away with that. Was Jester in town with some reservations in Buckhead with some IG models or something that he had to get to? That's the only thing that makes sense.

And Berhalter, my God. You are up a goal vs Panama. Playing a man down or not, you absolutely need to get out of there with a point.

This country deserves far better than what we saw in Atlanta last night.

What’s your handicap?

 

[ChiefJusticeMarshall]

VAR was correct though. I dont like how VAR disallows goals if someone left big toe is 2 cm offsides especially if the player scores with his head.

See it in hockey too. Offsides meant "offsides" like having an advantage, not some minutiae rule interpretation to the nth degree. Really hurting both sports. It was designed to stop bad calls. Not parse goals into no goals based on an inch (technicality). I don't know how you put the genie back into that bottle.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

See it in hockey too. Offsides meant "offsides" like having an advantage, not some minutiae rule interpretation to the nth degree. Really hurting both sports. It was designed to stop bad calls. Not parse goals into no goals based on an inch (technicality). I don't know how you put the genie back into that bottle.

The goal they disallowed last night was not offides by an inch. It was actually the kind of thing that video review is supposed to fix. It was a clear and obvious error by the linesman.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

See it in hockey too. Offsides meant "offsides" like having an advantage, not some minutiae rule interpretation to the nth degree. Really hurting both sports. It was designed to stop bad calls. Not parse goals into no goals based on an inch (technicality). I don't know how you put the genie back into that bottle.

At least there's more goals in hockey. Soccer you see some absolute wonder goals, crowd going crazy. But VAR comes in and says the goal doesnt count because literally a player's nose was in front of the last defender even though the player scored with his foot. On the Brazil goal this week, it was impossible to tell. Literally maybe 1 or 2 cm offsides. I think the rule needs changed to a body length. You have to be 1 full body length past the last defender.

 

[BurghGuy68]

I dont think they will advance past the knockout round. Uruguay is tough, and Panama will outscore Bolivia...we needed more goals in that first game vs Bolivia.

Berhalter gone.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

I dont think they will advance past the knockout round. Uruguay is tough, and Panama will outscore Bolivia...we needed more goals in that first game vs Bolivia.

Berhalter gone.

Yea. They are done. Probably for the best though because it gets Berhalter fired and hopefully sued for gross negligence.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

Yea. They are done. Probably for the best though because it gets Berhalter fired and hopefully sued for gross negligence.

Shame on the people who hired last night’s loser in Georgia. They didn’t see this coming? Not very smart people. Clueless and pathetic. Hopefully they get it right this time. Here’s a chance for a mulligan.

 

[Pitt79]

At least there's more goals in hockey. Soccer you see some absolute wonder goals, crowd going crazy. But VAR comes in and says the goal doesnt count because literally a player's nose was in front of the last defender even though the player scored with his foot. On the Brazil goal this week, it was impossible to tell. Literally maybe 1 or 2 cm offsides. I think the rule needs changed to a body length. You have to be 1 full body length past the last defender.

That's the thing, soccer doesn't need less goals, it doesn't need more goals disallowed.

 

[ChiefJusticeMarshall]

That's the thing, soccer doesn't need less goals, it doesn't need more goals disallowed.

I think that was his point.

 

[Pitt79]

I think that was his point.

I was thinking about VAR and wondering? How often does VAR overturn an offside flag and award a goal that was waived off compared to waiving off a goal after determining offside with VAR? I feel like one consequence of VAR and "getting it right" is less goals scored overall? I'm sure somebody could study that. But yeah, now that soccer is reaching a peak of popularity in the USA, less goals is the last outcome they need.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

How often does VAR overturn an offside flag and award a goal that was waived off compared to waiving off a goal after determining offside with VAR?

VAR basically never awards a goal that was called offsides on the field, because that isn't how it works. And in fact that isn't how it could ever work. If the linesman raises his flag and the ref blows the whistle the play is over. Defenders stop defending. Goalies relax. You can't then say well, the play wasn't actually offsides so even though the whistle blew three seconds before the guy took the shot we are going to count the goal anyway. That would be the equivalent of the ref in a football game blowing the whistle because he thinks a guy is down, so everyone stops playing, but the running back keeps going and runs into the end zone, and then the refs looking at the replay and seeing that he wasn't down and they shouldn't have blown the whistle, and them deciding that they will give the team a touchdown. You've never seen that happen either. And you never will. Because if you start doing that, the whistle blowing will become meaningless. And no one wants that.

But if you actually watch soccer, they prevent that from happening because if the offside is close they instruct the linesman to not put the flag up right away, to wait and let the attack play out. Because then if someone scores a goal that shouldn't be allowed you can easily take the goal off the board, but it absolutely cannot work the other way around.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Shame on the people who hired last night’s loser in Georgia. They didn’t see this coming? Not very smart people. Clueless and pathetic. Hopefully they get it right this time. Here’s a chance for a mulligan.

Do you trust the US to hire someone better this time? Look at the guy he replaced. A complete disaster. So maybe we should hire that guy again?

 

[Pitt79]

VAR basically never awards a goal that was called offsides on the field, because that isn't how it works. And in fact that isn't how it could ever work. If the linesman raises his flag and the ref blows the whistle the play is over. Defenders stop defending. Goalies relax. You can't then say well, the play wasn't actually offsides so even though the whistle blew three seconds before the guy took the shot we are going to count the goal anyway. That would be the equivalent of the ref in a football game blowing the whistle because he thinks a guy is down, so everyone stops playing, but the running back keeps going and runs into the end zone, and then the refs looking at the replay and seeing that he wasn't down and they shouldn't have blown the whistle, and them deciding that they will give the team a touchdown. You've never seen that happen either. And you never will. Because if you start doing that, the whistle blowing will become meaningless. And no one wants that.

But if you actually watch soccer, they prevent that from happening because if the offside is close they instruct the linesman to not put the flag up right away, to wait and let the attack play out. Because then if someone scores a goal that shouldn't be allowed you can easily take the goal off the board, but it absolutely cannot work the other way around.

I ACTUALLY WATCH IT, and yes, I know they let a play go to see what happens and raise the flag later. On the other hand it could be a one timer shot, or a really bang bang play and they raise the flag immediately as the ball goes in and then waive it off.

Basically, I see your point, so I guess the presence of VAR is likely to invalidate goals and never create goals, so are there less goals scored since VAR began? If so, that's not a good thing in a sport where there is so little scoring.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

I ACTUALLY WATCH IT, and yes, I know they let a play go to see what happens and raise the flag later. On the other hand it could be a one timer shot, or a really bang bang play and they raise the flag immediately as the ball goes in and then waive it off.

Basically, I see your point, so I guess the presence of VAR is likely to invalidate goals and never create goals, so are there less goals scored since VAR began? If so, that's not a good thing in a sport where there is so little scoring.

If you ACTUALLY WATCH IT then why did you need to ask the question?

How on earth would VAR ever "create" goals? VAR neither "creates" or "destroys" goals. It's designed to help ensure that things that are not goals are not called goals. It is not, and couldn't ever, be designed to give goals when goals don't exist.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Some of this is ridiculous. That Denmak goal was disallowed because the first 2 or 3 inches of the player's shoe was ahead of the last defender. Nobody wants goals disallowed for that

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Some of this is ridiculous. That Denmak goal was disallowed because the first 2 or 3 inches of the player's shoe was ahead of the last defender. Nobody wants goals disallowed for that

That's the rule. If you don't want people who are only inches offsides to be called offsides then you need to change the rule.

Other than some Americans, most of the rest of the world doesn't seem to think it's a problem.

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

That's the rule. If you don't want people who are only inches offsides to be called offsides then you need to change the rule.

Other than some Americans, most of the rest of the world doesn't seem to think it's a problem.

They can start with only reversing a goal if the scoring part of the body is offsides. Not sure if that was his scoring foot but hypothetically, if it wasnt, it shouldn't be called. Dont they call offsides if your hand is offsides? You can't score with your hand.

 

[King Of All Message Boards]

You can't score with your hand.

Unless you’re Diego Maradona.

 

[Pitt79]

If you ACTUALLY WATCH IT then why did you need to ask the question?

How on earth would VAR ever "create" goals? VAR neither "creates" or "destroys" goals. It's designed to help ensure that things that are not goals are not called goals. It is not, and couldn't ever, be designed to give goals when goals don't exist.

So net goals overall would be less with VAR, because it seems like without VAR a lot of these overturned goals would have counted, now WHILE YOU ARE RIGHT, by the letter of the law, they shouldn't have counted, still the fact remains, IMO the overall net result of using VAR is less goals scored. I do think they should change the rule and say the entire player must be offsides, it's already a sport with very little scoring, now even less scoring with VAR "getting it right" it wouldn't hurt to change this rule.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

They can start with only reversing a goal if the scoring part of the body is offsides. Not sure if that was his scoring foot but hypothetically, if it wasnt, it shouldn't be called. Dont they call offsides if your hand is offsides? You can't score with your hand.

It's funny that what you desperately want them to make the rule is what the rule already is.

Just out of curiosity, which one is a player's "scoring foot"? If a player scores a goal while using his "non-scoring foot" should they take the goal off the scoreboard?

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

It's funny that what you desperately want them to make the rule is what the rule already is.

Just out of curiosity, which one is a player's "scoring foot"? If a player scores a goal while using his "non-scoring foot" should they take the goal off the scoreboard?

If your left big toe is offsides but you score with your right foot or toe, it shouldn't overturned. That's the least they could do.

 

[Pitt79]

Well VAR clearly failed in last night's game.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

If your left big toe is offsides but you score with your right foot or toe, it shouldn't overturned. That's the least they could do.

Good lord is that stupid.

 

[MJG-90]

Dont they call offsides if your hand is offsides?

No. Only parts of the body you can score with can be called offside.

 

[Pitt79]

No. Only parts of the body you can score with can be called offside.

That only makes it harder to judge, why not all or nothing to simplify the analysis. I'd prefer they just say the entire body has to be offside to be offside, to facilitate a tiny, miniscule increase in goals

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

That only makes it harder to judge

Unless you can't see the difference between, say, and arm and a leg, it doesn't actually make it harder to judge.

 

[mike412]

VAR actually does cause goals to be scored — when there is a foul in the box that isn’t called on the field but the play is stopped and VAR shows the penalty. It doesn’t happen often, and unlike the offsides rule where VAR calls a lot of offsides which weren’t called on the field, there seldom is a penalty in the box that is awarded because of VAR. But, it does happen.

One of the few goals VAR awarded in the Euros was the handball call against Denmark (I think) and that was a terrible call. VAR showed the ball glance off the defender’s fingers, anlerted the referee to that fact, and then the referee ruled in was a penalty. It was a terrible call for at least 3 reasons: (1) the handball was inadvertent and unintentional; (2) it didn’t change the flight of the ball; and (3) the defender’s arm was in a natural position.

VAR did its job by notifying the referee that the ball had been touched by a defender’s fingers; the ref didn’t do his job by awarding an undeserved penalty kick.

What I wish VAR did more of would be to show the ref replays of dives in the penalty box. I think there have been more in the Euros than I ever have seen in any competition. They haven’t been rewarded by PKs as far as I can remember. The thing is, they should go down as yellow cards against the diver.
CR7, who has perfected diving as an art form, went down on one against Slovenia where VAR showed he started his dive well before there was any contact, and he initiated the very little contact there was. That kind of play deserves a yellow.

 

[Pitt79]

Unless you can't see the difference between, say, and arm and a leg, it doesn't actually make it harder to judge.

Whatever? You just want to say VAR is always right. Every announcer and analyst believed it was a goal during the broadcast, so it wasn't just me.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

You just want to say VAR is always right.

I've not only never said any such thing, I've never said anything even remotely close to that.

But it's no surprise that you can't figure that out.

 

[Pitt79]

I've not only never said any such thing, I've never said anything even remotely close to that.

But it's no surprise that you can't figure that out.

Do you ever remember thinking VAR got it wrong?

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

Do you ever remember thinking VAR got it wrong?

Good god man, I said during the US game the other day that it got the call wrong that allowed the Uruguayan goal.

So that means it's been no more than what, five days since the last time I said that VAR got a call wrong right here on this forum?

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

Good god man, I said during the US game the other day that it got the call wrong that allowed the Uruguayan goal.

So that means it's been no more than what, five days since the last time I said that VAR got a call wrong right here on this forum?

Im not sure they even got that wrong. There isnt a perfect angle and there's no perfect shot of the millisecond that it left the player's head. I didnt like the call because Im a US fan but if that was a US goal, I wouldn't have thought there was undisputable evidence to overturn. The one thing I do like about VAR is it takes them 1 minute. In football, we don't need 5-10 minutes of looking at 80 replay angles. If it takes you more than a minute, then go with the call on the field because its not clearly wrong.

 

[Fk_Pitt]

Im not sure they even got that wrong. There isnt a perfect angle and there's no perfect shot of the millisecond that it left the player's head. I didnt like the call because Im a US fan but if that was a US goal, I wouldn't have thought there was undisputable evidence to overturn. The one thing I do like about VAR is it takes them 1 minute. In football, we don't need 5-10 minutes of looking at 80 replay angles. If it takes you more than a minute, then go with the call on the field because its not clearly wrong.

If the US scored that goal, I’d have said shit it’s getting called offside. And it would have been.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

If the US scored that goal, I’d have said shit it’s getting called offside. And it would have been.

When you have two replays, neither of which is perfectly in line with the play, and one looks like it's really close, maybe on and maybe off, and the other looks like it's clearly offside, by a foot or more, it's pretty obvious that the play is offsides.

They allowed the camera angle that showed the play was closer than it was rule the day, when they had another angle that if they would have used would have shown it wasn't all that close. Which makes no sense, but it is what it is.

And at the end of the day, if you can't score a goal that call doesn't really matter.