How we fans stop VAR forever?

[hypochondriac]

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.

Fancy a bet? This time next year things will have changed. Happy for a small wager with the loser to, donate to charity.

[jamesfp1]

For me the only change required is to stop the armpit thing and use the players feet as a measure. And maybe make it so if the red and blue lines are touching - it means the players are level.

[Lord Duckhunter]

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

 

They’re not changing the offside rule.

 

You can’t argue with a fact, those players were offside.

 

The only argument is whether the offside rule should be strictly enforced or not. Personally, I don’t understand why it wouldn’t be.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[derry]

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.

 

Fancy a bet? This time next year things will have changed. Happy for a small wager with the loser to, donate to charity.

 

You really do come across as a proper prat. Firstly why would you think I'd get upset over something I have no control over and secondly why would I care what you think. I have a view I've expressed it, others have different views I accept that. I think the major problem is the cheating football world hasn't the self discipline to accept decisions and get over it.

The sooner the better the FA copy other sports and come down hard on dissent etc the better the game will be. Happy New Year.

[hypochondriac]

You really do come across as a proper prat. Firstly why would you think I'd get upset over something I have no control over and secondly why would I care what you think. I have a view I've expressed it, others have different views I accept that. I think the major problem is the cheating football world hasn't the self discipline to accept decisions and get over it.

The sooner the better the FA copy other sports and come down hard on dissent etc the better the game will be. Happy New Year.

No the football World just doesn't want pedantic a*seholes to be in charge of the game ruining it for normal fans who don't want goal validity to be decided by a hair width. It will be adressed as soon as practically possible because most fans realise it isn't good for the game.

 

If you think it doesn't need changing and won't be changed then that's fine. You're not right but you're entitled to that opinion.

[Dark Munster]

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.

Exactly this, no margin of error nonsense. It's either decided as offside or not. As others have said, change the rule to use players' feet only as the measure, to keep it simple. 30 seconds looking at the freeze frame of when the ball leaves the passing player's foot, and decide if the attacker's foot is level or behind the defender's. If in doubt, the goal stands.

 

For defending teams who whine that they think the attacking player was 5 mm offside, tough luck. You shouldn't have held such a tight line. If it's that close you can expect both good and bad calls. Be happy that you will no longer be on the wrong end of 1 metre errors. The same applies to attacking teams who lose out on tight calls.

[Charlie Wayman]

Saints have benefitted most from VAR this season.

[Dark Munster]

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.

I don't think there's anything wrong with drawing a line and zooming in, but I agree with the gist of what you're saying. Give the VAR 30 seconds max to come to decision, and the attacking team gets the benefit of the doubt.

[simo]

I'm more than happy to have Var helping keep us up !

[macca155]

We might be top of the VAR league at the moment, but we all know that karma will come round to bite us.

 

I don't like it but I accept its needed. Some of the the top 6 are struggling a bit with 'level playing field' and the league is more open than before. Bar Liverpool of course but maybe they are just a really good side.

 

It will improve as time goes on but they must speed up decisions.

 

The problem could be solved instantly by allowing replays in the ground. In cricket and rugby the fans are part of the decision, they cam see what's going on and have the same experience as those watching on TV. The PL have to allow this.

 

Also give each manager one appeal per match. It is an additional skill and would add to the game.

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

[Nolan]

There is no problem with VAR.

 

There is a problem in the rules that VAR is ruling on.

 

Simplify and tidy up the rules so more decisions are binary rather than subjective and VAR will run smoothly.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

Simplify and tidy up the rules so more decisions are binary rather than subjective and VAR will run smoothly.

 

The complaints aren’t about subjective decisions.

 

People are complaining that VAR is ruling players in offside positions are offside and therefore offside goals are being disallowed.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[badgerx16]

.

 

The problem could be solved instantly by allowing replays in the ground. In cricket and rugby the fans are part of the decision, they cam see what's going on and have the same experience as those watching on TV. The PL have to allow this.

 

They were saying on R5Live yesterday that at OT and Anfield they don't want to put big screens in because it would mean losing some seats !

[hypochondriac]

The complaints aren’t about subjective decisions.

 

People are complaining that VAR is ruling players in offside positions are offside and therefore offside goals are being disallowed.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Is the technology 100% accurate?

[Whitey Grandad]

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.

 

That’s the point. You don’t have to turn your head because your field of view is 120 degrees. Some people can’t assimilate the complete field of view and are called ‘head turners’. These people have to point their head towards whatever they’re looking at. Others can see what’s happening out of the sides of their eyes.

 

The assistant (linesman) automatically positions him/herself level with the second to last defender so that when the ball is kicked they only need to decide whether the attacker is nearer the goal than themselves. It is a specialised profession and requires years of practice to be good at it.

[Mosin]

Is the technology 100% accurate?

 

Was at 50 fps when first introduced, I would think it's higher by now, Zaha offside the other day is spread over 3 n a half frames, so he was offside for over 0.300 ms at just 50 fps.

 

Knowning cameras can go upto a trillion fps and your average Joe can buy full 4k slow motion camaras at 60 fps and 120 fps in 1080p, I would say it's pretty accurate or should be, but you never know lol

[hypochondriac]

Seemingly yet another joke decision in the villa Burnley game. Haven't seen it yet but lots of discontentment again.

[Mosin]

Was at 50 fps when first introduced, I would think it's higher by now, Zaha offside the other day is spread over 3 n a half frames, so he was offside for over 0.300 ms at just 50 fps.

 

Knowning cameras can go upto a trillion fps and your average Joe can buy full 4k slow motion camaras at 60 fps and 120 fps in 1080p, I would say it's pretty accurate or should be, but you never know lol

 

0.030ms I meant. It's pretty good at 50 tbf

[hypochondriac]

To try and describe that a bit better, Wesley was walking back away from goal when he went up for a header that he didn't win. A slither, and I mean a tiny, tiny piece of shoe leather, was ruled to be offside as he did so. They had to draw so many lines on the screen that you could barely work out what was going on.

IT WAS NOT OFFSIDE AS WE ALL UNDERSTAND IT. Let the goal stand.

[hypochondriac]

Lol. This is the future that some on here want.

[kyle04]

The DRS system has been a huge benefit in cricket, and was often cited when calls to introduce VAR were being made. The cricket laws are easier to implement however (did the ball hit the bat, lbw has 4 criteria easy to gauge with the system etc), and cricket is a stop-start game so the time taken to review isn't really an issue. Also each team has only 2 appeals per innings and thats it. Despite the offside rule being clear, some of the reviewed decisions lately still seem a little subjective and not in the spirit of the game. The "clear and obvious error" criteria is subjective when goals are being disallowed by such small infringements.

This season managers aren't complaining if a VAR decision goes against their team, the decisions have been technically correct and the "big club" bias has been neutralized . The delay to the game is a two way street, your heart sinks when the opposition "scores", but wait, VAR may save us...... Yessss ! Limiting the time taken to make a decision seems attractive but is wrong IMO, I'd rather the correct call was made than a rushed error.

So the game is fairer with VAR but is more sterile, thats the price to pay and I can't see any way to alter it unless general rule changes were made, which won't happen. It's still new but fans will soon get used to it.

[hypochondriac]

0.030ms I meant. It's pretty good at 50 tbf

.

[kyle04]

Interesting graphic. So the issue then is when the ball is struck by the attacker. If this can't be ascertained exactly as in paragraph 2 the benefit should go to the attacking team which would be more in the spirit of the rule and the game itself ?

[Saint Benali]

I'm with the IFAB on this one.

 

"Looking at one camera angle is one thing but looking at 15, trying to find something that was potentially not even there, this was not the idea of the VAR principle.

It should be clear and obvious."

 

We have gone from trying to overturn clear errors into overturning every error. Even when that error is near impossible to decide.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Lol. This is the future that some on here want.

 

What, offside goals being disallowed?

 

What’s the alternative, an official deciding if it’s far enough offside. Having watched the officials today, no thanks.

[badgerx16]

Imagine what would happen if there is a penalty appeal turned down by the ref, and whilst VAR are checking, the other team break upfield and "score".

[OldNick]

Imagine what would happen if there is a penalty appeal turned down by the ref, and whilst VAR are checking, the other team break upfield and "score".

Something a bit like that happened in the Liverpool Man City game when there was the blatant handball by the Liverpool player and they went to the other end and scored.

[Trout-Tickler]

Is the technology 100% accurate?

 

There's no way it's 100% accurate. There's always going to be a certain degree of error with any scientific measurement. What's interesting about your graphic (if it's correct of course) is that the error isn't constant and varies depending on the speed of play and players involved. People want certainty over VAR but the technology ain't good enough at the moment to provide it.

[OldNick]

I haven’t seen it but on Sky there was a sending off that both the pro.s said was a blatant sending off and then VAR overturned it. Normally they don’t overrule the ref

[hypochondriac]

There's no way it's 100% accurate. There's always going to be a certain degree of error with any scientific measurement. What's interesting about your graphic (if it's correct of course) is that the error isn't constant and varies depending on the speed of play and players involved. People want certainty over VAR but the technology ain't good enough at the moment to provide it.

I don't think most people do want certainty, they just want to have the horrible glaring errors abolished.

[Dark Munster]

I can see in the not too distant future that a computer would be used to analyse the video and give an offside verdict with 99.9% accuracy, all within 10 seconds.

 

The only downside is when it's implemented poor old Whitey Grandad's head would explode!

 

[hypochondriac]

What, offside goals being disallowed?

 

What’s the alternative, an official deciding if it’s far enough offside. Having watched the officials today, no thanks.

Bet you can't wait till 2030 when refbot 3000 is making every call and the average attendance at the football is 20.

[aintforever]

There's no way it's 100% accurate. There's always going to be a certain degree of error with any scientific measurement. What's interesting about your graphic (if it's correct of course) is that the error isn't constant and varies depending on the speed of play and players involved. People want certainty over VAR but the technology ain't good enough at the moment to provide it.

 

They just have to allow for the margin of error, it’s not rocket science. In effect you just draw a line the width of the margin of error for both the attacker and defender and is there is any overlap then he is onside. So it favours the attacker - they might be very slightly offside but as it is impossible to be sure they get away with it.

[whelk]

Bet you can't wait till 2030 when refbot 3000 is making every call and the average attendance at the football is 20.

 

Chick refbots

[Whitey Grandad]

I can see in the not too distant future that a computer would be used to analyse the video and give an offside verdict with 99.9% accuracy, all within 10 seconds.

 

The only downside is when it's implemented poor old Whitey Grandad's head would explode!

 

Ain’t never gonna happen.

 

But thanks for the kind thought

[Whitey Grandad]

They just have to allow for the margin of error, it’s not rocket science. In effect you just draw a line the width of the margin of error for both the attacker and defender and is there is any overlap then he is onside. So it favours the attacker - they might be very slightly offside but as it is impossible to be sure they get away with it.

I believe that is a current suggestion at FIFA.

[whelk]

As they apparently assess all PL ref’s decision and verify if correct, it would be good to see Mike Dean’s accuracy level today as a percentage. I am biased but he was unbelievably sh1t even for him.

[Whitey Grandad]

As they apparently assess all PL ref’s decision and verify if correct, it would be good to see Mike Dean’s accuracy level today as a percentage. I am biased but he was unbelievably sh1t even for him.

 

I’m afraid I have to agree with you. Seemed inconsistent throughout and was too lax with Dele Alli amongst others.

 

You are right, ever referee receives a report with several videos, one showing the game as seen on TV and another focussing just on him and his decisions with comments on fouls that he should have given as well as ones that he shouldn’t.

[hypochondriac]

Chick refbots

Non-binary refbots

[whelk]

Non-binary refbots

 

But with tits yeah?

[hypochondriac]

But with tits yeah?

One tit and one b*llock

[Harry_SFC]

How did Toby get away with that handball in the penalty area today? He was a good 5 or 6 yards away from the player that struck the ball and his hand was in an unnatural position above his head. VAR really is a bit of a shambles in its current state.

[Whitey Grandad]

How did Toby get away with that handball in the penalty area today? He was a good 5 or 6 yards away from the player that struck the ball and his hand was in an unnatural position above his head. VAR really is a bit of a shambles in its current state.

The real question is why Dean didn’t give it. VAR would not normally override a subjective decision where the referee had a clear view of the incident.

[Mosin]

They just have to allow for the margin of error, it’s not rocket science. In effect you just draw a line the width of the margin of error for both the attacker and defender and is there is any overlap then he is onside. So it favours the attacker - they might be very slightly offside but as it is impossible to be sure they get away with it.

 

Or just use faster camaras, 50 fps is an extremely low number of fps.

 

I won't change my opinion, if it's offside, it's offside, don't care if it's 1 mm or not.

[John Boy Saint]

Just seen that handball again on MOTD - baffled how that wasn’t given, especially when you see what feeble 1000 times less blatant handballs have been awarded penalties. Absolutely bizarre - a cynic would be forgiven for thinking there is an agenda in favour of certain teams, or push the realms of fantasy in thinking Mike Dean has said there will be repercussions for anyone countermanding his decision involving a clear and obvious error on his part with VAR.

[badgerx16]

Just seen that handball again on MOTD - baffled how that wasn’t given, especially when you see what feeble 1000 times less blatant handballs have been awarded penalties. Absolutely bizarre - a cynic would be forgiven for thinking there is an agenda in favour of certain teams, or push the realms of fantasy in thinking Mike Dean has said there will be repercussions for anyone countermanding his decision involving a clear and obvious error on his part with VAR.

 

And they didn't even mention it in the analysis.

[GarrettIvo]

Giving the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team no longer exists IMO which is sad, the game is and always shall be about scoring goals.

 

Isn't that why they ask assistants not to flag the close ones though? Let the game go on until the goal as it will be checked anyway. The play to the whistle idea has never gone away.

[SaintBobby]

There's always going to be subjectivity in some of the decisions, I think.

 

Offside is at least kind of mathematically clear.

 

Handball for a penalty? Hmmmm. Less so, really. Seems often to hinge on whether the arm was in an "unnatural position" (although you can often naturally have your arm stretched out to maintain balance). There also seem to be exemptions for the ball coming at you too fast and/or over a short distance. I'm not really sure I could define exactly when a handball should lead to a penalty. I think I know it when I see it (and Saints should have had a penalty today for Toby A's handball, I'd argue), but subjectivity seems baked into the rules here.

Edited 2 January, 2020 by SaintBobby

[Red]

And they didn't even mention it in the analysis.

 

The MOTD I watched they certainly did - Phil Nev said he could not understand how that was not a pen for us - mind was only a very brief 2 ro 3 second comment.

[Picard]

I can see in the not too distant future that a computer would be used to analyse the video and give an offside verdict with 99.9% accuracy, all within 10 seconds.

 

The only downside is when it's implemented poor old Whitey Grandad's head would explode!

 

Once they get computers doing it, by analyzing the players' movements they will be able to predict an offside a few seconds in advance.