Spurs and VAR

SirNiNyHotspur

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2004
Messages
1,679
View attachment 55582

You've just got to laugh at how it's being applied this season.
The red line at the bottom stems from the outside edge of the dotted red, the blue line along the bottom stems from the inside edge of dotted blue, switch that and we are onside never mind where they decided to start the lines, VAR is there to correct obvious bad decisions, this is a disgrace.
 

Saoirse

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
3,148
Here's a challenge to the Premier League then.

Sit all the referees and linemen down seperately. Give them that image, and ask them to draw the line where Son's other arm starts. Repeat the exercise with nine other pictures. I guarentee you that not a single line will be drawn in the exact same place as another line. So how the fuck can they call that an objective decision.
 

Blackrat1299

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
4,717
I was under the impression that you are offside if the leading part of the body is goal scoring, the claim is that Son's Arm/Shoulder is the culprit, under their rules thats not offside.
 

Teemu

I Belong To Bale
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Messages
2,518
It was deployed perfectly at the World Cup - somehow, the fucking cretins in charge of the PL decided we had to use it differently and it’s been an abject failure.
Sorry what World Cup were you watching? Loads of contentious, subjective decisions there too. For example, Griezmann’s penalty v Australia where they showed about 10 different replays and still the pundits completely disagreed.

I’d go as far as saying it’s ruined football for me. As soon as our goal was disallowed I literally couldn’t bring myself to care about the rest of the game. Even when we got screwed over by a human refereeing decision that was never the case.
 

Danners9

Important First Team Player
Joined
Mar 30, 2004
Messages
13,083
I'm so disappointed with how it is being used. The World Cup showed that it could work. There are several leagues using it already, some better than others (hello, A-League). And we've got this.

We have the stoppages, the delays and the temporary uncertainty of whether it's a goal or not but without the ability to correct errors by the referees, particularly on penalties and even things like 2nd yellow cards (the West Ham player on Monday, for example).

Today is so close that you can't split it in real time and someone has to make a decision when to stop the video to decide.

I think most figured there would be clangers this season as they come to terms with the changes but we're seeing far more really, really marginal calls than clangers, I think. I get that they have been reviewed and deemed correct, but I think they should change what they see as 'correct' and allow for decisions that are deemed too close to call and be totally sure, given all the factors involved, and let play continue.
 

Spurrific

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2011
Messages
11,423
Sorry what World Cup were you watching? Loads of contentious, subjective decisions there too. For example, Griezmann’s penalty v Australia where they showed about 10 different replays and still the pundits completely disagreed.

I’d go as far as saying it’s ruined football for me. As soon as our goal was disallowed I literally couldn’t bring myself to care about the rest of the game. Even when we got screwed over by a human refereeing decision that was never the case.
Tbf - “perfectly” is a horrible choice of words. Was still seeing red Kill Bill style. It was still better than it’s been used here.

I agree though, it’s fucking awful. There was no cause to disallow our goal - if it’s debatable with a photo finish, you give the attackers the benefit. The officials aren’t applying logic or the foundation of football to their decisions. Evans kicked out at Rose and they didn’t check it, Son’s arm hair is offside and they do some CSI enhances.
 

SargeantMeatCurtains

Your least favourite poster
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
6,885
You have to question the thinking behind why they do such “forensic” investigating on the offside line and yet, at no point during the VAR check, did they check for the exact moment the ball left Ndombele’s foot.

The system is very evidently not fit for purpose and it’s just another failing by the Premier League when it comes to the officiating in the biggest, most profitable league in world football.
 

LeSoupeKitchen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
2,022
I could stomach a decision like today if it was working well elsewhere. It would be an unfortunate consequence of having technology that pit things like penalty decisions right. But all we've got is this unfortunate consequence.
 

TheVoiceofReason

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
5,231
I hate it.

It’s a stale brand of fun when it goes our way, and when it goes against us it’s fucking miserable.

Plus it’s utterly riddled with human and scientific shortcomings.
 

Dannyspur

I just don't know anymore!
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
6,004
A player is in an offside position if:
  • any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
  • any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent
  • The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered.
A player is not in an offside position if level with the:
  • second-last opponent or
  • last two opponents
Offside offence

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
  • interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
  • interfering with an opponent by:
  • preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
  • challenging an opponent for the ball or
  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
*The first point of contact of the 'play' or 'touch' of the ball should be used


Seems like it should be measured as the passer touches the ball and not when it leaves his boot according to the bit in italics. And it clealy says body head or feet and makes it clear arms don't count. I think it was too close to call and therefore level and the goal should have stood.
 

worcestersauce

"I'm no optimist I'm just a prisoner of hope
Joined
Jan 23, 2006
Messages
20,570
I want to see the line of the player's boot and the line of the edge of the ball at the point the boot touches the ball and until I get that I will never accept an offside decision that close.
 

Spurrific

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2011
Messages
11,423
When you take into account technology was involved - it’s one of the worst decisions I’ve ever seen.
 

Phomesy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
6,575
Perhaps more worrying was that the linesman managed to miss that almost the entire Leicester team was offside for their goal which VAR rightly chalked off.

I understand and agree with the idea that "offside is offside" so a foot or an inch shouldn't matter.

But this was millimetres. So unless there's technology that can be absolutely certain in such fine margins - and I don't believe this is the case with VAR - then its hard to understand how VAR could, or should, overrule the on-field decision.
 

JCRD

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Messages
4,947
Perhaps more worrying was that the linesman managed to miss that almost the entire Leicester team was offside for their goal which VAR rightly chalked off.

I understand and agree with the idea that "offside is offside" so a foot or an inch shouldn't matter.

But this was millimetres. So unless there's technology that can be absolutely certain in such fine margins - and I don't believe this is the case with VAR - then its hard to understand how VAR could, or should, overrule the on-field decision.
I think they are told if in doubt keep the flag down and let the play play out then go back to VAR. To be honest I didnt spot the offside then again i was too busy shielding my eyes
 

spud

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2003
Messages
4,470
I was - and probably still am - in favour of the use of VAR, because it has to be better to arrive at correct decisions than for bad ones to affect the outcomes of games. However, I thought that its use would be less controversial and, for want of a better word, 'fairer' than it is now.

The 'clear and obvious error' criterion for assessing whether a foul has been committed will always be subjective. It is extremely rare that everybody agrees that a foul has been committed. But the decisions regarding offside and handball (under the new rule where 'intent' is removed from the handball decision) should, in theory, be straightforward. These are determined by fact with no room for subjective judgement and should not be controversial.

The ruling out of Aurier's goal today disproves that. I don't know whether Son was offside; and that is the point. The use of technology should clearly establish whether a player is offside or not. Today it didn't. The relative positions of forward and defender meant that it took several minutes for the VAR to decide that Son was offside; and that decision is still being debated several hours after the incident. That is clearly not right.

Before VAR the interpretation of the rule was to give the benefit of any doubt to the attacking player. In circumstances such as today's - when offside wasn't given during play - that rule should apply. If the VAR takes several minutes to decide whether a player is offside even with the assistance of the technology being employed then the incident was clearly too close to call and the on-field decision should stand. In this case, the goal should have stood. If it had been blown as offside when the ball was passed to Son then that decision should have stood.

The purpose of VAR is to achieve correct decisions, but at what cost? If the decision regarding whether a player is offside comes down to an atomic measurement then it is clearly too close to call and the on-field decision should stand. Today the letter of the law was (possibly) applied to the detriment of its spirit. Incidents such as this undermine the purpose of the use of VAR and are detrimental to not only the match that they affect but also to the game in general.

This has to change. Either VAR has to be scrapped - which won't happen - or the approach needs to be modified to avoid a repeat of what happened today. It should take no longer than around thirty seconds to determine the correct decision. If the technology can't illustrate from the first review of an incident that the player was offside then the on-field decision should stand.
 

Phomesy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2013
Messages
6,575
I think they are told if in doubt keep the flag down and let the play play out then go back to VAR. To be honest I didnt spot the offside then again i was too busy shielding my eyes
It was yards offside. It's a very worrying trend.
 

LeParisien

Wrong about everything
Joined
Mar 5, 2018
Messages
1,047
Please let me know if I’m wrong on any of this ...

I’ve read that VAR works at between 60 and 120 frames per second. Let’s say 100 for simplicity. That means between one frame and the next, 0.01s have passed.

If a player is moving at 10m/s then in 0.01s they have moved 10cm. Between one frame and the next there could be a 10cm difference.

Therefore VAR should NEVER be used if the player is offside by less than 10cm and onside in the preceding frame to the one that is being used to adjudicate. The frame rate simply does not allow that degree of accuracy.

If a player is in movement then if a player is 2/3cm or so offside then I cannot see how VAR can have any confidence in the outcome. Benefit of the doubt should go to the attacker.

Does anyone know if these issues have been considered? Massive potential flaw
 

LeSoupeKitchen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
2,022
The worst thing about this is that people can't distinguish between good VAR decisions and bad ones. It seems if VAR ever goes against you then youve been screwed over.

So many Man City fans calling us hypocrites for complaining about it.
 

LeSoupeKitchen

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
2,022
Please let me know if I’m wrong on any of this ...

I’ve read that VAR works at between 60 and 120 frames per second. Let’s say 100 for simplicity. That means between one frame and the next, 0.01s have passed.

If a player is moving at 10m/s then in 0.01s they have moved 10cm. Between one frame and the next there could be a 10cm difference.

Therefore VAR should NEVER be used if the player is offside by less than 10cm and onside in the preceding frame to the one that is being used to adjudicate. The frame rate simply does not allow that degree of accuracy.

If a player is in movement then if a player is 2/3cm or so offside then I cannot see how VAR can have any confidence in the outcome. Benefit of the doubt should go to the attacker.

Does anyone know if these issues have been considered? Massive potential flaw
This and also the fact that the striker being tight on the defender is a crucial part of the game. If we're talking these ridiculously small margins then the way a striker plays will be fundamentally changed. There is no way a player can be conscious of being 1cm offside so will have to try and be 50cm onside.
 
Top