How we fans stop VAR forever?

[Saint86]

Why would we stop var, its saved us loads of times this season.

 

Because some football fans are retarded and can't handle rules being implemented. Its VAR's fault they don't like the letter of the law being followed.

[benjii]

 

Offside law needs tweaking for when VAR is in use, more info on screens, referral system. Make it better.

 

But at least we don't get dry humped like this any more.

[Batman]

Luckily the authorities aren't listening to you and will be bringing in some common sense changes shortly. Thank goodness.

 

After the shambles we have seen from saints for most of the season, I will not believe that we have benefitted the most from VAR due to being extremely well drilled

[hypochondriac]

After the shambles we have seen from saints for most of the season, I will not believe that we have benefitted the most from VAR due to being extremely well drilled

I just don't understand why anyone would be in favour of the current implementation of var based on a very small number of games where we have happened to benefit.

[adrian lord]

I just don't understand why anyone would be in favour of the current implementation of var based on a very small number of games where we have happened to benefit.

 

Traffic Wardens.

[Lord Duckhunter]

You're not allowed to handle the ball so your arms shouldn't count as offside!!

 

They don’t.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Dark Munster]

The problem is that the technology is not accurate enough to judge whether or not an attacker is an inch offside.

Who cares? An inch is better than a mile. VAR should make a decision within 30 seconds. If he isn't sure by then the attacker isn't offside and the goal stands. He may make a few mistakes by fractions of an inch, but that's massively better than going back to the old way of a middle age man several feet behind play making an instant decision without a chance to review.

 

The idea of VAR is to eliminate clear and obvious errors, not to judge offside by nanometers. It will still be subjective, but to a much higher degree of accuracy.

[Whitey Grandad]

Who cares? An inch is better than a mile. VAR should make a decision within 30 seconds. If he isn't sure by then the attacker isn't offside and the goal stands. He may make a few mistakes by fractions of an inch, but that's massively better than going back to the old way of a middle age man several feet behind play making an instant decision without a chance to review.

 

The idea of VAR is to eliminate clear and obvious errors, not to judge offside by nanometers. It will still be subjective, but to a much higher degree of accuracy.

They aren’t middle-aged and they aren’t all men.

 

These are highly-trained and experienced officials that you’re talking about. They have to meet very stringent fitness tests. More importantly they are in the perfect position being right on the sideline and level with the second-last defender.

 

It is very rare that a VAR camera is looking square across the pitch.

[Batman]

They aren’t middle-aged and they aren’t all men.

 

These are highly-trained and experienced officials that you’re talking about. They have to meet very stringent fitness tests. More importantly they are in the perfect position being right on the sideline and level with the second-last defender.

 

It is very rare that a VAR camera is looking square across the pitch.

 

[wadesmith]

The trouble is what is then 'Marginal'? If i was a defender I literally wouldn't know how to do my job (we have enough trouble as it is). If a player is 5mm in front of me is that marginal?...or 8mm?..or a inch. Surely you have to define marginal, then bring in that ruling? Otherwise you're saying to a defender, 'Well a player can be infront of you as long as it's marginal. As a defender i would then say 'Ok what is marginal?'....and at that point the FA probably won't know what to say.

[adrian lord]

===

Edited 30 December, 2019 by adrian lord

[adrian lord]

They aren’t middle-aged and they aren’t all men.

 

These are highly-trained and experienced officials that you’re talking about. They have to meet very stringent fitness tests. More importantly they are in the perfect position being right on the sideline and level with the second-last defender.

 

It is very rare that a VAR camera is looking square across the pitch.

 

All of that is true but it doesn’t alter the fact that one linesperson on the sideline cannot look at two things simultaneously: the attacker and the second last defender and also the player at the point of making the pass.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Who cares? An inch is better than a mile. VAR should make a decision within 30 seconds. If he isn't sure by then the attacker isn't offside and the goal stands. He may make a few mistakes by fractions of an inch, but that's massively better than going back to the old way of a middle age man several feet behind play making an instant decision without a chance to review.

 

The idea of VAR is to eliminate clear and obvious errors, not to judge offside by nanometers. It will still be subjective, but to a much higher degree of accuracy.

 

So you’re accepting that some offside goals will now stand. You can bet your life these goals will be for the home side at Old Trafford, Anfield etc, rather than Turf Moor or Selhurst. Subjective decisions are subject to prejudice, you now propose we take factual ones and add that prejudice into the mix.

 

 

Is this 30 second rule just going to apply to offside. It seems bizarre that we can wait a minute for the technology to determine if a foul was inside or outside the box, but put a time limit on offside calls.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[aintforever]

Why would you want to change something that for once has us top of a league?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50944416

[Whitey Grandad]

All of that is true but it doesn’t alter the fact that one linesperson on the sideline cannot look at two things simultaneously: the attacker and the second last defender and also the player at the point of making the pass.

You can with enough practice. You can switch from one to the other quicker than a camera can take another frame.

[Whitey Grandad]

Why would you want to change something that for once has us top of a league?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50944416

 

But will we still be top at the end of the season?

[wadesmith]

If they bring in this whole 'Marginal' thing it will be a disaster for us. We will get bent over & they won't even use lube. On the other hand the 'Big Six' will be getting loads of 'Marginals' as it's in everyones interests for those teams to be battling for Europe as they have the biggest worldwide fanbases who buy more products, subscriptions, etc.. The advertisers don't want little old Saints disturbing the hierarchy.

[Batman]

You can with enough practice. You can switch from one to the other quicker than a camera can take another frame.

 

[stmusicdude]

So you are happy with it then?

 

What is with people on here? OMG How is saying we can't the same as saying we love it or we happy with it

[wadesmith]

Can you imagine i?. We're playing Liverpool. Somehow we've found ourselves a goal up with a minute to go. Liverpool need to win. They score a goal, and part of Saha's shoulder is shown as offside. At the moment, no problem goal doesn't get given. But now it can be called 'Marginal' You've got three Liverpool blokes in the Commentary box going mental, ready to explode. You've got a referee who knows him and his family are going to get pounded on social media with threats after the game if he doesn't give it. Oh guess what?... he uses the 'Marginal' card. Everyones happy.

[hypochondriac]

Why would you want to change something that for once has us top of a league?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50944416

Because its pathetic to have an opinion on this simply because your team has benefitted from the current rules over half a season.

[hypochondriac]

Can you imagine i?. We're playing Liverpool. Somehow we've found ourselves a goal up with a minute to go. Liverpool need to win. They score a goal, and part of Saha's shoulder is shown as offside. At the moment, no problem goal doesn't get given. But now it can be called 'Marginal' You've got three Liverpool blokes in the Commentary box going mental, ready to explode. You've got a referee who knows him and his family are going to get pounded on social media with threats after the game if he doesn't give it. Oh guess what?... he uses the 'Marginal' card. Everyones happy.

In reality there isn't going to be much controversy about goals that to the naked eye look onside. The Norwich goal in particular at the weekend is an example of a goal that would have been utterly uncontroversial had it been given. No one would have batted an eyelid.

[Dark Munster]

So you’re accepting that some offside goals will now stand. You can bet your life these goals will be for the home side at Old Trafford, Anfield etc, rather than Turf Moor or Selhurst. Subjective decisions are subject to prejudice, you now propose we take factual ones and add that prejudice into the mix.

 

Yes, and why is that a problem? We've had bad calls since the law was first introduced. Football is not an exact science. The idea is to eliminate the most egregious mistakes.

 

VAR mistakes will be marginal at worst. Sometimes the defending team will be lucky by a few mm, sometimes the attacking team will be. That's life, who cares? Just like a lucky bounce or deflection, take it on the chin and move on. This is not chess we are talking about. We want to avoid the ridiculous offside mistakes like the one in the Cup final

 

 

Is this 30 second rule just going to apply to offside. It seems bizarre that we can wait a minute for the technology to determine if a foul was inside or outside the box, but put a time limit on offside calls.

 

My suggestion is 30 seconds for all decisions (not just offside).

[Dark Munster]

They aren’t middle-aged and they aren’t all men.

 

These are highly-trained and experienced officials that you’re talking about. They have to meet very stringent fitness tests. More importantly they are in the perfect position being right on the sideline and level with the second-last defender.

 

It is very rare that a VAR camera is looking square across the pitch.

Video Assistant Referees are highly-trained and experienced officials that you’re talking about.

[Whitey Grandad]

Video Assistant Referees are highly-trained and experienced officials that you’re talking about.

And they are miles away from the action and looking at the game through blurry off-axis pictures.

[adrian lord]

You can with enough practice. You can switch from one to the other quicker than a camera can take another frame.

 

So you agree it is not simultaneous view. Unlike the still image of all key protagonists in the closest 1/50th second frame to the moment the ball was played.

 

It’s physically and physiologically impossible for a single human to scan search and accurately shift visual focus and attention to a second subject in better than 1/50 second. In fact humans manage it in 70-175 ms.

 

https://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2193692

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lord Duckhunter]

In reality there isn't going to be much controversy about goals that to the naked eye look onside. The Norwich goal in particular at the weekend is an example of a goal that would have been utterly uncontroversial had it been given. No one would have batted an eyelid.

 

You can’t un-invent the technology. Within minutes of an offside goal being allowed, the watching audience, everyone in the ground with access to texts will be aware that the goal was off side. What do you think Jose, or Klopp or the clubs supporters are going to say “it looked onside, so we’ll accept that offside goal costing us a champions league place”.

 

You could have a situation where a goal is denied by a toe nail when the technology deems the ball didn’t cross the line, but someone offside by a larger margin scores the winner up the other end .

 

 

You think nobody will bat an eyelid? Dream on...

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[hypochondriac]

You can’t un-invent the technology. Within minutes of an offside goal being allowed, the watching audience, everyone in the ground with access to texts will be aware that the goal was off side. What do you think Jose, or Klopp or the clubs supporters are going to say “it looked onside, so we’ll accept that offside goal costing us a champions league place”.

 

You could have a situation where a goal is denied by a toe nail when the technology deems the ball didn’t cross the line, but someone offside by a larger margin scores the winner up the other end .

 

 

You think nobody will bat an eyelid? Dream on...

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Had there been a reasonable margin of error involved and the first Norwich goal had been allowed, it would have been utterly uncontroversial. Had that Norwich goal stood, I don't think there would have been anyone that wouldn't have thought it was fair enough. I mean ffs I was watching the game with 4 spurs fans and they all thought it was mental and judging by the multiple texts on BBC sport also from spurs fans they clearly felt similar. Its quite simple really, var was introduced for clear and obvious errors. If it takes multiple camera angles and replays and it's still not 100% clear then it's not clear and obvious and the goal should stand. Sounds like they have listened to those complaints from fans who understand how the implementation is ruining the game and will make changes along those lines so happy days. It will displease the autists but it has to be done so we aren't continually disallowing goals by the width of a hair.

 

Edited 30 December, 2019 by hypochondriac

[Lord Duckhunter]

Had there been a reasonable margin of error involved and the first Norwich goal had been allowed, it would have been uncontroversial. Its quite simple really, var was introduced for clear and obvious errors. If it takes multiple camera angles and replays and it's still not 100% clear then it's not clear and obvious and the goal should stand. Sounds like they have listened to those complaints from fans who understand how the implementation is ruining the game and will make changes along those lines so happy days. It will displease the autists but it has to be done so we aren't continually disallowing goals by the width of a hair.

 

 

Do you really believe that had the Wolves goal stood despite being offside, Klopp would have just accepted it, said “it’s within the margin of error”. If it was as close a title race as last season’s, you really think allowing an offside goal will be uncontroversial. What about other hairline factual decisions, should they be subject to your margin of error.

 

VAR wasn’t brought in for clear and obvious errors only, it was also there to establish facts. Clear and obvious applies to subjective decisions. Whether the ball crossed the line, whether the foul was inside the box or out, whether the ball touched the goal scorers hand, whether a player is offside is not subjective and therefore clear and obvious doesn’t apply.

 

A Pandora’s box has been opened & if anyone thinks tinkering with factual decisions and allowing offside goals because they’re close, is going to make this go away they’re very much mistaken. At the moment the sense of un fairness felt by the aggrieved party is minimised by the fact the goal was offside. Wait until a side loses a big game by an offside goal. Had that been a cup final Sat & Palaces offside goal had stood, costing us a 2-1 defeat, I doubt you’d be quite so happy about it. Particularly when the technology proving it was offside was there to be used. This ain’t going away, so if there’s going to be controversy, I’d rather it was over a correct decision, than a wrong one.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited 31 December, 2019 by Lord Duckhunter

[hypochondriac]

Do you really believe that had the Wolves goal stood despite being offside, Klopp would have just accepted it, said “it’s within the margin of error”. If it was as close a title race as last season’s, you really think allowing an offside goal will be uncontroversial. What about other hairline factual decisions, should they be subject to your margin of error.

 

VAR wasn’t brought in for clear and obvious errors only, it was also there to establish facts. Clear and obvious applies to subjective decisions. Whether the ball crossed the line, whether the foul was inside the box or out, whether the ball touched the goal scorers hand, whether a player is offside is not subjective and therefore clear and obvious doesn’t apply.

 

A Pandora’s box has been opened & if anyone thinks tinkering with factual decisions and allowing offside goals because they’re close, is going to make this go away they’re very much mistaken. At the moment the sense of fairness felt by the aggrieved party is minimised by the fact the goal was offside. Wait until a side loses a big game by an offside goal. Had that been a cup final Sat & Palaces offside goal had stood, costing us a 2-1 defeat, I doubt you’d be quite so happy about it. Particularly when the technology proving it was offside was there to be used.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think the people who make the laws of the game know a bit better than we do about why var was brought in. Var "should not be too forensic" and "should only be used to reverse clear and obvious errors." That's literally the guidance that the law-makers of the game are issuing and once that's brought in the likes of klopp will have to like it or lump it. Var will then be used to stop travesties of justice like the Watford handball or the cup final against us but won't be analysed to the minute degree that it currently is which will suit me and seemingly many other fans just fine. My opinion would not be changed by an "offside" decision given as a goal because the difference on a video monitor is so minute that it's virtually imperceptible and the importance of a game would not change that fact. The Spurs fans I was with were saying they would have preferred that var were not used in that way even if it had meant them conceding. They know the downsides of it because they were on the other side of a similar position the previous week with Harry kane. Let's hope they push it through ASAP. Edited 31 December, 2019 by hypochondriac

[Whitey Grandad]

So you agree it is not simultaneous view. Unlike the still image of all key protagonists in the closest 1/50th second frame to the moment the ball was played.

 

It’s physically and physiologically impossible for a single human to scan search and accurately shift visual focus and attention to a second subject in better than 1/50 second. In fact humans manage it in 70-175 ms.

 

https://jov.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2193692

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It doesn’t work like that. The assistant is constantly scanning the field of view. Human visual awareness can cover many things simultaneously.

[Whitey Grandad]

You can’t un-invent the technology. Within minutes of an offside goal being allowed, the watching audience, everyone in the ground with access to texts will be aware that the goal was off side. What do you think Jose, or Klopp or the clubs supporters are going to say “it looked onside, so we’ll accept that offside goal costing us a champions league place”.

 

You could have a situation where a goal is denied by a toe nail when the technology deems the ball didn’t cross the line, but someone offside by a larger margin scores the winner up the other end .

 

 

You think nobody will bat an eyelid? Dream on...

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Following that argument it would be best to disallow all goals just to be sure.

[benjii]

Introducing a margin of error is wrong-headed. That margin needs to be defined so you're just moving the problem to incidents on the edge of the margin.

 

VAR should stay but laws need to adapt in a VAR environment to reflect its precision.

 

For offside, I would look at whether the rear part of the attacker is more advanced than the forward part of the relevant defender. It would favour attacking play and effectively reintroduce "daylight" as a concept, even if we accept that those calls may also be very fine.

[East Kent Saint]

If they get rid of mm offside decisions then excellent . They can deem a player onside if they are level as before say if their bodies are overlapping for example. Their suggestions they have made is that they won't go to VAR unless it is a clear and obvious mistake , which we were led to belive was the original cocept of VAR.

The other area that is unclear the checking of penalties , they are saying now that if VAR has to look at 6 or 7 camera angles then it is not clear and obvious so the Ref's decision will decide .

[adrian lord]

It doesn’t work like that. The assistant is constantly scanning the field of view. Human visual awareness can cover many things simultaneously.

 

It does work like that. FOV scanning and awareness are different from attention and focus, which happens after any single target is acquired. We cannot focus and attend to 2 targets simultaneously, which is the impossible task demanded of officials judging offside live.

 

VAR tech can. Why would they have it if it weren’t superior to humans in this respect?

 

The problem is VAR is in fact a victim of its own success, technical superiority to humans, and forensic fidelity. It is being applied pedantically to a law written for human eyes and subjectivity. The law needs revision.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[aintforever]

It doesn’t work like that. The assistant is constantly scanning the field of view. Human visual awareness can cover many things simultaneously.

 

You are talking complete ****** as usual grandad, the reason VAR was brought in was because so many decisions were regularly incorrect, sometimes spectacularly.

 

[Lord Duckhunter]

Following that argument it would be best to disallow all goals just to be sure.

 

No, just the offside ones...

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Whitey Grandad]

You are talking complete ****** as usual grandad, the reason VAR was brought in was because so many decisions were regularly incorrect, sometimes spectacularly.

 

 

And the VAR decisions are ‘correct’?

 

If that were true there wouldn’t be so much fuss and bother over them.

[Whitey Grandad]

It does work like that. FOV scanning and awareness are different from attention and focus, which happens after any single target is acquired. We cannot focus and attend to 2 targets simultaneously, which is the impossible task demanded of officials judging offside live.

 

VAR tech can. Why would they have it if it weren’t superior to humans in this respect?

 

The problem is VAR is in fact a victim of its own success, technical superiority to humans, and forensic fidelity. It is being applied pedantically to a law written for human eyes and subjectivity. The law needs revision.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It is possible with training to survey and evaluate the complete field of view. Some people can’t do it. Ironically the referee is in a good position to see both when the ball is kicked and whether the recipient is offside in most instances except for the tight calls which is where the assistant comes in.

 

You’re right, either the law must change or its application must be reviewed. There’s quite a bit about it in The Times today with FIFA talking about ‘clear daylight’ between the attacker and the defender. Apparently in the US MLS the VAR review of offside is done with the naked eye, no lines are artificially drawn across the pitch.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/new-pressure-for-overhaul-of-offside-law-bt57vgnfv (Possible paywall)

[Lord Duckhunter]

And the VAR decisions are ‘correct’?

 

If that were true there wouldn’t be so much fuss and bother over them.

 

You’re wrong...

 

Most of the fuss is over correct decisions.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Barry the Badger]

I don't think it's really that hard to fix. If it's SO close that you are having to zoom in and draw lines across a still image and then more lines up to their armpit/hand etc, advantage goes to the attacking team. If you can look at a still and see an offside without drawing lines, it's offside.

[hypochondriac]

You’re wrong...

 

Most of the fuss is over correct decisions.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Like I said, the football authorities obviously disagree with you which is why they are making the necessary changes.

[hypochondriac]

I don't think it's really that hard to fix. If it's SO close that you are having to zoom in and draw lines across a still image and then more lines up to their armpit/hand etc, advantage goes to the attacking team. If you can look at a still and see an offside without drawing lines, it's offside.

Yep that seems like common sense. Much better than the current system anyway.

[derry]

As defensive coaches get to grips with the implications, lines of defenders are going to be better drilled and as soon as a through ball looks imminent, defenders are going to be moving forward quickly in line setting an offside trap, that'll put the cat amongst the pigeons. The whingeing now is mostly a media campaign and managers etc of teams caught by the cameras offside. The sensible thing is stay onside. It's mostly thick forwards not paying attention to defensive lines and being caught out.

 

It won't matter where the line is drawn as there will always be marginal calls. Now that there is technology that gives proof, if VAR allows players to score goals when they are no longer level but marginally offside it will not be accepted ever. As people are already saying the reaction will be worse because now offside goals don't get given. Allowing marginally offside goals is a nonsense.

[badgerx16]

As long as it is seen to be consistent and impartial it will gradually become more accepted.

[hypochondriac]

As defensive coaches get to grips with the implications, lines of defenders are going to be better drilled and as soon as a through ball looks imminent, defenders are going to be moving forward quickly in line setting an offside trap, that'll put the cat amongst the pigeons. The whingeing now is mostly a media campaign and managers etc of teams caught by the cameras offside. The sensible thing is stay onside. It's mostly thick forwards not paying attention to defensive lines and being caught out.

 

It won't matter where the line is drawn as there will always be marginal calls. Now that there is technology that gives proof, if VAR allows players to score goals when they are no longer level but marginally offside it will not be accepted ever. As people are already saying the reaction will be worse because now offside goals don't get given. Allowing marginally offside goals is a nonsense.

You're wrong, footballing authorities, pundits and a majority of fans think you are wrong and guidance will soon, be changing so your view will be irrelevant.

[derry]

You're wrong, footballing authorities, pundits and a majority of fans think you are wrong and guidance will soon, be changing so your view will be irrelevant.

 

So you keep saying. However the PL have just said that they will not be changing the criteria in mid season as it could affect the integrity of the competition, The international body have just emphasised the clear and obvious intention.

Edited 31 December, 2019 by derry

[ecuk268]

They aren’t middle-aged and they aren’t all men.

 

These are highly-trained and experienced officials that you’re talking about. They have to meet very stringent fitness tests. More importantly they are in the perfect position being right on the sideline and level with the second-last defender.

 

It is very rare that a VAR camera is looking square across the pitch.

 

The problem is, if the ball is being played from deep on his side of the pitch, the linesman will have to turn his head nearly 90 degrees to see the exact moment when the ball is struck. Therefore he cannot see if a player standing in front of him is offside at that precise moment.

[derry]

Interestingly the EPL have only adopted part of the FIFA recommendations, as the unused part by the EPL, is the referee not viewing the monitor and only taking the advice from the VAR. It appears that the VAR is following the FIFA guidelines to the letter, as one of the criteria laid down is advising the referee in the event of the ball crossing the goal line and before a goal is awarded whether there is any infringement that will stop the goal being given. As it stands unless either the offside law is changed or officials turn a blind eye the current criteria will continue to be applied.

[hypochondriac]

So you keep saying. However the PL have just said that they will not be changing the criteria in mid season as it could affect the integrity of the competition, The international body have just emphasised the clear and obvious intention.

It's going to change even if its at the end of the season and we have to continue with the broken system until then. People like you will be upset but the vast majority will be very happy.