Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 151 to 200 of 239

Thread: VAR seems to be a mistake

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by badgerx16 View Post
    At the moment the ball was kicked, the toe of her left foot ws on the goal line, therefore within the rule that says part of a foot must be on, or directly above, the line.
    Ah ok. Only saw it once and was wearing my Maple Leaf tinted specs...

  2. #152

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry the Badger View Post
    They have set proper ground rules. If any part of the attackers body is ahead of the last defender when the ball is played, itís offside. Doesnít matter whether itís a toe or a foot or whatever. Just because you disagree with the ground rules doesnít mean they havenít set any.

    I donít really see how they could sensibly measure it any other way. Or do you want them to say they need to be at least a knee/elbow or shoulder in front of the last defender?
    When the offside law was written it wasn't intended or expected that it would be implemented by someone sitting miles away whose viewpoint wasn't actually at normal eye height and level with the second-class defender and who was watching some coloured pixels on a distorted freeze-frame screen.

    It was only ever an approximate law.

  3. Default

    I agree it is difficult to decide what constitutes offside in a measurable way for VAR . The rule was changed years ago to say level was not off side to encourage attacking play and more goals.
    Did the ball cross the goal line technology works because it's measurable and quick plus is accepted by all .
    I think they would need to come up with a new idea for the technology perhaps to show it from both sides of the pitch and a way to measure the torso but that may be impossible !!
    You could have 4 linos !!!! but whatever they do it needs speedy results , perhaps VAR ref just tells Ref the answer rather than Ref looking at screen pitch side etc

  4. #154

    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Gotham City
    Posts
    28,606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East Kent Saint View Post
    I agree it is difficult to decide what constitutes offside in a measurable way for VAR . The rule was changed years ago to say level was not off side to encourage attacking play and more goals.
    Did the ball cross the goal line technology works because it's measurable and quick plus is accepted by all .
    I think they would need to come up with a new idea for the technology perhaps to show it from both sides of the pitch and a way to measure the torso but that may be impossible !!
    You could have 4 linos !!!! but whatever they do it needs speedy results , perhaps VAR ref just tells Ref the answer rather than Ref looking at screen pitch side etc
    which is what will happen in the prem, I believe

  5. #155

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    22 Acacia Avenue
    Posts
    11,842

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East Kent Saint View Post
    ....perhaps VAR ref just tells Ref the answer rather than Ref looking at screen pitch side etc
    Which is what every other sport with video reviews does.

  6. #156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by badgerx16 View Post
    Which is what every other sport with video reviews does.
    None of them improve the game.

    Football depends on continuous free movement for its unique appeal. The fact that the ball can be cleared off the line at one end and then a few seconds later it's in the other net is what makes it special.

    Every other sport is a turgid dirge.

  7. #157

    Default

    We will love VAR every time it goes our way and hate it when it turns against us. Simple as that.

  8. #158

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    22 Acacia Avenue
    Posts
    11,842

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whitey Grandad View Post
    None of them improve the game.

    Football depends on continuous free movement for its unique appeal. The fact that the ball can be cleared off the line at one end and then a few seconds later it's in the other net is what makes it special.

    Every other sport is a turgid dirge.
    You watched us under Puel and Pellegrino.

  9. #159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by badgerx16 View Post
    You watched us under Puel and Pellegrino.


    Very true. Just imagine that load of cr‚p with endless stops for VAR reviews.

  10. #160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whitey Grandad View Post
    None of them improve the game.

    Football depends on continuous free movement for its unique appeal. The fact that the ball can be cleared off the line at one end and then a few seconds later it's in the other net is what makes it special.

    Every other sport is a turgid dirge.
    Not everyones opinion though im afraid. Id much rather enjoy a tense test match cricket session that watch 100s of points scored in basketball. I think the idea is that this can still happen with VAR its just that when play stops they can check if it was legitimate or not. I agree it needs refining but i cant believe you were thrilled about the offside decision in the cup final because it was 1 min quicker than if VAR had been in play?

  11. #161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saint Troy View Post
    Not everyones opinion though im afraid. Id much rather enjoy a tense test match cricket session that watch 100s of points scored in basketball. I think the idea is that this can still happen with VAR its just that when play stops they can check if it was legitimate or not. I agree it needs refining but i cant believe you were thrilled about the offside decision in the cup final because it was 1 min quicker than if VAR had been in play?
    I can live with that cup final. We have to remember that everything else that went on in that match would also have been subject to review and somehow I don’t think that Saints would have benefited.

    What I would like to see is a more sensible link-up between the referee and his assistants. As a referee you have a pretty good idea whether somebody is offside or not. A quick confer there and the goal would have stood. Certainly if I had been reffing it

  12. #162

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Hidden behind enemy lines
    Posts
    11,384

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whitey Grandad View Post
    I can live with that cup final. We have to remember that everything else that went on in that match would also have been subject to review and somehow I don’t think that Saints would have benefited.

    What I would like to see is a more sensible link-up between the referee and his assistants. As a referee you have a pretty good idea whether somebody is offside or not. A quick confer there and the goal would have stood. Certainly if I had been reffing it
    There is, they already speak to each other via radio and face to face if needed. What else do you want? That goal was disallowed because a linesman (in front of 40,000 Man Utd fans) saw Bertrand offside and stuck his flag up instinctively. Used correctly VAR would have cleared it up in less than a minute.

    I've seen the replay of that USA penalty yesterday, what a mess. It took 20 seconds to look at that replay and say yes, there was contact, so umpires call and the penalty stands. The whole farce of the VAR looking at it for 2 minutes, then the on field ref doing the same needs to stop. We need officials we can trust in the VAR room, not just someone saying, "I'm not sure, come and look at this," on every decision.

  13. #163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
    I've seen the replay of that USA penalty yesterday, what a mess. It took 20 seconds to look at that replay and say yes, there was contact, so umpires call and the penalty stands. The whole farce of the VAR looking at it for 2 minutes, then the on field ref doing the same needs to stop. We need officials we can trust in the VAR room, not just someone saying, "I'm not sure, come and look at this," on every decision.
    That in itself is questionable to me though. Is contact automatically a foul? Surely it has to be sufficient contact to impede the player? But nowadays a player throws themselves to the ground and everyone looks at the replay and deems "there was contact".

  14. #164

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    22 Acacia Avenue
    Posts
    11,842

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrfahaji View Post
    But nowadays a player throws themselves to the ground and everyone looks at the replay and deems "there was contact".
    And the studio pundits go on to say "the player was justified in going down".

  15. #165

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by badgerx16 View Post
    And the studio pundits go on to say "the player was justified in going down".
    Ha - that too "He's ENTITLED to go down there". I understand that players go down because if they don't, they don't get the free kick/penalty even if they are fouled, but cannot stand this shift in view that falling over is an acceptable choice in the game.

  16. #166

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Right here, right now
    Posts
    1,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by East Kent Saint View Post
    I agree it is difficult to decide what constitutes offside in a measurable way for VAR . The rule was changed years ago to say level was not off side to encourage attacking play and more goals.
    Did the ball cross the goal line technology works because it's measurable and quick plus is accepted by all .
    I think they would need to come up with a new idea for the technology perhaps to show it from both sides of the pitch and a way to measure the torso but that may be impossible !!
    You could have 4 linos !!!! but whatever they do it needs speedy results , perhaps VAR ref just tells Ref the answer rather than Ref looking at screen pitch side etc
    Something I've long supported. 4 linos, 1 each quarter means every situation gets 3 viewpoints, 1 from each side and the referee's from somewhere mid-pitch. Any doubt in referee's mind , seek help from 2 linos, majority decision counts.

    It would be quick, simple, importantly can still be applied at any level of the game, and whilst not guaranteed to be correct 100% of the time, would probably get most debatable decisions right (which is probably no less than VAR can claim).

    I'd be interested to hear Whitey Grandad's (or anyone else who has refereed) views. Would it help? or would it create more confusion?

  17. #167

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Hidden behind enemy lines
    Posts
    11,384

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrfahaji View Post
    That in itself is questionable to me though. Is contact automatically a foul? Surely it has to be sufficient contact to impede the player? But nowadays a player throws themselves to the ground and everyone looks at the replay and deems "there was contact".
    Hence the 'umpire's call', there wasn't anything in that replay to definitively say it wasn't a penalty, so it should stay with the ref's original call. If there was clearly no contact, then it's a definite no penalty and should be overturned bu VAR, without the ref also having to watch the replay. It should work both ways. If the ref had deemed that contact wasn't enough for a foul, then it should stay as no pen, unless the VAR deems there to be a clear and obvious foul.

    VAR should be used for the howlers, like Gabbi's disallowed goal. Not the 50:50 stuff Sky spend 15 minutes debating at half time.

  18. #168

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sunny Shirley
    Posts
    1,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wurzel View Post
    Something I've long supported. 4 linos, 1 each quarter means every situation gets 3 viewpoints, 1 from each side and the referee's from somewhere mid-pitch. Any doubt in referee's mind , seek help from 2 linos, majority decision counts.

    It would be quick, simple, importantly can still be applied at any level of the game, and whilst not guaranteed to be correct 100% of the time, would probably get most debatable decisions right (which is probably no less than VAR can claim).

    I'd be interested to hear Whitey Grandad's (or anyone else who has refereed) views. Would it help? or would it create more confusion?
    There are some occasions where it is impossible for a linesman to judge an offside.

    If the ball is being played from deep and the kicker is near the touchline but way back down the pitch, the linesman has to turn his head virtually 90 degrees to see when the ball is kicked and there is no way that he can look across the last defender at the same time.

    Does that make sense?

  19. #169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
    There is, they already speak to each other via radio and face to face if needed. What else do you want? That goal was disallowed because a linesman (in front of 40,000 Man Utd fans) saw Bertrand offside and stuck his flag up instinctively. Used correctly VAR would have cleared it up in less than a minute.

    I've seen the replay of that USA penalty yesterday, what a mess. It took 20 seconds to look at that replay and say yes, there was contact, so umpires call and the penalty stands. The whole farce of the VAR looking at it for 2 minutes, then the on field ref doing the same needs to stop. We need officials we can trust in the VAR room, not just someone saying, "I'm not sure, come and look at this," on every decision.
    "there was contact"

    That has nothing do do with whether or not it was a penalty.

  20. #170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ecuk268 View Post
    There are some occasions where it is impossible for a linesman to judge an offside.

    If the ball is being played from deep and the kicker is near the touchline but way back down the pitch, the linesman has to turn his head virtually 90 degrees to see when the ball is kicked and there is no way that he can look across the last defender at the same time.

    Does that make sense?
    That's not the way it works. The assistant on the line (let's call him lino) has to keep him/herself stationed level with the second -last defender at all times. This is not easy for the untrained and means shuffling up and down the line like a crab. Then when the ball is kicked it is a quick check to see whether the attacker is in an offside position.

    The difficulties arise in a fast-moving game when players are moving in opposite directions but quite frankly if you need a freeze-frame then it's takings pedantry a bit far.

  21. #171

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wurzel View Post
    Something I've long supported. 4 linos, 1 each quarter means every situation gets 3 viewpoints, 1 from each side and the referee's from somewhere mid-pitch. Any doubt in referee's mind , seek help from 2 linos, majority decision counts.

    It would be quick, simple, importantly can still be applied at any level of the game, and whilst not guaranteed to be correct 100% of the time, would probably get most debatable decisions right (which is probably no less than VAR can claim).

    I'd be interested to hear Whitey Grandad's (or anyone else who has refereed) views. Would it help? or would it create more confusion?
    I don't think that four linos would be a problem but you end up having different arrangements for different levels of football.

    Almost all referees 'run rights', that is the linesmen run alongside the left back and the referee runs along a diagonal so as to cover the unattended corners and keep most of the action between the referee and his assistant.

    Regarding Gabbi's disallowed goal it would have been obvious to the referee that he was onside but at this level the referees tend to take the assistant's decision without question.

    At the level of football that I used to supervise there usually weren't any assistants and those that there were could not always be relied upon. You could end up keeping an eye on them as much as the players.

  22. #172

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Sunny Shirley
    Posts
    1,989

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whitey Grandad View Post
    That's not the way it works. The assistant on the line (let's call him lino) has to keep him/herself stationed level with the second -last defender at all times. This is not easy for the untrained and means shuffling up and down the line like a crab. Then when the ball is kicked it is a quick check to see whether the attacker is in an offside position.

    The difficulties arise in a fast-moving game when players are moving in opposite directions but quite frankly if you need a freeze-frame then it's takings pedantry a bit far.
    But to know when the ball is kicked, he may have to look down the other end of the pitch so he can't see in two directions at the same time.

  23. #173

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Hidden behind enemy lines
    Posts
    11,384

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whitey Grandad View Post
    "there was contact"

    That has nothing do do with whether or not it was a penalty.
    Looking at that, you wouldn’t say it’s a definite dive. It was a debatable penalty, so the original decision should stand.

    We’re in a situation now where the VAR officials are sending everything down to the ref to look at because they’re scared of having to decide for themselves. They need to have the conviction and authority to say either pen, no pen or inconclusive, in which case it’s the refs original call.

  24. Default

    Seeing the complete farce at the Ladies WC, I cannot see the PL accepting anything like that. And I read today that the ref over ruled the VAR people on the red card that should have been, for fear that Cameroon would have walked off. There needs to be a far quicker decision made, and I would include "umpire's call" margin of error/interpretation. The last thing I want to do is be sitting in the stands with 10 minutes of ET just because the ref and VAR have faffed about for so long.

    Long breaks break up the flow of the game and ruin it. Maybe the VAR people should have a 15 second time limit, otherwise stick with the ref's original decision.

  25. #175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by angelman View Post
    Seeing the complete farce at the Ladies WC, I cannot see the PL accepting anything like that. And I read today that the ref over ruled the VAR people on the red card that should have been, for fear that Cameroon would have walked off. There needs to be a far quicker decision made, and I would include "umpire's call" margin of error/interpretation. The last thing I want to do is be sitting in the stands with 10 minutes of ET just because the ref and VAR have faffed about for so long.

    Long breaks break up the flow of the game and ruin it. Maybe the VAR people should have a 15 second time limit, otherwise stick with the ref's original decision.
    One game had 15 minutes stopped for Var...anyone leaving on 85 minutes now will miss loads more chances and goals . Canít see a 3pm game ending before 5pm now on a Saturday


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  26. #176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
    Hence the 'umpire's call', there wasn't anything in that replay to definitively say it wasn't a penalty, so it should stay with the ref's original call. If there was clearly no contact, then it's a definite no penalty and should be overturned bu VAR, without the ref also having to watch the replay. It should work both ways. If the ref had deemed that contact wasn't enough for a foul, then it should stay as no pen, unless the VAR deems there to be a clear and obvious foul.

    VAR should be used for the howlers, like Gabbi's disallowed goal. Not the 50:50 stuff Sky spend 15 minutes debating at half time.
    Yeah I actually agree with that, I was just singling out the idea that "contact" seems to be gradually becoming the requirement for "foul". I wonder if they could have a time limit on a decision and if they can't decide within that time limit (e.g. 30 seconds) then it clearly isn't obvious enough to overturn. Then everyone could accept that there will still be debatable decisions - some people might even rejoice that controversy can still exist - but anything extreme will be prevented.

  27. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Give it to Ron View Post
    One game had 15 minutes stopped for Var...anyone leaving on 85 minutes now will miss loads more chances and goals . Can’t see a 3pm game ending before 5pm now on a Saturday
    15 minutes is just nonsense. I saw one game that had 7 or 8 minutes each half which was bad enough, but 15!!!

    If refs are going to get worse and worse, then the decisions making will take more and more time. I think that we can all agree that VAR for the women is just not working. If it is a choice between a dodgy decision or two, or tens of minutes of breaks and ET, then I'll take the dodgy decisions all day long.

  28. #178

    Default

    One of our perennial complaints that the big clubs get the referees decisions is hopefully going to be sorted. I don't care how long it takes just get it right. It would help if the series of replays went up on the big screens to keep the spectators in the loop.

  29. #179

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fighting Messageboard injustice, Everywhere
    Posts
    2,878

    Default

    A
    Quote Originally Posted by derry View Post
    One of our perennial complaints that the big clubs get the referees decisions is hopefully going to be sorted. I don't care how long it takes just get it right. It would help if the series of replays went up on the big screens to keep the spectators in the loop.
    I thought I’d read that in the PL BAR would be on the big screens, with the exception of Old Trafford and Anfield where they can’t afford big screens.

  30. #180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ecuk268 View Post
    But to know when the ball is kicked, he may have to look down the other end of the pitch so he can't see in two directions at the same time.
    You’d be amazed at what you can see if your position is correct. The amount that a player moves within the fraction of a second that it takes is minimal. As I have said before, it’s not a precise law and with the best instrumentation in the world it never will be.

  31. #181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
    Looking at that, you wouldn’t say it’s a definite dive. It was a debatable penalty, so the original decision should stand.

    We’re in a situation now where the VAR officials are sending everything down to the ref to look at because they’re scared of having to decide for themselves. They need to have the conviction and authority to say either pen, no pen or inconclusive, in which case it’s the refs original call.
    Im out of the country so I claim a Wenger and say that I haven’t seen that particular incident, but fouls are almost impossible to determine on a TV screen.

  32. #182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by derry View Post
    One of our perennial complaints that the big clubs get the referees decisions is hopefully going to be sorted. I don't care how long it takes just get it right. It would help if the series of replays went up on the big screens to keep the spectators in the loop.
    It’s not going to be sorted. The big teams will get even more decisions with var.

  33. #183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baird of the land View Post
    It’s not going to be sorted. The big teams will get even more decisions with var.
    That's the danger. Which is why clear and obvious mistakes that can be spotted immediately (or within a short timeframe) are decided by VAR and everything else go with the ref's call makes sense.

    I can handle losing to an 'offside' Lukaku goal where his knee is offside by 1cm, but not if he is 2 yards offside.

    Of course there will still be the argument that more (or fewer, depending who the decision is for) decisions will be deemed "debatable" and therefore the ref's decision will be used at Old Trafford/Anfield etc, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

  34. #184

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Hidden behind enemy lines
    Posts
    11,384

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baird of the land View Post
    It’s not going to be sorted. The big teams will get even more decisions with var.
    I've still yet to see any reasonable explanation as to why people think this. A ref giving into pressure, making a split second decision at OT is one thing but I don't see why an official in a quiet room, watching a replay 3 times from different angles would deliberately favour the 'bigger' team.

  35. #185

    Default

    I've not read the whole thread, but just to confirm - yes VAR is definitely a mistake.

    Main reason for disliking it- spontaneous limbs all over the place goal celebrations will become a thing of the past where in future fans will adapt to wait for confirmation that the goal stands followed by a muted cheer.

  36. #186

    Default

    VAR is not the problem, it's a simple tool that gives you a chance to review - a proven system that really works in cricket and rugby league.

    The issue is that the people who run football appear incapable of organising the most basic things.
    First we had extra officials who never made a decision, now we have decisions taking seven minutes!
    The use of it in the last fortnight has been ludicrous, it's a specialist job that needs quality people behind it.
    Currently we seem to have Chris Grayling sat in his shed with a packet of biscuits, reviewing footage on his Nokia.
    Get decisive experienced referees monitoring footage and we should get more correct and swift decisions - and players spitting or stamping will get sent off.

  37. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Give it to Ron View Post
    One game had 15 minutes stopped for Var...anyone leaving on 85 minutes now will miss loads more chances and goals . Canít see a 3pm game ending before 5pm now on a Saturday


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    If they're bringing in VAR they should bring in the proposed changes to timekeeping - have the clock stop every time it's out of play, do away with injury time and reduce the length of a match to 80 minutes. You'd end up actually watching more football played on the pitch than we do now.

  38. #188

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Right here, right now
    Posts
    1,467

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Saint_clark View Post
    If they're bringing in VAR they should bring in the proposed changes to timekeeping - have the clock stop every time it's out of play, do away with injury time and reduce the length of a match to 80 minutes. You'd end up actually watching more football played on the pitch than we do now.
    Think average "action" time is 59 minutes, so even 30 minutes each way should see more football than we do now

  39. #189

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Was NI now Shropshire..!
    Posts
    8,272

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post
    I've still yet to see any reasonable explanation as to why people think this. A ref giving into pressure, making a split second decision at OT is one thing but I don't see why an official in a quiet room, watching a replay 3 times from different angles would deliberately favour the 'bigger' team.
    My thoughts exactly. I don't particularly like VAR but the assumption that it will favour big teams seems wide of the mark to me. Very easy for referees to get swayed by the big home team claims, the crowd, the big name manager on the sidelines - take the easy option. A man in a room miles away can be much more impartial - works for the smaller team as far as I can tell.

  40. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mrfahaji View Post
    Ha - that too "He's ENTITLED to go down there". I understand that players go down because if they don't, they don't get the free kick/penalty even if they are fouled, but cannot stand this shift in view that falling over is an acceptable choice in the game.
    This, rather ridiculously has passed on to the pub league level too. I was fouled in the box, fell but stumbled back to my feet. Ref said "no pen". I asked why, he said it was because I didn't stay down. I asked if he thought it was a foul he said "oh yes definitely, but go down and make it look good next time" he said. Ridiculous, now we have players crying out and rolling over. Ugh.

  41. #191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JRM View Post
    I've not read the whole thread, but just to confirm - yes VAR is definitely a mistake.

    Main reason for disliking it- spontaneous limbs all over the place goal celebrations will become a thing of the past where in future fans will adapt to wait for confirmation that the goal stands followed by a muted cheer.
    Yes that sounds about right............celebrating a disallowed V.A.R goal whatever next........

  42. #192

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    17,664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OttawaSaint View Post
    This, rather ridiculously has passed on to the pub league level too. I was fouled in the box, fell but stumbled back to my feet. Ref said "no pen". I asked why, he said it was because I didn't stay down. I asked if he thought it was a foul he said "oh yes definitely, but go down and make it look good next time" he said. Ridiculous, now we have players crying out and rolling over. Ugh.
    Should've chinned the **** and said, "Make that look good, knob-face".

  43. #193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whitey Grandad View Post
    You’d be amazed at what you can see if your position is correct. The amount that a player moves within the fraction of a second that it takes is minimal. As I have said before, it’s not a precise law and with the best instrumentation in the world it never will be.
    It is a precise law. The imprecision is down to humans having to make decisions in fractions of a second, with attackers, defenders and the ball all moving. Like it or not, VAR is bringing the precision as defined by the law. All the bleating about tight offside decisions that were actually correctly given through use of VAR (England vs Cameroon) is because players are used to the imprecision.

    "The amount a player moves ... is minimal"... yes, but minimal is more than nothing and that's enough to make the difference between onside and offside, especially when played at the pace and fine margins of the professional game.

    Handballs and penalties though, that's a whole different discussion about "unnatural" positions.

  44. #194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by saint si View Post
    It is a precise law. The imprecision is down to humans having to make decisions in fractions of a second, with attackers, defenders and the ball all moving. Like it or not, VAR is bringing the precision as defined by the law. All the bleating about tight offside decisions that were actually correctly given through use of VAR (England vs Cameroon) is because players are used to the imprecision.

    "The amount a player moves ... is minimal"... yes, but minimal is more than nothing and that's enough to make the difference between onside and offside, especially when played at the pace and fine margins of the professional game.

    Handballs and penalties though, that's a whole different discussion about "unnatural" positions.
    Of course it's imprecise. If the attacker is on one side of the pitch and the defender is on the other and the camera's position is not dead square then you haven't a hope in hell of getting a correct decision on a tight call. No amount of computer-generated lines is going to help you. The offside law was not written to be interpreted by a computer game. It needs a rapid, on the pitch decision in order to keep the game flowing.

    VAR is a sledgehammer to crack a puff of smoke.

  45. #195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whitey Grandad View Post
    Of course it's imprecise. If the attacker is on one side of the pitch and the defender is on the other and the camera's position is not dead square then you haven't a hope in hell of getting a correct decision on a tight call. No amount of computer-generated lines is going to help you. The offside law was not written to be interpreted by a computer game. It needs a rapid, on the pitch decision in order to keep the game flowing.

    VAR is a sledgehammer to crack a puff of smoke.
    I know you think refs are infallible and everything, but the precision of the law itself is a point of fact. It's not like in certain other laws where there is some level of opinion - i.e. "considered by the referee".

    Now you're trying to say that the cameras are inaccurate. Well sure, if they're not placed or calibrated correctly, but that's about measurement, not about definition.

    And keeping the game flowing is a different topic entirely. If VAR was instantaneously decided based on a 100% accurate AI (probably that is anyway less than 10 years away), would that change your view?

  46. #196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by saint si View Post
    I know you think refs are infallible and everything, but the precision of the law itself is a point of fact. It's not like in certain other laws where there is some level of opinion - i.e. "considered by the referee".

    Now you're trying to say that the cameras are inaccurate. Well sure, if they're not placed or calibrated correctly, but that's about measurement, not about definition.

    And keeping the game flowing is a different topic entirely. If VAR was instantaneously decided based on a 100% accurate AI (probably that is anyway less than 10 years away), would that change your view?
    Technology will never be that accurate for offside.

    Of course referees can occasionally make a wrong decision but in my view regarding offside anything within a foot or so is the best that you can expect. Once it gets to the stage of taking minutes of microscopic examination of a blurry image before you can toss a coin and get an answer then we're going up the wrong road.

    Don't forget that a lot of signal processing has taken place between the camera sensor and the viewing screen. (I used to be heavily involved in television research in an earlier life).

    Gabbi's disallowed goal at Wembley is a good case for VAR where a quick message to the referee within a few seconds was all that was needed and would not have disrupted the game.

    Using it for penalty decisions or fouls is not appropriate.

    There is a more general principle which some will not agree with that the laws of football should apply consistently across all levels of the game.

  47. #197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whitey Grandad View Post
    Technology will never be that accurate for offside.
    Wrong. It's not even that much a particularly hard problem compared to some things AI can do or almost do already (e.g. driving a car). Given the enthusiasm with which football (and sport in general) is now embracing technology, it's a no brainer, just a question of time. Be surprised if there aren't already tech demos.

    Quote Originally Posted by Whitey Grandad View Post
    Using it for penalty decisions or fouls is not appropriate.
    Tend to agree, other than on points of fact (i.e. did it hit the hand, not the intent behind the arm position; was it in the box or not)

    Quote Originally Posted by Whitey Grandad View Post
    There is a more general principle which some will not agree with that the laws of football should apply consistently across all levels of the game.
    Nice principle and would agree, but practical reality is different. Refs are anyway going to be better (including being fitter and better able to keep up with play) at top end of the game. There is also counter argument that the more important the match, the more important that the correct decisions are made.

  48. #198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by saint si View Post
    Wrong. It's not even that much a particularly hard problem compared to some things AI can do or almost do already (e.g. driving a car). Given the enthusiasm with which football (and sport in general) is now embracing technology, it's a no brainer, just a question of time. Be surprised if there aren't already tech demos.



    Tend to agree, other than on points of fact (i.e. did it hit the hand, not the intent behind the arm position; was it in the box or not)



    Nice principle and would agree, but practical reality is different. Refs are anyway going to be better (including being fitter and better able to keep up with play) at top end of the game. There is also counter argument that the more important the match, the more important that the correct decisions are made.
    There are a number of points there.

    AI can never establish offside accurately and I speak as someone who has spent a lot of time in image processing and missile tracking. Besides, it's not needed.

    The importance of the result is an irrelevance. Football is a sport and once you let money take over you have besmirched it.

  49. #199

    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    It's grim oop north
    Posts
    7,636

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whitey Grandad View Post
    Football is a sport and once you let money take over you have besmirched it.
    I think you'll find that happened loooooong before the introduction of VAR.

  50. #200

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Hidden behind enemy lines
    Posts
    11,384

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whitey Grandad View Post
    There are a number of points there.

    AI can never establish offside accurately and I speak as someone who has spent a lot of time in image processing and missile tracking. Besides, it's not needed.

    The importance of the result is an irrelevance. Football is a sport and once you let money take over you have besmirched it.
    Cameras can determine offside better than a human eye, that’s all that matters here. It’s not infallible but it’s an improvement.

    Personally I think the line on the screen should include a 6 inch buffer zone behind the defender; any body part within that doesn’t count as offside.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •