| This VAR business 19:15 - Dec 28 with 7179 views | MrSwerve |
All a bit odd, innit. |  |
| |  |
| This VAR business on 16:17 - Dec 30 with 1141 views | grampajack |
| This VAR business on 15:26 - Dec 30 by Badlands |
Like being pregnant .. you are offside or onside ... he was off-side so wha's the problem? |
no - ridiculous comparison imho . Sorry but I bit  
VAR is not making decisions. A person is making a subjective (is it subjective or objective?) decision based on information derived from inaccurate dynamic data received from sensors / cameras (fixed positions?). Ironically, it is a person making a subjective decision about what they see based on multi shot, multi angle. slo- mo, against a person making a subjective decision with 1 look, from 1 angle, supported of course by their glamorous assistants. The issue is CLEAR AND OBVIOUS. If it takes 1 or 2 angles to see the issue, then that is ok. If it takes 15 views from 8 different angles and then we drop lines from best guess points, then that is NOT CLEAR AND OBVIOUS and we should go with the on field decision.. That is the problem with VAR.
Goal technology is easier as it is a static situation where the inner edge of the goal line does not move.
   |  | | |
| This VAR business on 16:20 - Dec 30 with 1134 views | sherpajacob |
Get rid of the lines measuring it to the nearest millimetre.
I'm happy for someone to provide evidence otherwise, but I cant see how they can determine the exact millisecond the ball is played, which is rather crucial as to when they draw the lines.
By all means use VAR for offside, so that we don't get the absolute howlers, but the decision should be made by the VAR official using human eyeball mark 1.
That way both the Norwich and the Wolves goal would have stood. [Post edited 30 Dec 2019 16:21]
|  |
| |
| This VAR business on 16:22 - Dec 30 with 1131 views | Cooperman |
| This VAR business on 16:00 - Dec 30 by MrSwerve |
I can see what you’re saying, but it would be more acceptable to give these rediculous offsides if the majority of the attacker is offside, rather than 1% of his body being offside. |
This then opens a whole new debate about shifting the balance of power between the defender and the attacker. |  |
| |
| This VAR business on 16:42 - Dec 30 with 1101 views | MrSwerve |
| This VAR business on 16:22 - Dec 30 by Cooperman |
This then opens a whole new debate about shifting the balance of power between the defender and the attacker. |
Indeed - it’s a tough one. | |
| |
| This VAR business on 16:42 - Dec 30 with 1101 views | Cooperman |
My suggested solution for offside rulings is a fairly simple one.
The full kit vvanker sat in Stockley Park gets to chose one camera angle with which he can view only one replay. He or she then has fifteen seconds to make a decision and failure to do this defaults the answer to that of onside.
IMO this helps with the elimination of clear and obvious errors and exhaustion of the fifteen seconds and subsequent default ruling gives that little bit of advantage to the attacker. | |
| |
| This VAR business on 16:58 - Dec 30 with 1083 views | exiledclaseboy |
| This VAR business on 16:42 - Dec 30 by Cooperman |
My suggested solution for offside rulings is a fairly simple one.
The full kit vvanker sat in Stockley Park gets to chose one camera angle with which he can view only one replay. He or she then has fifteen seconds to make a decision and failure to do this defaults the answer to that of onside.
IMO this helps with the elimination of clear and obvious errors and exhaustion of the fifteen seconds and subsequent default ruling gives that little bit of advantage to the attacker. |
If it isn’t a clear error which can’t be spotted quickly, the on field decision should stand. Like in cricket.
Either that or get rid of it altogether except for the goal line decisions. That’s my preference anyway. |  |
| |
| This VAR business on 17:10 - Dec 30 with 1070 views | SwanDownUnder |
f*ck you are boring | | | |
| This VAR business on 17:12 - Dec 30 with 1069 views | Libertarian |
| This VAR business on 17:32 - Dec 29 by union_jack |
Another ludicrous decision in the Liverpool game denying Wolves an equaliser.
Surely VAR should only disallow a goal if it is clearly offside not by the width of a shoelace. |
I agree. Only disallow a goal if he is obviously offside. Get rid of the gridlines which have introduced the “offside or onside by an inch” and let the VAR officials decide if he’s obviously offside or not.
For close decisions, I’d give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking side. So if it’s close, then the attacking side gets the advantage.
You’d need the “benefit of doubt” ruling to decide the very close ones. Whether it benefits the attacking or defending side can be debated, but at least you’d know which way the decision would go in those cases. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| This VAR business on 17:14 - Dec 30 with 1063 views | SwanDownUnder |
| This VAR business on 16:58 - Dec 30 by exiledclaseboy |
If it isn’t a clear error which can’t be spotted quickly, the on field decision should stand. Like in cricket.
Either that or get rid of it altogether except for the goal line decisions. That’s my preference anyway. |
Yes | | | |
| This VAR business on 17:35 - Dec 30 with 1035 views | 34dfgdf54 |
| This VAR business on 17:10 - Dec 30 by SwanDownUnder |
f*ck you are boring |
 |  | | |
| This VAR business on 17:37 - Dec 30 with 1032 views | Cooperman |
| This VAR business on 16:58 - Dec 30 by exiledclaseboy |
If it isn’t a clear error which can’t be spotted quickly, the on field decision should stand. Like in cricket.
Either that or get rid of it altogether except for the goal line decisions. That’s my preference anyway. |
If football could adopt a Hawkeye type solution then I think a lot of this noise would go away - a quick, timely and trustworthy presentation of the evidence.
VAR for offside rulings is currently lines on a blurry screen. | |
| |
| This VAR business on 17:41 - Dec 30 with 1025 views | Cooperman |
| This VAR business on 17:10 - Dec 30 by SwanDownUnder |
f*ck you are boring |
What, all of us? | |
| |
| This VAR business on 17:42 - Dec 30 with 1021 views | exiledclaseboy |
| This VAR business on 17:37 - Dec 30 by Cooperman |
If football could adopt a Hawkeye type solution then I think a lot of this noise would go away - a quick, timely and trustworthy presentation of the evidence.
VAR for offside rulings is currently lines on a blurry screen. |
Those lines are provided by Hawk Eye apparently. | |
| |
| This VAR business on 17:46 - Dec 30 with 1015 views | Cooperman |
| This VAR business on 17:42 - Dec 30 by exiledclaseboy |
Those lines are provided by Hawk Eye apparently. |
I didn’t know that. I’m therefore wondering what tech is used in cricket that isn’t in offside rulings. Certainly the speed of replay / image viewing seems to be much slower in the football version.
Ball tracking is generally excellent and nobody argues with the outcome. | |
| |
| This VAR business on 18:07 - Dec 30 with 988 views | sherpajacob |
| This VAR business on 17:46 - Dec 30 by Cooperman |
I didn’t know that. I’m therefore wondering what tech is used in cricket that isn’t in offside rulings. Certainly the speed of replay / image viewing seems to be much slower in the football version.
Ball tracking is generally excellent and nobody argues with the outcome. |
its much easier to be accurate in cricket and tennis as there are fewer variables
The stumps don't move and the tram lines don't move, whereas the offside line does move constantly depending on the positions of the defenders. The VAR decisions are being made to the millimetre, yet if they moved the film back or forward a frame the offside line could move sufficiently to change the decision
also with offside there is a need to determine the exact moment the ball is played, there is no such need for LBW or Tennis, only the need the track the flight trajectory, which is relatively easy.
Even cricket which seems currently to have the best grasp of technology reverts a decision back to umpires call when its within a margin for error. The VAR system and PL do not seem to admit there is any margin for error within their system, that is the major failing. Introduce a margin for error and most of the issues will be resolved. | |
| |
| This VAR business on 18:28 - Dec 30 with 975 views | ploppy |
| This VAR business on 17:46 - Dec 30 by Cooperman |
I didn’t know that. I’m therefore wondering what tech is used in cricket that isn’t in offside rulings. Certainly the speed of replay / image viewing seems to be much slower in the football version.
Ball tracking is generally excellent and nobody argues with the outcome. |
Ball tracking is relatively easy though. Tracking irregular shapes, like players, not so. And then you have the added problem that only parts of the irregular shapes are relevant as far as offside is concerned. So you somehow have to cross-reference a well tracked object with a poorly tracked object, of which only some parts apply. Good luck with that.
Some sense, at last:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50944416
Thing is, almost everyone - players, fans, managers, pundits agree this is cr@p. So there is hope. The only ones who are spoiling it are the tossers in Stockley Park and the people advising them.
If they don't do something about it, we'll be hearing a lot more "It's not football anymore". [Post edited 30 Dec 2019 18:38]
| | | |
| This VAR business on 18:43 - Dec 30 with 955 views | dobjack2 |
| This VAR business on 17:12 - Dec 30 by Libertarian |
I agree. Only disallow a goal if he is obviously offside. Get rid of the gridlines which have introduced the “offside or onside by an inch” and let the VAR officials decide if he’s obviously offside or not.
For close decisions, I’d give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking side. So if it’s close, then the attacking side gets the advantage.
You’d need the “benefit of doubt” ruling to decide the very close ones. Whether it benefits the attacking or defending side can be debated, but at least you’d know which way the decision would go in those cases. |
The self important muppets in Stockley Park are overstepping their remit and fecking up games. The officials are in charge and only if there is a glaring mistake should they intervene.
Instead of sticking to the guidelines they are looking at each goal to see if there is even the slightest issue. Not what was intended. | | | |
| This VAR business on 18:45 - Dec 30 with 954 views | MrSwerve |
Like I said...you need ankle detection or bibs or something like that to detect offsides...at least then it would be black or white. You’d still get people arguing watching the replays though. | |
| |
| This VAR business on 19:04 - Dec 30 with 941 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| This VAR business on 16:12 - Dec 30 by Algorfajack |
Spot on Highjack, 'clear & obvious error'. I seem to remember that the offside law referred to 'seeking to gain an advantage by being in an offside position'.
Having your little toe ahead of the defence is hardly breaking that law, is it |
Also how can someone kicking the ball in to your arm which is against your body, ie the ball would hit your body if it didn't hit your arm be considered "hand ball" which supposedly gives you an advantage?
Or similarly at your face which you automatically defend with your arms. | | | |
| This VAR business on 19:19 - Dec 30 with 937 views | Fergal |
Who says that the ball was played at that very micro second anyways?
Where's the evidence they're getting that bit right? | | | |
| This VAR business on 19:20 - Dec 30 with 932 views | SwanDownUnder |
| This VAR business on 17:41 - Dec 30 by Cooperman |
What, all of us? |
just you | | | |
| This VAR business on 19:38 - Dec 30 with 924 views | dobjack2 |
| This VAR business on 18:45 - Dec 30 by MrSwerve |
Like I said...you need ankle detection or bibs or something like that to detect offsides...at least then it would be black or white. You’d still get people arguing watching the replays though. |
“VAR will be used only for "clear and obvious errors" or "serious missed incidents" in four match-changing situations: goals; penalty decisions; direct red-card incidents; and mistaken identity.
But factual decisions such as offsides, and the issue of whether a player is inside or outside the penalty area, are not subject to the "clear and obvious" test.
If the VAR sees an error has been made in such a situation they will intervene, regardless of how marginal the decision is.
There will be a high bar for the VARs to intervene on subjective decisions, to maintain the pace and intensity of matches.”
Therein lies the problem with VAR factual decisions I.e offsides “if the VAR sees an error”
As the play is stopped at a goal the VAR appears to be looking for an “error” that they may not have seen in real time rather than just checking if they think they have seen a wrong decision. Seems not to be in the spirit of what was intended but is causing similar problems in Other leagues as well. | | | |
| This VAR business on 23:24 - Dec 30 with 848 views | Cooperman |
On the contrary I’ve had a lovely evening. You on the other hand have spent it alone drinking cans of lukewarm Special Brew. | |
| |
| This VAR business on 07:20 - Dec 31 with 784 views | TimTtam |
https://www.foxsports.com.au/football/a-league/epl-a-league-var-referees-uk-medi
A big concern with VAR is that people are confused with the decisions. Does is matter of an arm is offside? Which incidents can VAR overturn? Why has VAR come to a specific incident? Australia has been using VAR for 2 & 1/2 years now and after some bumps to begin with, it's running smoother nowadays.
The good thing is that fans can hear the refs talking through the decisions while VAR is being used. And they sometimes give an interview after the game to explain. In the EPL we have no idea why the ref has come to their decision.
Not from the article - "The use of VAR has been credited with assisting the 2018 edition's status as the cleanest World Cup since 1986, after no red cards were issued in the opening 11 games and only four players were sent off in the entire tournament which was the fewest since 1978. 22 goals were scored from 29 awarded penalty kicks, beating the previous record of 17 penalty kick goals set in the 1998 tournament; the dramatic increase in the number of penalties awarded at the 2018 World Cup has been attributed to VAR catching fouls which would otherwise have remained unpunished."
VAR is necessary. But the decisions have to be clearer, correct, and made with common sense. If there is no VAR, we have horrible decisions. We were robbed of an FA Cup Semi Final appearance, and Cardiff were robbed of PL survival ( ). |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
