VAR Thoughts?

[3 Stacks 2,363]

19 minutes ago, Bob Spunkmouse said:

I don’t believe clear and obvious was ever in play for offsides was it? They decided they had the technology to be absolute and so clear and obvious wasn’t required.

 

what’s been proven (to me at least) is that either they don’t have the technology (I.e frame rates, human error in drawing a line etc) to be as absolute as they want it to be, or the rule is simply not appropriate to be officiated to the absolute (and the benefit of being level is a much bigger part of the application of rule than they ever accounted for), or both.

 

as far as I know, of sports I watch with any level of interest, the only times absolutes work is when there is no human involvement and technology alone can do the job.

 

line calls in tennis... data from the camera interpreted by software...

 

goals/no goals in football... again data from a camera interpreted by software (villa vs sheff utd aside)... 

 

lbw calls in cricket... data from the camera, interpreted by software and then computational modelling of predicted following movement of the ball.

 

common denominator is no human interaction.

 

one of those has a margin of error applied because of the prediction element and because that’s what the lawmakers feel is fairer and in line with “the spirit” of the game.

 

we’ve had 2 goal line calls not go for us which were each a few millimetres from being a goal. People accept those (albeit disappointingly) because there’s an absolute element and no human interpretation or subjectivity.

 

intil and unless technology advances to the point that an offside line doesn’t need a human to interpret the data (I don’t see how that’s possible but I’m sure computers will overcome the challenge in time) then it will remain a subjective call and should be officiated as such. And as such, an element of doubt must remain and either a margin of error or a subjective judgement must be included.

 

without it, it’s doomed to always fail at least as often as not having it at all ever did.

 

most officials got most offside decisions right before all this. Let’s remember that.

Mell Reddy had an article yesterday where she outlined what she and other journos were told about what VAR would be by Mike Riley. This is a copy paste of what she says:

 

-There will be minimum VAR intervention (maximum benefit, minimum interference)

-The point is not to re-referee games

-There will be a high bar for clear and obvious

-Only overturn a decision if it is clearly wrong

-There to pick up big missed incidents, not painstakingly search for them

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/liverpool/var-brighton-vs-liverpool-klopp-btsport-b1763432.html?utm_source=reddit.com

 

So if this is what they actually said, they aren't using it how they said they would do and it seems the refs have a fundamental misunderstanding of what VAR is. It's simply video replay. It's not big, powerful, accurate technology that finds you absolute proof of stuff, yet they use it as if that's what it is. That's the problem.

 

If they'd simply used VAR like they said they would, simply as a way to have a second look at an incident and if there's something strikingly wrong, action is taken, that would be totally fine. Mané's offside against Brighton is an example of that. Conversely, Mané's offside against Everton is what they said they wouldn't do.

[Bob Spunkmouse 2,342]

27 minutes ago, 3 Stacks said:

Mell Reddy had an article yesterday where she outlined what she and other journos were told about what VAR would be by Mike Riley. This is a copy paste of what she says:

 

-There will be minimum VAR intervention (maximum benefit, minimum interference)

-The point is not to re-referee games

-There will be a high bar for clear and obvious

-Only overturn a decision if it is clearly wrong

-There to pick up big missed incidents, not painstakingly search for them

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/liverpool/var-brighton-vs-liverpool-klopp-btsport-b1763432.html?utm_source=reddit.com

 

So if this is what they actually said, they aren't using it how they said they would do and it seems the refs have a fundamental misunderstanding of what VAR is. It's simply video replay. It's not big, powerful, accurate technology that finds you absolute proof of stuff, yet they use it as if that's what it is. That's the problem.

 

If they'd simply used VAR like they said they would, simply as a way to have a second look at an incident and if there's something strikingly wrong, action is taken, that would be totally fine. Mané's offside against Brighton is an example of that. Conversely, Mané's offside against Everton is what they said they wouldn't do.

I’m 99% sure offside was never in the “clear and obvious” discussion. The lines came in straight away.

 

but agree, they’re not doing the rest in line with those bullet points.

[Barrington Womble 8,549]

23 hours ago, Bob Spunkmouse said:

I don’t believe clear and obvious was ever in play for offsides was it? They decided they had the technology to be absolute and so clear and obvious wasn’t required.

 

what’s been proven (to me at least) is that either they don’t have the technology (I.e frame rates, human error in drawing a line etc) to be as absolute as they want it to be, or the rule is simply not appropriate to be officiated to the absolute (and the benefit of being level is a much bigger part of the application of rule than they ever accounted for), or both.

 

as far as I know, of sports I watch with any level of interest, the only times absolutes work is when there is no human involvement and technology alone can do the job.

 

line calls in tennis... data from the camera interpreted by software...

 

goals/no goals in football... again data from a camera interpreted by software (villa vs sheff utd aside)... 

 

lbw calls in cricket... data from the camera, interpreted by software and then computational modelling of predicted following movement of the ball.

 

common denominator is no human interaction.

 

one of those has a margin of error applied because of the prediction element and because that’s what the lawmakers feel is fairer and in line with “the spirit” of the game.

 

we’ve had 2 goal line calls not go for us which were each a few millimetres from being a goal. People accept those (albeit disappointingly) because there’s an absolute element and no human interpretation or subjectivity.

 

intil and unless technology advances to the point that an offside line doesn’t need a human to interpret the data (I don’t see how that’s possible but I’m sure computers will overcome the challenge in time) then it will remain a subjective call and should be officiated as such. And as such, an element of doubt must remain and either a margin of error or a subjective judgement must be included.

 

without it, it’s doomed to always fail at least as often as not having it at all ever did.

 

most officials got most offside decisions right before all this. Let’s remember that.

cracking post that. i think it will be very difficult for offside to be completely judged by computer unless they change the law back to what it used to be, where offside is offside. with what we have today regarding involvement and phases of play etc, it is absolutely guaranteed to be subjective. 

 

the real problem with using all of this technology (well aside from the real problem is killing the flow of the game to use it, but lets assume we've accepted that handicap) is the laws of the game have been designed in many ways to be in "the spirit of the law". So even if we think that players can be booked for there are only 7 categories, so there needs to be interpretation: 

• Unsporting behaviour 
• Dissent by word or action
• Persistent infringement of the Laws of the Game
• Delaying the restart of play
• Failure to respect the required distance when play is restarted with a corner kick, throw-in or free kick
• Entering or re-entering the field of play without the referee's permission
• Deliberately leaving the field of play without the referee's permission

Unsporting behaviour!! it covers nearly everything and nothing specific. But we all kind of know what a booking is, we see tackles in every game and often think "why wasn't that a booking", but we move on quickly regardless of the outcome, the flow of the game is most important and we kind of just accept it is subjective and it's unlikely we will all agree. And over the evolution of the game, we have never much needed to change "unsporting behaviour" as a reason to be booked, but we have evolved what we believe "unsporting behaviour" to be. And what next is the VAR going to start to decide what should and shouldn't be deemed unsporting behaviour? 

 

Onto the offside, the spirit of that law was to just stop goal hanging. So the objective was just to stop forwards just standing in the penalty area. So if the odd time the lino misses the flag or the odd time flags when someone is on, well that was OK. And why was it OK - well firstly we set the lino an impossible task to look at 2 things simultaneously, both the ball being kicked and the defensive line, so he was never expected to get it right to any microscopic measurement. Then when you throw in all the modern interpretations of offside and needing to assess if the player is "interfering" or is in this "phase of play", then the lino job was clearly impossible. They did get some wrong, but the game flowed and the objective was achieved, nobody was goal hanging, so in the spirit of the law that didn't matter too much that it wasn't 100% accurate. Offside exists purely to stop goal hanging, the law was never intended to give 2 shits about millimetres and it is why we've again been able to evolve the game to bring in things to favour the forwards and allow stuff like "not interfering". then out of the blue someone just decided a video and computer simulation are more relevant, it just isn't. what is relevant is we stop goal hanging. 

 

22 hours ago, 3 Stacks said:

Mell Reddy had an article yesterday where she outlined what she and other journos were told about what VAR would be by Mike Riley. This is a copy paste of what she says:

 

-There will be minimum VAR intervention (maximum benefit, minimum interference)

-The point is not to re-referee games

-There will be a high bar for clear and obvious

-Only overturn a decision if it is clearly wrong

-There to pick up big missed incidents, not painstakingly search for them

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/liverpool/var-brighton-vs-liverpool-klopp-btsport-b1763432.html?utm_source=reddit.com

 

So if this is what they actually said, they aren't using it how they said they would do and it seems the refs have a fundamental misunderstanding of what VAR is. It's simply video replay. It's not big, powerful, accurate technology that finds you absolute proof of stuff, yet they use it as if that's what it is. That's the problem.

 

If they'd simply used VAR like they said they would, simply as a way to have a second look at an incident and if there's something strikingly wrong, action is taken, that would be totally fine. Mané's offside against Brighton is an example of that. Conversely, Mané's offside against Everton is what they said they wouldn't do.

Mellissa Reddy is being disingenuous if she says this was the intention for offside, because it wasn't (I haven't read the article, because I think she is the worst journalist out there). I do agree at the introduction of VAR those points were about the incidents not involving offside. But VAR has been tweaked several times since then, in fact it appears to get tweaked at every "break" in the club season. 

 

They absolute key part of all of this is that bottom bullet point. "There to pick up big missed incidents, not painstakingly search for them". That in itself is an absolute contradiction. If we take the pen on saturday for example, if we don't have VAR that incident would never be mentioned again. Not one brighton player aside from Wellbeck appealed for the pen and he took 2 steps before going down and appealing. So I would say the VAR in that situation has painstakingly searched for an incident - yet absolutely nobody could begin to argue finding a penalty in the final minute of a game is not a "big missed incident". 

 

The bottom line? All VAR is is on opportunity for the officials to break the flow of the game and from what I can see is remove goals from open play and replace them with the occasional pen. They can never possibly improve the decision making, because what they're supposed to be achieving is contradictory and nearly always subjective. Painstaking looking for something surely is the right thing if it finds a big incident? But we are not supposed to painstakingly look for something. Yet we see them taking 3 or 4 minutes at time rerunning things.  And then is that not re-refereeing the game? The bar will be "high" for clear and obvious, yet what is clear and obvious? There was clear contact from robbo, but football is a contact sport and not all contact is a penalty. And then if we keep to the robbo incident, if you see him in slow motion kick Wellbeck does it meet the "clearly wrong" bar, well it does if you think that incident merits a foul. Yet if you watch it in real time, do you actually think it is a foul? 

 

The whole thing is a complete farce. 

[Brownie 3,329]

That pen in the Leicester v Fulham game was another example for me where the on-field decision should stand. It was probably a foul and therefore a penalty but it wasn’t a howler from the ref so leave the decision as it is.

[AngryofTuebrook 17,881]

That fucking T-Shirt line bullshit again.

 

VAR is taking all the flak, but IFAB need a bit of scrutiny too. 

[Brownie 3,329]

Those fucking lines again.

[Daisy 5]

Good to see another team getting fucked though rather than everyone laugh at us. The more teams it happens to the better. 

[Alex_K 837]

Really fucked with my Fantasy Football this week. Salah, Rodriguez, Watkins, Targett, Richarlison .. think I missed about 40 pts from VAR based decisions on that lot. Karma for selection Richarlison I suppose.

As you were ..

[Poster 2,747]

Club	Goals for confirmed	Goals for disallowed	Goals against confirmed	Goals against disallowed	All overturned decisions
Arsenal	1	0	0	1	1
Aston Villa	1	3	0	1	4
Brighton	1	0	0	3	4
Burnley	0	1	0	0	1
Chelsea	1	0	0	0	1
Crystal Palace	0	0	0	1	3
Everton	0	0	0	1	2
Fulham	0	1	0	0	4
Leeds Utd	0	1	0	1	1
Leicester City	0	1	0	0	3
Liverpool	0	5	1	0	5
Man Utd	0	2	0	0	5
Man City	0	1	0	1	2
Newcastle Utd	0	0	0	1	1
Sheffield Utd	0	0	0	1	2
Southampton	0	0	0	2	2
Tottenham	0	1	1	1	2
West Brom	0	0	1	0	1
West Ham	0	0	1	3	0
Wolves	0	1	0	0	1

Liverpool worse off with VAR?

Liverpool fans may agree with their captain when you look at the stats. Jurgen Klopp’s side have had more goals disallowed by VAR than any other Premier League team in the 2020-21 season so far.

The poll shows just 28% of Liverpool fans believe VAR is being applied consistently, as do 31% of Manchester United fans, compared to 39% of Arsenal and Chelsea fans.

And just a quarter of Liverpool fans feel VAR has made football more exciting. 

The FA Cup third-round tie between Brighton and Crystal Palace on 8 January 2018 was the first domestic game to use VAR, and it was subsequently used in one Carabao Cup semi-final and the Carabao Cup final between Arsenal and Manchester City.

The Premier League introduced the technology for the 2019-20 season.

In July of this year, Fifa took full control of VAR from the sport’s lawmakers, the International Football Association Board (Ifab).

Since then, there has been an increase in referees using pitch-side monitors for goals, red cards and penalty decisions. VAR continues to rule on factual decisions and advise on matters of subjectivity.

Premier League fans still to be convinced

Scottish football authorities have discussed introducing VAR, but the technology has not yet been used in professional league football there.

VAR was introduced in the German Bundesliga and Italy’s Serie A in 2017 and Spain’s top flight La Liga and the French Ligue 1 in 2018.

As with those European leagues, changes have been made in England to try to adapt and improve the system.

But the poll showed more than half (51%) of Premier League fans feel VAR is applied inconsistently.

However, Premier League chief executive Richard Masters said earlier this year that VAR was delivering on the “principal reason” for its introduction in improving the accuracy of decision-making.

“In key match incidents we are up to 94% accuracy with officials, 97% with their assistants, so we are seeing an impact on results and a positive impact on the league table,” he said.

What they say about VAR

Former Manchester United defender and Sky Sports pundit Gary Neville: “[Referees] look like they have been programmed like robots. They are briefed like mad, they are programmed to the nth degree, they are frightened to death.”

Tottenham manager Jose Mourinho: “We’re going in a direction that’s really bad for the beautiful game, the game that everybody fell in love with.”

Former Tottenham and Newcastle midfielder and Match of the Day pundit Jermaine Jenas: “The players and managers have been unbelievable in mentally getting over these hurdles that VAR has thrown at them. It’s supposed to help the game, and it’s making it far worse.”

Savanta ComRes interviewed 5,476 UK adults aged 18+ online between 20 and 24 November 2020, 2,100 of whom qualified as football fans for the purpose of our survey according to Savanta-gathered data on football fans and their demographic profile. Data were weighted to be demographically representative of UK adults 18+ by age, gender, region and social grade. Savanta ComRes is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. The full poll is published here

 

 

 

“I’d rather play without it.” “Ruining the game.” “I don’t know the rules any more.”

The video assistant referee (VAR) was brought in to improve football. But Liverpool captain Jordan Henderson, Aston Villa midfielder Jack Grealish and Manchester City’s Kevin de Bruyne have all spoken out about controversial decisions made by VAR recently.

And it seems football fans are also less than convinced by VAR in its second full season in use in English football.

In a poll for BBC Sport, only a third of football fans across the UK said they believe VAR has made football better.

The poll of 2,100 fans, carried out by Savanta ComRes, shows that while 30% of fans think it has improved the game, 44% of fans actually think it hasmade football worse.

While most fans are now given the option of seeing VAR decisions on screen – whether in the stadium on watching on TV – almost half of fans said they believe the introduction of VAR has made football less exciting.

The poll also shows:

• 36% of supporters aged 18-34 believe VAR has made football better, compared with 29% of fans aged 55 and over.
• 59% of fans aged 55 and over said VAR is making football worse.
• Arsenal fans (44%) are more likely to believe that VAR has made football better, while 37% of Chelsea fans, 34% of Liverpool fans and 32% of Manchester United fans felt it had improved the game.
• Younger fans are split on whether VAR is being applied consistently (35%) or inconsistently (33%) by referees.

Controversial VAR decisions

• West Ham v Aston Villa, 30 November – Villa manager Dean Smith said VAR “frustrates everyone but there’s nothing we can do about it” after Ollie Watkins’ late strike was ruled out for offside because of the position of his arm 
• Manchester United v West Brom, 21 November – “I’m very disappointed with the decisions from the referee,” said Baggies manager Slaven Bilic after referee David Coote reversed a penalty decision, ruling Bruno Fernandes had touched the ball in a challenge on Conor Gallagher
• Crystal Palace v Leeds United, 7 November – Patrick Bamford said VAR is “ruining football” after his equaliser for Leeds is ruled out because his outstretched, pointing arm is offside
• Everton v Liverpool, 17 October – Reds manager Jurgen Klopp said he “doesn’t understand these decisions” after VAR fails to review a challenge from Jordan Pickford that injured Virgil van Dijk, while Jordan Henderson’s late goal was ruled out for offside against Sadio Mane

[Bob Spunkmouse 2,342]

Interesting but not particularly surprising to me the demographics in that article matching up with The demographics in a similar report on whether a European super league is a good idea.

 

In both, younger fans; and Chelsea and Arsenal fans think a super league is good, and so is VAR.

 

in both, older; and Liverpool fans think VAR is bad and so would be a European super league.
 

 

[sir roger 5,707]

It would be interesting to see whwt qualifies as a successful conclusion to constitute part of the 94% success rate for decisions. There would sem to be an element of 'marking your own homework' about it. If, for instance, the Mane decision at Goodison is noted as correct the conclusions are not worth the paper they are writen on , and I am not sure about what the 97% mark for assistants covers, as they appear to have been ordered not to make their only notable contribution.

 

[Barrington Womble 8,549]

I was thinking about VAR the other day. And just like in real life, laws have evolved to stop people finding loopholes in the system. And as you close one loophole, another opens up. The trouble with VAR is it's effectively managing law by CCTV. No account is being made for the situation or context applied to allow for what has actually happened. The game has become a series of speeding tickets but without the adequate technology, be that offside or the insistence of slow motion every challenge to see if there is contact - then an assumption being made that all contact is a foul. Except football is a contact sport, so the context of the contact is important. It's this clinical and often incorrect assessment of football that is as damaging to the game as the disruption and joy it saps from you. 

[rubble-rouser 2,164]

The problem with getting rid of it for anything other than offsides is that as soon as a dive to win a pen in a big game or a studs-up challenge is missed, we revert to the argument that the technology exists so use it.

 

 Ultimately all non-offside decisions involve questions with room for subjective interpretation. I’d be in favour of something similar to umpire’s call in cricket where, provided the ref or assistant saw the incident, their judgment stands. Use the Brighton pen as an example.

 

VAR official asks the ref ‘did you see the coming together between Robertson and Welbeck?’ if the answer is yes, move on - there is no jurisdiction to reconsider or review the decision.

 

If the answer is no, the ref looks at the screen automatically. The Official points out, without expressing an opinion, ‘there was contact between the players in the penalty area. We want you to see whether there was a foul.’ The VAR doesn’t express an opinion. The ref is then shown the incident in real time from 3 camera angles. The official then asks ‘do you need to see that slowed down or are you able to make a decision’. The ref now MUST make a decision unless he is unable to do so without watching a slow motion replay. If he asks for a slow motion replay he must explain what it is he is looking for. After seeing a sufficient number of replays he makes a decision. 
 

The whole process must take no more than 150 seconds. The conversation between the Official and the ref must be broadcast live and must be audible in the stadium.

 

 

[rubble-rouser 2,164]

Another issue is the changing of the laws to accommodate video-decision making. The best examples being the ridiculous and inconsistent changes to the handball law and the knock-on absurdity of the offside law.

 

For handball, if a clear and consistent definition of either ‘intentional’ or ‘accidental but with the hands away from the body in an unnatural position for the player’s action’ is applied to all attacking and defensive play, and the referee’s decision stands unless he didn’t see the incident (see my previous post) then, provided the ref’s reasons are broadcast live, a lot of problems could be reduced. It will mean subjective decisions with which people disagree, but we still get that now. It will mean fewer legit goals being ruled out because the ball brushed an attacker’s arm and fewer cheap pens. 
 

For offside, I think the lines are inevitable, unless we go to a fully computer-simulated system. A simulated system might be able to judge the instant the ball leaves the foot/head of the player playing the ball forward and I would give attackers more leeway by changing the rule to the receiving player being offside only if no part of his body is level with or behind any part of the body of the relevant defender - that doesn’t get rid of the lines (unless a computer can simulate more accurately) but it does encourage attacking play (although it makes a high line more difficult).

 

That would mean that the only role for the human VAR official would be deciding when and whether to consult the ref over a potential missed incident.

 

Happy days.

 

[dockers_strike 1,948]

4 hours ago, Bob Spunkmouse said:

Interesting but not particularly surprising to me the demographics in that article matching up with The demographics in a similar report on whether a European super league is a good idea.

 

In both, younger fans; and Chelsea and Arsenal fans think a super league is good, and so is VAR.

 

in both, older; and Liverpool fans think VAR is bad and so would be a European super league.
 

 

Well to be fair, Im an arl arse and I thought VAR would be good. Of course if the football authorities had come out and said by the way, offsides will now be to the millimeter, I may have had stronger reservations.

 

As for a European Super League, I just see it as a natural progression in football's journey. The game we know didnt exist before the 'Sheffield' rules were largely adopted. The Football League was one of numerous leagues but it was different to the rest because it was a national league not a local one. Then it went to 2 divisions. 3rd tier was North and South before becoming Divisions 3 and 4. Then we had European club friendlies that developed into knock out football etc, etc.

 

In the Premier League, the tail ie the 'smaller' clubs, are wagging the dog. They want the riches of the PL while stiffling the 'bigger' clubs.

 

 

[Vincent Vega 3,555]

I’d 100% chuck it in the bin, but if they’re going to persist with it, then I’d change the rules.

• Offside - no drawing of lines, if you can tell it’s offside immediately then chalk the goal off, if it’s unclear benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking team.
• No slow motion replays to be used except for red cards.
• They have 60 seconds to make a decision.
• The VAR officials should not be part of the current referees contingent. Allow retired refs or even better retired refs from top European leagues to be the VAR officials, and make them two separate entities answerable to two separate bosses. That avoids the concept of backing up your mate.

[dockers_strike 1,948]

22 minutes ago, Vincent Vega said:

I’d 100% chuck it in the bin, but if they’re going to persist with it, then I’d change the rules.

• Offside - no drawing of lines, if you can tell it’s offside immediately then chalk the goal off, if it’s unclear benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking team.
• No slow motion replays to be used except for red cards.
• They have 60 seconds to make a decision.
• The VAR officials should not be part of the current referees contingent. Allow retired refs or even better retired refs from top European leagues to be the VAR officials, and make them two separate entities answerable to two separate bosses. That avoids the concept of backing up your mate.

Far too sensible, mate!

[Arnaud 632]

59 minutes ago, Vincent Vega said:

I’d 100% chuck it in the bin, but if they’re going to persist with it, then I’d change the rules.

• Offside - no drawing of lines, if you can tell it’s offside immediately then chalk the goal off, if it’s unclear benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking team.
• No slow motion replays to be used except for red cards.
• They have 60 seconds to make a decision.
• The VAR officials should not be part of the current referees contingent. Allow retired refs or even better retired refs from top European leagues to be the VAR officials, and make them two separate entities answerable to two separate bosses. That avoids the concept of backing up your mate.

You’re hired !

[goose 242]

"However, Premier League chief executive Richard Masters said earlier this year that VAR was delivering on the “principal reason” for its introduction in improving the accuracy of decision-making.

“In key match incidents we are up to 94% accuracy with officials, 97% with their assistants, so we are seeing an impact on results and a positive impact on the league table,” he said."

 

No, you idiot, the point is to make the game more enjoyable and in that it is failing spectacularly. 

 

I've told my wife that we are getting VAR installed in the bedroom. She says that it'll be off-putting having weird little men from Stockley Park drawing lines all over her fanny, but I've explained that it's important to improve the accuracy of our love-making. 

 

 

[Trumo 13,955]

25 minutes ago, goose said:

"However, Premier League chief executive Richard Masters said earlier this year that VAR was delivering on the “principal reason” for its introduction in improving the accuracy of decision-making.

“In key match incidents we are up to 94% accuracy with officials, 97% with their assistants, so we are seeing an impact on results and a positive impact on the league table,” he said."

 

No, you idiot, the point is to make the game more enjoyable and in that it is failing spectacularly. 

 

I've told my wife that we are getting VAR installed in the bedroom. She says that it'll be off-putting having weird little men from Stockley Park drawing lines all over her fanny, but I've explained that it's important to improve the accuracy of our love-making. 

 

 

 

Things will get awkward when they have to decide if it's in yet, despite you hammering away like a randy spaniel and grunting like an East German female weightlifter.

[Barrington Womble 8,549]

6 hours ago, rubble-rouser said:

The problem with getting rid of it for anything other than offsides is that as soon as a dive to win a pen in a big game or a studs-up challenge is missed, we revert to the argument that the technology exists so use it.

 

 Ultimately all non-offside decisions involve questions with room for subjective interpretation. I’d be in favour of something similar to umpire’s call in cricket where, provided the ref or assistant saw the incident, their judgment stands. Use the Brighton pen as an example.

 

VAR official asks the ref ‘did you see the coming together between Robertson and Welbeck?’ if the answer is yes, move on - there is no jurisdiction to reconsider or review the decision.

 

If the answer is no, the ref looks at the screen automatically. The Official points out, without expressing an opinion, ‘there was contact between the players in the penalty area. We want you to see whether there was a foul.’ The VAR doesn’t express an opinion. The ref is then shown the incident in real time from 3 camera angles. The official then asks ‘do you need to see that slowed down or are you able to make a decision’. The ref now MUST make a decision unless he is unable to do so without watching a slow motion replay. If he asks for a slow motion replay he must explain what it is he is looking for. After seeing a sufficient number of replays he makes a decision. 
 

The whole process must take no more than 150 seconds. The conversation between the Official and the ref must be broadcast live and must be audible in the stadium.

 

 

The thing is the VAR isn't supposed to share an opinion now. But they do! 

[Barrington Womble 8,549]

6 hours ago, rubble-rouser said:

Another issue is the changing of the laws to accommodate video-decision making. The best examples being the ridiculous and inconsistent changes to the handball law and the knock-on absurdity of the offside law.

 

For handball, if a clear and consistent definition of either ‘intentional’ or ‘accidental but with the hands away from the body in an unnatural position for the player’s action’ is applied to all attacking and defensive play, and the referee’s decision stands unless he didn’t see the incident (see my previous post) then, provided the ref’s reasons are broadcast live, a lot of problems could be reduced. It will mean subjective decisions with which people disagree, but we still get that now. It will mean fewer legit goals being ruled out because the ball brushed an attacker’s arm and fewer cheap pens. 
 

For offside, I think the lines are inevitable, unless we go to a fully computer-simulated system. A simulated system might be able to judge the instant the ball leaves the foot/head of the player playing the ball forward and I would give attackers more leeway by changing the rule to the receiving player being offside only if no part of his body is level with or behind any part of the body of the relevant defender - that doesn’t get rid of the lines (unless a computer can simulate more accurately) but it does encourage attacking play (although it makes a high line more difficult).

 

That would mean that the only role for the human VAR official would be deciding when and whether to consult the ref over a potential missed incident.

 

Happy days.

 

Offside would be much easier if they just used the feet of defenders and attackers. Well not as easy was just going back to the lino, but at least it would eliminate a lot of shit. That's a law that could be applied across the game from Sunday league up. 

 

As for your computer plan, you are assuming the technology is there for it, but it isn't. It isn't there to draw lines - and I don't means because of the human input or the frames. I mean it depends where the camera is and it's location increases the margin of error. 

 

Let's be honest, the world would be a happier place if we just fucked it off 

[Scott_M 5,130]

I think part of the problem is Mike Riley and his band of dweebs. Riley was a complete wet fart as a referee. The type of 9 stone drenched pussy, who probably desperately wanted to play football with the cool kids, but was absolutely shocking and would be picked on mercilessly. 
 

He then though “I’ll show them” and decided to ruin all their matches by becoming a referee. 

 

As mentioned by Dave in the Ajax report and something I’d read a few weeks ago... the process is a lot less forensic in the Champions League that the Premiership.

 

Although I’m sure it’s happens, there seems to be significantly less ecsta-sketch

nonsense.

 

Take the Callejon penalty in Napoli last season. Real time, absolutely a penalty. Slow mo, complete dive.
 

Its not a clear and obvious error in real time, and as much as we complained at the slow mo replay, in real time it absolutely looked like a foul. 
 

The game isn’t played in slow mo. It’s played by late teen to early 30’s athletes in absolute peak physical condition.
 

Make decisions based on the speed the game is played, not so some crusty old virgin, in a porta cabin, in some supermarket car park. 
 

I’ll still add, I’m am in favour of VAR. Done right, benefit to attackers, only calls out seriously bad calls, then, in theory, it should absolutely work.

[rubble-rouser 2,164]

1 hour ago, Barrington Womble said:

The thing is the VAR isn't supposed to share an opinion now. But they do! 

Yep, they obviously do - whenever a ref isn’t told to go to the monitor.

[Barrington Womble 8,549]

2 hours ago, rubble-rouser said:

Yep, they obviously do - whenever a ref isn’t told to go to the monitor.

Carragher reported the Brighton on last week the VAR told the ref "that's a pen, you need to look at the monitor".