The VAR Thread

[mr ashley]

UEFA.tv

Register for free to watch live streaming of select UEFA competitions, match highlights, great goals and more great football video.

www.uefa.tv

When there is no football its either pornhub or twitter - found this on twitter obviously.. I thought it was fascinating in poarticular the spurs semi against City and the final (first time ive seen the goals and parts of the game back since the game itself)

Loved watching this. Thank you for sharing it, very informative

 

[sausage]

Interesting one from that side of the Atlantic

 

[al_pacino]

That doesn't look like the best decision.

 

[sausage]

That doesn't look like the best decision.

Graham Scott would be like

 

[Tucker]

Looked like studs up to me. He got the ball, but it’s still a foul, probably not a sending off though.

 

[Marty]

Looked like studs up to me. He got the ball, but it’s still a foul, probably not a sending off though.

Yeah the foul is clear for me. The yellow the ref gives is maybe a bit harsh but understandable. The red is just too much.

 

[chrissivad]

Any one watch much Dutch football?

I like the idea of having the thicker lines to measure offsides.

How The Premier League Could Use Eredivisie System To Solve VAR

It could be revolutionary...

www.sportbible.com

 

[nailsy]

Any one watch much Dutch football?

I like the idea of having the thicker lines to measure offsides.

How The Premier League Could Use Eredivisie System To Solve VAR

It could be revolutionary...

www.sportbible.com

I've been saying we should do something like this for ages.

 

[chrissivad]

I've been saying we should do something like this for ages.

Same, i liked the idea when it was brought up before.
We would still get the lines to make sure they touch ect, but gives the attackers more of the benefit

 

['O Zio]

Any one watch much Dutch football?

I like the idea of having the thicker lines to measure offsides.

How The Premier League Could Use Eredivisie System To Solve VAR

It could be revolutionary...

www.sportbible.com

It's a good idea but still doesn't go far enough IMO. They're saying it's like a 10cm benefit of the doubt but PGMOL or whoever it is already admitted themselves that there's effectively a 30cm margin of error due to the frame rate of the bloody cameras they use.

The solution for me would be that the decision should have to be wrong enough that you can clearly see that the player is offside without having to use all these lines etc. The fact that they feel the need the fiddle about with these lines for so long is, too me, indication enough that the striker was so close to being inside that they gained no advantage anyway and therefore the goal should stand.

 

[chrissivad]

It's a good idea but still doesn't go far enough IMO. They're saying it's like a 10cm benefit of the doubt but PGMOL or whoever it is already admitted themselves that there's effectively a 30cm margin of error due to the frame rate of the bloody cameras they use.

The solution for me would be that the decision should have to be wrong enough that you can clearly see that the player is offside without having to use all these lines etc. The fact that they feel the need the fiddle about with these lines for so long is, too me, indication enough that the striker was so close to being inside that they gained no advantage anyway and therefore the goal should stand.

The problem with 'clearly see' is that you might clearly see that someone is offside, but someone else might not.

Twitter would be full of images of people drawing their own lines to show someone is clearly off or on side.

Do me I would rather the lines.

 

['O Zio]

The problem with 'clearly see' is that you might clearly see that someone is offside, but someone else might not.

Twitter would be full of images of people drawing their own lines to show someone is clearly off or on side.

Do me I would rather the lines.

But that's partly my point. The lines don't work because it's falsely implying that the image is accurate when by their own admission it's not.

 

[Partizan]

Any one watch much Dutch football?

I like the idea of having the thicker lines to measure offsides.

How The Premier League Could Use Eredivisie System To Solve VAR

It could be revolutionary...

www.sportbible.com

This is almost exactly what I've been thinking for a while now.

Also even though a player can score with his head/shoulder/sleeve etc I'd rather they only use the foot as the reference point when drawing the lines, just for the sake of simplifying it a bit.

 

[chrissivad]

But that's partly my point. The lines don't work because it's falsely implying that the image is accurate when by their own admission it's not.

The line can work, and I'm not sure anyone is saying that the still image is 100% accurate. That's why there would be a need for a thicker line to reduce the error/give benefit to the attacker.

It's got to be more accurate that asking someone to do it by eye

 

[sausage]

When people complain about footballers "diving" when they fall over from contact... this is why:

INCIDENT: Ben Chilwell challenges Leeds winger Ian Poveda in the box and makes contact with man and not ball. Poveda stays on his feet but the phase comes to nothing as Edouard Mendy saves the winger's tame effort. VAR did not intervene, and Kevin Friend's decision not to punish the challenge stood.

VERDICT: "If Poveda goes down, the referee has a different decision to make, there is no doubt about that. I have said in the past that referees need to be aware that a foul can be committed even if a player stays on their feet.

"What I would say is that VAR was wise to stay out of this because it's not there to decide whether the referee has got something wrong, it's there to make a judgement whether a player, manager, coach or spectator in unison would say that something is definitely wrong, a clear and obvious error.

"I would say on that basis, this decision needed to be left to the referee on the field. It's a very different decision when a player stops on his feet, and this is why players say they go to ground. We have talked about it for years and year.

"We never know, the referee may have made the same decision had Poveda gone down, but on the evidence of what I saw on Saturday and the protocol I have read through, the VAR had no right to intervene."

 

[al_pacino]

It's a shame the the Walker on Rashford didn't as far as looking at the penalty in the context of the one West Brom had overturned at Old Trafford a few weeks ago. It looked at least as soft to me but would the ref have agreed?

 

[nailsy]

It's a good idea but still doesn't go far enough IMO. They're saying it's like a 10cm benefit of the doubt but PGMOL or whoever it is already admitted themselves that there's effectively a 30cm margin of error due to the frame rate of the bloody cameras they use.

The solution for me would be that the decision should have to be wrong enough that you can clearly see that the player is offside without having to use all these lines etc. The fact that they feel the need the fiddle about with these lines for so long is, too me, indication enough that the striker was so close to being inside that they gained no advantage anyway and therefore the goal should stand.

But the offside isn't always obvious because of the angle of the image. At least with the lines they should be able to get that part right.

 

['O Zio]

But the offside isn't always obvious because of the angle of the image. At least with the lines they should be able to get that part right.

Well that's the thing, they've admitted themselves that the lines aren't accurate so it's farcical that they make these mm calls one way or the other.

I appreciate that theres no good way to tell because of the angle but my argument is that if it's close enough that you can't really tell from the normal replay, then it's close enough that the attacker is not gaining much of an advantage even if they are offside and, therefore, should be given the benefit of the doubt or the call should go with whatever the officials on the pitch decided, for example.

The point of the offside rule is to stop people goalhanging, so whether or not the striker was a couple of inches ahead of the defender when the ball is played should really be neither here nor there. Let alone when it's a matter of mm

 

[nailsy]

Well that's the thing, they've admitted themselves that the lines aren't accurate so it's farcical that they make these mm calls one way or the other.

I appreciate that theres no good way to tell because of the angle but my argument is that if it's close enough that you can't really tell from the normal replay, then it's close enough that the attacker is not gaining much of an advantage even if they are offside and, therefore, should be given the benefit of the doubt or the call should go with whatever the officials on the pitch decided, for example.

The point of the offside rule is to stop people goalhanging, so whether or not the striker was a couple of inches ahead of the defender when the ball is played should really be neither here nor there. Let alone when it's a matter of mm

I can't disagree with any of that. Personally I wouldn't mind if they just decided without the lines, but are managers, players, pundits, etc going to going to accept those decisions? The moaning about decisions is almost as bad as getting the decisions wrong.

 

['O Zio]

I can't disagree with any of that. Personally I wouldn't mind if they just decided without the lines, but are managers, players, pundits, etc going to going to accept those decisions? The moaning about decisions is almost as bad as getting the decisions wrong.

I get what you mean, but i suppose it comes down to people settling on what VAR is trying to achieve. As they've shown already, the limitations of the technology (and some of the daft wording of the rules) mean that it's not possible for VAR to get 100% of the decisions "correct", or at least get everyone to unanimously agree with every single decision. However, the way it's being run at the moment is as if they believe that is what they're supposed to be doing, which is leading to all these ridiculous decisions like handballs, mm offsides, penalty retakes etc. etc.

If they take a step back and think about what it is people actually wanted. VAR to do, it was to stop the massive miscarriages of justice where the ref had got a decision horribly wrong and everyone and their dog could see it was wrong, yet the ref was hung out to dry and mistakenly award a penalty or allow a goal that was 5 yds offside etc. What I've said above would play into that. Nobody wanted VAR on the basis that it would catch people 1mm offside, so if it's as close as that and you can't obviously tell they're offside then the decision should be that they gained no advantage anyway and so should be given the benefit of the doubt. I think you'd still end up with some managers moaning when they lost the game but that'll be the case no matter what you do. I'd bet 90% would rather that than what we have now.

They still wouldn't get it 100% right every time, but they'd get it a lot more than they would without any technology and it would avoid those glaring refereeing errors while cutting out the fannying around with lines which nobody is ever going to be happy with.