Time to Bin VAR

[skintsaint]

todays effort

 

[OttawaSaint]

Jesus wept! Dermot Gallagher trying to defend it. 

Sherwood is pissed and correct. Can’t even see the ball.

 

[cloggy saint]

VAR doesn't seem so bad when it's fucking Liverpool over.

[Tamesaint]

Its the shadow that is offside. Seems fair to me.... if we live in a mad world.

Edited 10 April, 2021 by Tamesaint

[Dark Munster]

6 hours ago, aintforever said:

Going from the boots or anywhere else won’t make any difference, they just need to allow for the margin of error of the person pausing the video and give the benefit of doubt to the attacker.

It'll make a big difference, only one clear cut thing to look at. For example the Wolves player would clearly be onside. Agreed about giving the benefit of the doubt to the attacker. And give VAR about 15 seconds to decide whose boot is ahead, if he can't by then, then the goal stands.

[Fitzhugh Fella]

It would be a better move to do away with offside. It was introduced in Victorian times to stop Old Etonians leaning against the opponents goalpost smoking a pipe waiting for the ball to be lumped towards him. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

6 minutes ago, Dark Munster said:

It'll make a big difference, only one clear cut thing to look at. For example the Wolves player would clearly be onside. Agreed about giving the benefit of the doubt to the attacker. And give VAR about 15 seconds to decide whose boot is ahead, if he can't by then, then the goal stands.

What do you think will happen if TV show after 16 seconds that a goal given was in fact offside. You really think supporters, players and managers will say “fair enough, they were 1 sec too late”. 

[Dark Munster]

Just now, Lord Duckhunter said:

What do you think will happen if TV show after 16 seconds that a goal given was in fact offside. You really think supporters, players and managers will say “fair enough, they were 1 sec too late”. 

Better than binning VAR completely. Plus 15 seconds is just one suggestion, maybe 30 would do. The point is give them a fixed time limit. If they can't decide by then, then it has to be close.

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 minutes ago, Dark Munster said:

Better than binning VAR completely. Plus 15 seconds is just one suggestion, maybe 30 would do. The point is give them a fixed time limit. If they can't decide by then, then it has to be close.

You maybe ok with offside goals being given because they’re tight and take a while to sort out, but the conceding manager, players and supporters won’t be. Even then,  I doubt you will be once one goes against us. 
 

Edited 10 April, 2021 by Lord Duckhunter

[Dark Munster]

1 minute ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

You maybe ok with offside goals being given because they’re tight and take a while to sort out, but the conceding manager, players and supporters won’t be. Even then,  I doubt you will be once one goes against us. 
 

I beg to differ, if it's that close and the goal is given against us I wouldn't complain. There will always be a question when the ball left the foot of the passer anyway, so no one can be certain if it's really close. Was the attacker 5 mm offside? Who cares? And it'll even out for all teams over the long run. As long as Gabbi disallowed goals are the thing of the past I don't have a problem.

[Lord Duckhunter]

6 minutes ago, Dark Munster said:

I beg to differ, if it's that close and the goal is given against us I wouldn't complain. There will always be a question when the ball left the foot of the passer anyway, so no one can be certain if it's really close. Was the attacker 5 mm offside? Who cares? And it'll even out for all teams over the long run. As long as Gabbi disallowed goals are the thing of the past I don't have a problem.

You might not, but countless others would. The genie is out of the bottle. The only thing that’ll stop the controversy is the tracking thing Wenger’s working on. 

[Dark Munster]

14 minutes ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

You might not, but countless others would. The genie is out of the bottle. The only thing that’ll stop the controversy is the tracking thing Wenger’s working on. 

I wasn't aware of this so did a Google: https://theathletic.com/news/automated-offsides-world-cup-arsene-wenger/Lp1QUh86ZSqS 

Sounds promising. I would still change the rule for offside decided by feet only, and put trackers in the boots. (One of the comments at the bottom, not me, also suggested using feet only).

[danjosaint]

Just as said use the boot and the offside line needs to be about 13cm thick, a player travelling at about 15mph with a 50hz frame rate means there is a frame difference of 13cm, so as long as a players boot is inside the line then their onside

[Whitey Grandad]

32 minutes ago, danjosaint said:

Just as said use the boot and the offside line needs to be about 13cm thick, a player travelling at about 15mph with a 50hz frame rate means there is a frame difference of 13cm, so as long as a players boot is inside the line then their onside

True.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Dark Munster said:

I wasn't aware of this so did a Google: https://theathletic.com/news/automated-offsides-world-cup-arsene-wenger/Lp1QUh86ZSqS 

Sounds promising. I would still change the rule for offside decided by feet only, and put trackers in the boots. (One of the comments at the bottom, not me, also suggested using feet only).

I saw a suggestion that the point of reference should be the badge on the shirt. After all, that’s what is used for athletics races.

[Dark Munster]

13 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

I saw a suggestion that the point of reference should be the badge on the shirt. After all, that’s what is used for athletics races.

Yes, that'll work too. The main thing is to use just one frame of reference, like they do in ice hockey (skates), horse racing (noses) etc.

[aintforever]

2 hours ago, Dark Munster said:

It'll make a big difference, only one clear cut thing to look at. For example the Wolves player would clearly be onside. Agreed about giving the benefit of the doubt to the attacker. And give VAR about 15 seconds to decide whose boot is ahead, if he can't by then, then the goal stands.

Would make it a bit quicker but you will still have the same margin of error issues. They just need to use big fat lines for each player and if there is any overlap then he’s onside.

[Patrick Bateman]

12 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

But when is the ball ‘kicked’? When it is first touched by the boot or when it has actually left the boot?

Exactly - too many blurred lines, literally.

Whoever said "it needs to be more like Rugby" is spot on.  The conversation is open and the ref is dictating the playback ... 

"I think that was a knock on by white 7 and therefore a no try, can you confirm?"

"Yes we confirm, knock on by white 7, no try"

It works! 

[East Kent Saint]

11 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

I saw a suggestion that the point of reference should be the badge on the shirt. After all, that’s what is used for athletics races.

What if Lallana is kissing the badge at the time , that would change the point of reference .

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, East Kent Saint said:

What if Lallana is kissing the badge at the time , that would change the point of reference .

True. His badge is usually stuck to his lips.

[Saint86]

Well we definitely got away with one tonight imo, not that it had any bearing.

[Wurzel]

14 hours ago, Saint86 said:

Well we definitely got away with one tonight imo, not that it had any bearing.

That was so blatantly wrong it was laughable. The two forwards even had different colour boots there was no excuse, yet they managed to come up with not being able to get an angle that showed the goal scorers body 🤣

[LiberalCommunist]

Embarrassing. And just because we benefitted from the decision, does not mean we should be happy with it.

VAR will never work. People error will always be prevalent. 

When the crowds are back, we are going to see some big problems. 

[JustinSFC]

Our referees are, in the main, of a certain age, could it be that they need an eye test? The line drawing is shambolic at best.

[Fan The Flames]

3 hours ago, Wurzel said:

That was so blatantly wrong it was laughable. The two forwards even had different colour boots there was no excuse, yet they managed to come up with not being able to get an angle that showed the goal scorers body 🤣

Wasn't it the fact that they couldn't see Vestergaard clearly so had to stick with the on field decision. Really they should be able to give an 'in all probability' decision.

[Saint Garrett]

Although we got away with one last night, I actually don't have much wrong with the decision in the end.  If they cannot 100% prove the on field officials are wrong, then they should stick with the on field decision.

But - its highly likely he was onside. 

[Fan The Flames]

14 hours ago, Saint Garrett said:

Although we got away with one last night, I actually don't have much wrong with the decision in the end.  If they cannot 100% prove the on field officials are wrong, then they should stick with the on field decision.

But - its highly likely he was onside. 

With the limitations with the tech they can't 100% prove the vast majority of offsides.

[Whitey Grandad]

5 hours ago, Fan The Flames said:

With the limitations with the tech they can't 100% prove the vast majority of offsides.

No, of course they can’t. It doesn’t adapt well to a technological solution and the Law was never designed or intended for it.

I say bin VAR and leave it up to the assistant on the line. If he looks offside put your flag up and get on with the game.

[Pedantic Pete]

21 hours ago, Fan The Flames said:

Wasn't it the fact that they couldn't see Vestergaard clearly so had to stick with the on field decision. Really they should be able to give an 'in all probability' decision.

Personally I think they team in the VAR room should be allowed one extra look in normal speed, no lines drawn etc.

If it isn't obvious there's an error from the one look you go with the decision already made. It was brought in to stop those "OMG that's so obvious moments" not to forensically examine every detail of every decision..Giving them another option of "in all probability" will just mean we end up with an even longer debate about what's right and wrong.

   

[Fan The Flames]

2 hours ago, Pedantic Pete said:

Personally I think they team in the VAR room should be allowed one extra look in normal speed, no lines drawn etc.

If it isn't obvious there's an error from the one look you go with the decision already made. It was brought in to stop those "OMG that's so obvious moments" not to forensically examine every detail of every decision..Giving them another option of "in all probability" will just mean we end up with an even longer debate about what's right and wrong.

The in all probability was in reference only to the West Brom disallowed goal. It was obvious to all that it was a valid goal, but because VAR couldn't verify it 100% it couldn't give it.

The deceit is that It only makes 100% correct decisions otherwise it defers back to the on field decision. Where in reality it can't, because the technology isn't good enough. Yet here was a perfectly good goal VAR couldn't give because of the rules they have imposed on it. These decisions, where for many, what VAR was brought in to solve, rather than the fine marginal goals that no one was ever really complaining about.

[Fan The Flames]

3 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

No, of course they can’t. It doesn’t adapt well to a technological solution and the Law was never designed or intended for it.

I say bin VAR and leave it up to the assistant on the line. If he looks offside put your flag up and get on with the game.

But what if he wasn't offside?

[Saint_clark]

23 hours ago, Saint Garrett said:

Although we got away with one last night, I actually don't have much wrong with the decision in the end.  If they cannot 100% prove the on field officials are wrong, then they should stick with the on field decision.

But - its highly likely he was onside. 

He was 100% onside and you could see that from the first angle ffs. I don't give a flying fig what his leading hand might be doing, he was onside.

[Saint Keef]

I think when VAR came in, we as football fans hoped it would eradicate the controversy surrounding close decisions, obvious errors by the referee and assistants. To me, it has added to the controversies. It seems to me that there is at least one controversy now in just about every game. From the disallowed goal for Man U against Tottenham when Son was "flicked" in the face and rolled around on the ground for 4 minutes.......until the decision went their way, to the blatant "onside" goal that was disallowed for WBA against us.  Again, only my opinion and some will disagree, but VAR is destroying the game. It has taken the "spirit" out of football.

If the technology available couldn't tell that the WBA player was onside accurately, when everyone watching on TV could see he was onside by at least a few inches then something is seriously wrong. If they can't be accurate with something so blatant, how can they be accurate to say that Danny Ings toenail, Theo Walcott's nose, or Che Adams' hair on his legs were offside. (I'm not referring to specific incidents, but you know what I mean)

And then there is the debate about when you freeze the frame and draw the lines. Everyone who has ever kicked a football knows that the amount of time the ball is actually in contact with the foot can vary depending what type of pass or shot you are making. At what stage do the VAR freeze it? at first contact or as the ball actually leaves the foot - enough time for a players nose to have moved 6 inches!

In my opinion, VAR is failing badly and should be binned. Let's get the spirit beck in the game. Sure, there will be human error, but I'd rather have that over failed technology. 

Why not just show the referee a normal TV replay if he has doubt over his decision or has missed a foul - there are multiple cameras at every game - and that would clear up 90% of the errors.

'nuff said.

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, Fan The Flames said:

But what if he wasn't offside?

By whose reckoning? Instances of it being blatantly wrong are few and far between. 

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Saint_clark said:

He was 100% onside and you could see that from the first angle ffs. I don't give a flying fig what his leading hand might be doing, he was onside.

But another player was in an offside position on the six yard line and in front of the goalmouth.

[Saint Garrett]

1 hour ago, Saint_clark said:

He was 100% onside and you could see that from the first angle ffs. I don't give a flying fig what his leading hand might be doing, he was onside.

You can't tell because of the other player is in the way. If he'd not given it as offside on the pitch, I'd be fine with it staying as onside too.

But I think they made the right decision based on the fact they would have had to guess where his body was to determine he was offside.

Doesn't change my opinion that it would be better off not existing at all.

[Fan The Flames]

3 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

But another player was in an offside position on the six yard line and in front of the goalmouth.

Regarding the other player, it's not an offense to be offside and he wasn't bloking the goalkeeper.

[Fan The Flames]

7 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

By whose reckoning? Instances of it being blatantly wrong are few and far between. 

I remember it happening frequently, the linesmen were often wrong by a foot or two. It was the calling out of these blatant mistakes by pundits that prompted VAR, not the marginal calls.

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, Fan The Flames said:

Regarding the other player, it's not an offense to be offside and he wasn't bloking the goalkeeper.

You’d think a referee would know this. 
 

It was clearly onside, anyone  who thinks otherwise is biased, deliberately being obtuse or just clueless. 

Edited 14 April, 2021 by Lord Duckhunter

[Whitey Grandad]

3 hours ago, Fan The Flames said:

Regarding the other player, it's not an offense to be offside and he wasn't bloking the goalkeeper.

It’s an offence to interfere with another player. The fact that he’s there and that close might be considered enough. As the old quote goes, if he ain’t interfering what’s he doing on the pitch?

1 hour ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

You’d think a referee would know this. 
 

It was clearly onside, anyone  who thinks otherwise is biased, deliberately being obtuse or just clueless. 

If it was so clear why did the assistant raise his flag? You take technology as absolute but we can’t determine exactly when the ball was kicked.

So the assistant and the VAR team didn’t overrule it and you think they should have asked you first?

Perhaps they are all biased or deliberately obtuse or just clueless.

[Lord Duckhunter]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

 

If it was so clear why did the assistant raise his flag?

He made a mistake, that’s why. 
 

Having seen some of the nonsense you post about refereeing decisions,  I’d imagine you made plenty when refereeing. 

[Fan The Flames]

1 hour ago, Whitey Grandad said:

It’s an offence to interfere with another player. The fact that he’s there and that close might be considered enough. As the old quote goes, if he ain’t interfering what’s he doing on the pitch?

If it was so clear why did the assistant raise his flag? You take technology as absolute but we can’t determine exactly when the ball was kicked.

So the assistant and the VAR team didn’t overrule it and you think they should have asked you first?

Perhaps they are all biased or deliberately obtuse or just clueless.

I'm afraid you are old school, if the player doesn't touch the ball or is not in the way of the keeper he can be anywhere. There is a photo of their positions and Bartley is almost a meter to the side of the goalscorer and well away from Forster. Diagne was onside barring a strange angle in Vestergaard leg. I bet the VAR guys thought it was onside but being the devotees of the rules they couldn't give it.

[redkeith]

16 hours ago, Fan The Flames said:

I'm afraid you are old school, if the player doesn't touch the ball or is not in the way of the keeper he can be anywhere. There is a photo of their positions and Bartley is almost a meter to the side of the goalscorer and well away from Forster. Diagne was onside barring a strange angle in Vestergaard leg. I bet the VAR guys thought it was onside but being the devotees of the rules they couldn't give it.

The thing is though, it was not possible to rule on it, as Bartley was blocking the camera. Not interfering with play, but interfering with VAR. They have no option but to back the officials in those circumstances, however probable it was that they made an error.   

[Wurzel]

8 minutes ago, redkeith said:

The thing is though, it was not possible to rule on it, as Bartley was blocking the camera. Not interfering with play, but interfering with VAR. They have no option but to back the officials in those circumstances, however probable it was that they made an error.   

I'd agree, if they couldn't prove original call was wrong then they had to back it. But they drew 2 lines on screen. Bartley's(if he's the guy nearest the camera) foot and Vesterfard's foot. So offside. I'm sure someone in the VAR booth is watching Sky as well and realises after play has resumed, "Shit we lined up with the wrong player's foot" and quickly made up some nonesense about obscured body views to pass on to the commentary team and get themselves out of a self-dug hole.

[SaintBobby]

I think it was a poor decision. It seemed to me evident that the player was onside, if he hadnt been, some part of his body would have been visible rather than hidden by his team mate, surely?

 

That said, it's not the biggest howler. Without VAR the goal would not have stood anyway as the linesman had flagged for offside.

[SKD]

It showed the issues of drawing lines. A quick look at the screen and you can tell it’s onside. Too close to call? Go with onfield. 

for as long as they try and get them absolutely spot on to the nearest mm, then It’ll be a farce. 
 

it used to be a case of level is on side, where as now it seems to be viewed as off. 

[Wurzel]

On 10/04/2021 at 15:59, skintsaint said:

todays effort

 

Just wondering, was VAR the reason the PL banned the artistic pitch mowing the likes of us and Leicester tried to outdo each other with every week?.    Love to see them trying to judge how to draw the offside lines straight  on some of those pitches.

[Turkish]

Premier League Referee's Motives Called Into Question Yet Again As Vestergaard's Red Card Is Overtur - Southampton News | The Ugly Inside (fansnetwork.co.uk)

good theory, certainly could be something in it as the errors now seem to be worse than before VAR

[The Kraken]

I don’t think the errors are worse with VAR. Some of the really heinous decisions, such as our disallowed offside in the cup final, have largely gone. But VAR still comes down to individual refereeing judgements, and as there are still errors, it shows that the likes of Jon Moss still cannot arrive at the correct decision even after replaying the incident for many minutes.

VAR is there to help refs. But it seems some of them need a lot more help than that to get to the right decision. At least there is a decent system to overrule shoddy decisions, though it doesn’t fix the problem.

As for VAR offsides. Being as they’re obviously here to stay, I’d much rather just have the feet as the measure, as it’s clearer than looking for the t-shirt mark or whatever the latest wheeze is. That’s just my personal preference though.

[hackedoff]

This sort of technology has been a boon for sports such as Cricket and Tennis,but in the hands of the "larger than life" football referees and a biased disaster was on the cards,literally.