VAR- What is it good for.........

[revolution saint]

31 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I’m watching the cricket, two NZ batsmen have been wrongly given out on field by decisions which were then reviewed. No controversy, no bias, no injustice. People only talk about the decisions video referees get wrong. We’re far better off having it than not.

I've always been mostly in favour of VAR - as you say, it gets more decisions right than the alternative.  However I've actually quite liked not having VAR and the delays that it causes so I'm caught in the middle a bit now.  I suppose we haven't been on the end of a glaring injustice that's affected the outcome of a game yet so hasn't been quite as important.

[Sheaf Saint]

47 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Looks like they haven’t got it perfectly in other sports. Rugby World Cup an England player sent off yesterday, today a virtually identical incident not even reviewed in RSA v Scotland. They are moaning now about the inconsistency 

I watched some of that game yesterday. A few minutes after the Tom Curry incident one of the Argie players clattered and England player in the head from a late attempt to block a kick upfield, and only got a yellow despite it looking a lot more reckless. The fact that Curry's was upgraded to red by the foul play review official and the other one wasn't didn't make any sense.

[JRM]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

I’m watching the cricket, two NZ batsmen have been wrongly given out on field by decisions which were then reviewed. No controversy, no bias, no injustice. People only talk about the decisions video referees get wrong. We’re far better off having it than not.

Completely different game played at a much slower pace. 

Hate VAR, hate the long delay goal reviews, quite happy not having and celebrating goals normally again 

[Lighthouse]

5 minutes ago, JRM said:

Completely different game played at a much slower pace. 

Hate VAR, hate the long delay goal reviews, quite happy not having and celebrating goals normally again 

A rule is a rule, doesn’t matter if it’s an inch offside or a millimetre off the edge of a bat. I can honestly say I never stopped or changed the way I celebrated scoring goals (not that we’ve had many) since VAR came in.

[Turkish]

6 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

A rule is a rule, doesn’t matter if it’s an inch offside or a millimetre off the edge of a bat. I can honestly say I never stopped or changed the way I celebrated scoring goals (not that we’ve had many) since VAR came in.

So you’d be alright with getting a speeding ticket doing 31 in a 30? 

[Lighthouse]

2 minutes ago, Turkish said:

So you’d be alright with getting a speeding ticket doing 31 in a 30? 

I don't believe footballers are given a fine for being an inch offside. If they are, I expect to see Walcott working in McDonald's in Totton fairly soon.

[Turkish]

8 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

I don't believe footballers are given a fine for being an inch offside. If they are, I expect to see Walcott working in McDonald's in Totton fairly soon.

I was talking about you being alright with it. Are you?

[Lighthouse]

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

I was talking about you being alright with it. Are you?

It's a completely nonsense comparison and you know it. One is a sport in which two teams are competing, any unfair advantage you give one will impact the other directly. The other is a motoring offence, so I'll happily accept that I've broken the speed limit but driving at 31mph is an error any person could reasonably be expected to make, so no I wouldn't be fined. If there was a national 'driving just under 30mph' championship, I'd be willing to accept disqualification. 

[Turkish]

17 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

It's a completely nonsense comparison and you know it. One is a sport in which two teams are competing, any unfair advantage you give one will impact the other directly. The other is a motoring offence, so I'll happily accept that I've broken the speed limit but driving at 31mph is an error any person could reasonably be expected to make, so no I wouldn't be fined. If there was a national 'driving just under 30mph' championship, I'd be willing to accept disqualification. 

My point is you’re quick enough to say rules are rules, it’s offside even if it’s a mm, so just making sure you’re such a stickler for the rules in every walk of life. 31 mph in a 30 is still speeding But it looks like you’re happy to turn a blind eye to that minor error, but when it’s a mm offside then rules are rules. 
 

so in this particular example rules aren’t rules and tolerance should be permitted, but not when someone is 1mm offside 

Edited 10 September, 2023 by Turkish

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

A rule is a rule, doesn’t matter if it’s an inch offside or a millimetre off the edge of a bat. I can honestly say I never stopped or changed the way I celebrated scoring goals (not that we’ve had many) since VAR came in.

When the offside law was introduced it was never intended that it should be judged to the nearest millimetre.

[whelk]

4 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

I’m watching the cricket, two NZ batsmen have been wrongly given out on field by decisions which were then reviewed. No controversy, no bias, no injustice. People only talk about the decisions video referees get wrong. We’re far better off having it than not.

I wonder if there is correlation between those that liked and wanted lockdowns and those that champion VAR?

[whelk]

3 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

A rule is a rule, doesn’t matter if it’s an inch offside or a millimetre off the edge of a bat. I can honestly say I never stopped or changed the way I celebrated scoring goals (not that we’ve had many) since VAR came in.

Cricket and football are completely different FFS. If VAR actually got every decision right and quickly no one would mind it. And it isn’t accurate enough for millimetres as they don’t have the precision on the release of the ball. 

[The Kraken]

32 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

When the offside law was introduced it was never intended that it should be judged to the nearest millimetre.

But now it can be judged to a much more accurate standard, just like GLT. So it is. Times changes, things move on.

Edited 10 September, 2023 by The Kraken

[Turkish]

2 minutes ago, whelk said:

Cricket and football are completely different FFS. If VAR actually got every decision right and quickly no one would mind it. And it isn’t accurate enough for millimetres as they don’t have the precision on the release of the ball. 

I remember seeing something that the speed of the ball and the movement of the player mean there will always be a discrepancy of about 13mms when calling offside. Hence why all this nonsense about i your offside by 1mm your offside is pedantic clap trap. This taking 5 minutes, drawing lines is pathetic and even then the angle of the camera means it still cant be accurate. It's a lot easier to predict the flight of the ball in and LBW for example than it is to 100% work out a 1mm in an offside decision. If a VAR official cant look at it and make a decision within a minute then they should stick with the on field decision. 

[The Kraken]

13 minutes ago, Turkish said:

I remember seeing something that the speed of the ball and the movement of the player mean there will always be a discrepancy of about 13mms when calling offside. Hence why all this nonsense about i your offside by 1mm your offside is pedantic clap trap. This taking 5 minutes, drawing lines is pathetic and even then the angle of the camera means it still cant be accurate. It's a lot easier to predict the flight of the ball in and LBW for example than it is to 100% work out a 1mm in an offside decision. If a VAR official cant look at it and make a decision within a minute then they should stick with the on field decision. 

Tbf it’s not down to 1mm any more. This article sums up the modifications they’ve made since it was brought in, including increasing the tolerances and also the camera angles as you mention (also the camber of the pitch).

https://www.premierleague.com/news/1488423

I’ll be the first to admit it’s still an imperfect system, especially so as it’s got English officials administering it and they’re amongst the worst in the business. But it’s more accurate than not having it. I absolutely understand the argument that it fragments the game and detracts from celebrations, it absolutely does do that.

 

Edited 10 September, 2023 by The Kraken

[sfc4prem]

The offside rule was invented to stop 'goal hanging', is that correct?

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, The Kraken said:

But now it can be judged to a much more accurate standard, just like GLT. So it is. Times changes, things move on.

Times change. And so should the Laws of offside if they are going to be affected by TV.

[Lighthouse]

4 hours ago, Turkish said:

My point is you’re quick enough to say rules are rules, it’s offside even if it’s a mm, so just making sure you’re such a stickler for the rules in every walk of life. 31 mph in a 30 is still speeding But it looks like you’re happy to turn a blind eye to that minor error, but when it’s a mm offside then rules are rules. 
 

so in this particular example rules aren’t rules and tolerance should be permitted, but not when someone is 1mm offside 

So where are you drawing the line, personally. If we score a goal, but it only crosses the line by an inch, it shouldn’t be given right? It’s only just crossed the line, so it’s a bit harsh to give that against the other team.

2 hours ago, whelk said:

Cricket and football are completely different FFS. If VAR actually got every decision right and quickly no one would mind it. And it isn’t accurate enough for millimetres as they don’t have the precision on the release of the ball. 

VAR doesn’t make decisions, it’s just a piece of technology. The problem is it’s being used very badly and very slowly by the gimps in charge. The fact that a professional referee looked at the Onana foul against Wolves for about five minutes and decided no penalty is what is wrong with the game, not the actual technology.

[The Kraken]

3 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

Times change. And so should the Laws of offside if they are going to be affected by TV.

The laws have changed. A number of times. They’ve changed immeasurably over the past 30 years.  And even more so, as I have said, since the interpretation of VAR offside has been adapted after it was brought in over the past few years.

 

Edited 11 September, 2023 by The Kraken

[CB Fry]

7 hours ago, sfc4prem said:

The offside rule was invented to stop 'goal hanging', is that correct?

If the offside rule didn't exist then the sport of football wouldn't exist as we know it whatsoever.

[Turkish]

6 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

So where are you drawing the line, personally. If we score a goal, but it only crosses the line by an inch, it shouldn’t be given right? It’s only just crossed the line, so it’s a bit harsh to give that against the other team.

VAR doesn’t make decisions, it’s just a piece of technology. The problem is it’s being used very badly and very slowly by the gimps in charge. The fact that a professional referee looked at the Onana foul against Wolves for about five minutes and decided no penalty is what is wrong with the game, not the actual technology.

A ball crossing the line is not the same. You can check if that’s happened in almost real time, the camera is in line with goal so can give a 100% accurate decision in seconds whilst the game carries on, there is even a frigging line on the pitch to check it against. 

with offside you’ve got a ball travelling at I think they said 13 metres a second, with players running almost as the speed of international sprinters and cameras which aren’t exactly in line with where the incident took place, it then takes them minutes to reach a decision with them drawing lines for minutes. VAR was first brought in for clear and obvious errors not spending minutes trying to work out of a toenail is offside 

[egg]

Just now, Turkish said:

A ball crossing the line is not the same. You can check if that’s happened in almost real time, the camera is in line with goal so can give a 100% accurate decision in seconds whilst the game carries on, there is even a frigging line on the pitch to check it against. 

with offside you’ve got a ball travelling at I think they said 13 metres a second, with players running almost as the speed of international sprinters and cameras which aren’t exactly in line with where the incident took place, it then takes them minutes to reach a decision with them drawing lines for minutes. VAR was first brought in for clear and obvious errors not spending minutes trying to work out of a toenail is offside 

As you say, var was introduced to clear up clear and obvious errors. With offside it's about getting the correct decision, and the good old days of giving the benefit of doubt to the attacker has gone. 

If it was used to get to the correct decision on all occasions that would at least make its use consistent. On offside, personally I'd like a rule that the presumption is a goal unless it's clear within a minute of var being called in that it definitely isn't. If you've got to get red lines out and make the screen look like a scene from Tron, it gets daft and kills the game. In the rugby last night the Fiji lad went over for a try and the issue was did he ground the ball. In that situation the ref didn't have to see the ball touch down, the presumption was in his favour. The decision was quick (although wrong imo) but the flow of the game wasn't lost. 

[CB Fry]

45 minutes ago, Turkish said:

A ball crossing the line is not the same. You can check if that’s happened in almost real time, the camera is in line with goal so can give a 100% accurate decision in seconds whilst the game carries on, there is even a frigging line on the pitch to check it against. 

with offside you’ve got a ball travelling at I think they said 13 metres a second, with players running almost as the speed of international sprinters and cameras which aren’t exactly in line with where the incident took place, it then takes them minutes to reach a decision with them drawing lines for minutes. VAR was first brought in for clear and obvious errors not spending minutes trying to work out of a toenail is offside 

Quite.

Ball crossing the line is not even "VAR" anyway. Its communicated to the referee in real time at the moment the ball goes in.

[Lighthouse]

46 minutes ago, Turkish said:

A ball crossing the line is not the same. You can check if that’s happened in almost real time, the camera is in line with goal so can give a 100% accurate decision in seconds whilst the game carries on, there is even a frigging line on the pitch to check it against. 

with offside you’ve got a ball travelling at I think they said 13 metres a second, with players running almost as the speed of international sprinters and cameras which aren’t exactly in line with where the incident took place, it then takes them minutes to reach a decision with them drawing lines for minutes. VAR was first brought in for clear and obvious errors not spending minutes trying to work out of a toenail is offside 

I wouldn’t be adverse to changing the offside rule so that it’s done purely on feet position. None of these drop down lines from the shoulders, just one straight line across the ground in line with the furthest back foot of the last defender. If an attackers foot clearly breaks that line, in a way which can be deduced in ten seconds or less, then he’s offside. It’d be a really straight forward way of implementing a rule which was only ever intended to prevent goal hanging. Like I said, it’s the rules and the people who are at fault, as they always have been. The technology works fine.

[Lighthouse]

4 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

Quite.

Ball crossing the line is not even "VAR" anyway. Its communicated to the referee in real time at the moment the ball goes in.

Which is how VAR started and then they bizarrely changed it, so that every decision now involves the ref jogging over to the monitor to also watch the replay 12 times and takes twice as long. Why a professional referee, in the peace and quiet of the VAR room, with multiple replays and angles available can’t decide for himself, "the keeper pulled out a machete and cut the players head off, it’s a definite penalty," I have no idea.

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

I wouldn’t be adverse to changing the offside rule so that it’s done purely on feet position. None of these drop down lines from the shoulders, just one straight line across the ground in line with the furthest back foot of the last defender. If an attackers foot clearly breaks that line, in a way which can be deduced in ten seconds or less, then he’s offside. It’d be a really straight forward way of implementing a rule which was only ever intended to prevent goal hanging. Like I said, it’s the rules and the people who are at fault, as they always have been. The technology works fine.

I would prefer that they used the badge on the shirt as the marker. It’s what is effectively used in athletics.

Having said that, I would prefer that it wasn’t used at all.

[Whitey Grandad]

6 hours ago, The Kraken said:

The laws have changed. A number of times. They’ve changed immeasurably over the past 30 years.  And even more so, as I have said, since the interpretation of VAR offside has been adapted after it was brought in over the past few years.

 

And that’s what’s fundamentally wrong about it. Television has changed the Laws of the Game and not for the better.

This business about not flagging immediately for offside is one example. An offside player who is not flagged can run through and win a corner from which play continues. This is not right.

[Turkish]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

I wouldn’t be adverse to changing the offside rule so that it’s done purely on feet position. None of these drop down lines from the shoulders, just one straight line across the ground in line with the furthest back foot of the last defender. If an attackers foot clearly breaks that line, in a way which can be deduced in ten seconds or less, then he’s offside. It’d be a really straight forward way of implementing a rule which was only ever intended to prevent goal hanging. Like I said, it’s the rules and the people who are at fault, as they always have been. The technology works fine.

They just need a bit of common sense, if they cant tell after looking at a video or photo then give the benefit of doubt to the attacker. All this spending minutes drawing lines it ridiculous. If it's tight let the play go on, refer to to the video ref, if they cant decide after looking at a rerun then let the goal stand. We all want to see goals, not goals disallowed after a long delay in play over the tiniest margins.

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

 

This business about not flagging immediately for offside is one example. An offside player who is not flagged can run through and win a corner from which play continues. This is not right.

That’s incorrect. If the Lino thinks he offside he keeps his flag down and lets him run through, when it goes out for a corner,  he flags and the offside is given. The only way an offside player can win a corner is if the Lino didn’t think he was offside in the first place. 

[trousers]

2 hours ago, Turkish said:

They just need a bit of common sense, if they cant tell after looking at a video or photo then give the benefit of doubt to the attacker. All this spending minutes drawing lines it ridiculous. If it's tight let the play go on, refer to to the video ref, if they cant decide after looking at a rerun then let the goal stand. We all want to see goals, not goals disallowed after a long delay in play over the tiniest margins.

Yep, agree. I've always advocated that there should be a time limit to VAR decisions... 30 seconds, for example, would be plenty. If someone can't decide in that time whether someone was offside, handled the ball, fouled, etc then by definition its not "clear and obvious" so go with the officials on-field call. Probably all too simple and logical for the rocket-scientists in charge though... 

Edited 11 September, 2023 by trousers

[eurosaint]

2 hours ago, Whitey Grandad said:

And that’s what’s fundamentally wrong about it. Television has changed the Laws of the Game and not for the better.

This business about not flagging immediately for offside is one example. An offside player who is not flagged can run through and win a corner from which play continues. This is not right.

Duckhunter is correct about the lino flagging after the corner is given which overrules the original decision but a bigger concern for me is that a player can get injured in that phase of play which would not otherwise happen ! Lavia got injured v Chelsea early last season and was out for about 6 weeks ! Had the game been stopped for a clear offside he'd have been ok (there have been other incidents too) !

[East Kent Saint]

22 hours ago, Turkish said:

My point is you’re quick enough to say rules are rules, it’s offside even if it’s a mm, so just making sure you’re such a stickler for the rules in every walk of life. 31 mph in a 30 is still speeding But it looks like you’re happy to turn a blind eye to that minor error, but when it’s a mm offside then rules are rules. 
 

so in this particular example rules aren’t rules and tolerance should be permitted, but not when someone is 1mm offside 

There is a bit of tolerance in speeding to allow for speedo error . In the case of 70 mph they said they allowed 3 mph then added 2 mph , unfortunately I was clocked doing 83 which they said equates to me being done for 80 mph !

So my speed alarm is now set to 75 .

 

Edited 11 September, 2023 by East Kent Saint

[Turkish]

3 minutes ago, East Kent Saint said:

There is a bit of tolerance in speeding to allow for speedo error . In the case of 70 mph they said they allowed 3 mph then added 2 mph , unfortunately I was clocked doing 83 which they said equates to me being done for 80 mph !

So my speed alarm is now set to 75 .

Yep agreed a sensible approach. But lighthouse said “rules are rule” if you’re offside by 1mm you’re still offside. Hence my question to him, would he be fine with a Speeding ticket doing 31 in a 30, given rules are rules and all that 

[ashnats]

Nfl fixed this years ago, just copy what already works. 2 challenges per half, per team, managers discretion.

[Dark Munster]

12 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

I wouldn’t be adverse to changing the offside rule so that it’s done purely on feet position. None of these drop down lines from the shoulders, just one straight line across the ground in line with the furthest back foot of the last defender. If an attackers foot clearly breaks that line, in a way which can be deduced in ten seconds or less, then he’s offside. It’d be a really straight forward way of implementing a rule which was only ever intended to prevent goal hanging. Like I said, it’s the rules and the people who are at fault, as they always have been. The technology works fine.

That's what I've been advocating for a while: feet only for offside, and time limit for a decision (somewhere 15-30 seconds). In ice hockey they use only the position of the attacker's skates to determine the offside rule in that game.

Throw in a thick enough line parallel to the last defender's boot, to give a suitable margin of error in the attacker's favour, and problem solved.

Common bloody sense, so I doubt either idea will be adopted.

[Polegategavin243]

13 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

I wouldn’t be adverse to changing the offside rule so that it’s done purely on feet position. None of these drop down lines from the shoulders, just one straight line across the ground in line with the furthest back foot of the last defender. If an attackers foot clearly breaks that line, in a way which can be deduced in ten seconds or less, then he’s offside. It’d be a really straight forward way of implementing a rule which was only ever intended to prevent goal hanging. Like I said, it’s the rules and the people who are at fault, as they always have been. The technology works fine.

The issue with the rules of football, and the offside rule in particular, is that the governing bodies have continually tried to over complicate the rules. It is now difficult for the players, officials and fans to interpret these rules.

The rule should be that, if a player is further forward than more than 1 player of the opposite team they are offside, irrespective of this rubbish about “interfering with play”. The linesman now has to try to determine multiple factors when deciding whether to put the flag up. This is the problem with football. All other sports have strict rules with limited variants, making it so much easier to officiate.

[Noodles34]

I was in Dortmund last week and if you think our VAR is screwed then think again. VAR managed to overrule the referee for a penalty and then after 10 minutes or so managed to overrule  themselves! Germans around me said VAR was shit in their country too. 

[whelk]

What do all the geeks with a hard on for VAR feel about the Liverpool fuck up?

Pile of shite and thank fuck it isn’t in the Championship 

[Saint_Ash]

50 minutes ago, whelk said:

What do all the geeks with a hard on for VAR feel about the Liverpool fuck up?

Pile of shite and thank fuck it isn’t in the Championship 

I don't like VAR but you can't use the Liverpool debacle to beat it with. Pure human error. It is great it's not in the championship though, until we see a blatant offside goal go against us. 

[Lighthouse]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

What do all the geeks with a hard on for VAR feel about the Liverpool fuck up?

Pile of shite and thank fuck it isn’t in the Championship 

It’s the kind of f**k up which changes games pretty much every week, without VAR, but everyone loses their mind when it happens once with VAR. As I’ve always said, the technology isn’t the problem, it’s the idiots using it.

[AlexLaw76]

I find it quite funny that there is plenty of chatter on the phone-ins, with pundits etc, that before VAR there would not have been this amount of debate with a blatantly incorrect decision. More like it would have drawn anger and everyone would move on.

 

Like fuck would they. That is precisely why we have VAR now

[whelk]

2 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

It’s the kind of f**k up which changes games pretty much every week, without VAR, but everyone loses their mind when it happens once with VAR. As I’ve always said, the technology isn’t the problem, it’s the idiots using it.

No no, it eliminates any doubt of any offside decision ever being incorrect ever. Well worth pausing the game for minutes. 
and even when they realise a mistake they don’t have balls to tell the ref. Fucking deprived me of a fantasy assist. Bastards!

[Sarisbury Saint]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

What do all the geeks with a hard on for VAR feel about the Liverpool fuck up?

Pile of shite and thank fuck it isn’t in the Championship 

Great call, they got one right at last 😂

[whelk]

5 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

I find it quite funny that there is plenty of chatter on the phone-ins, with pundits etc, that before VAR there would not have been this amount of debate with a blatantly incorrect decision. More like it would have drawn anger and everyone would move on.

 

Like fuck would they. That is precisely why we have VAR now

Wasn’t a blatant bad call by lino in realtime. Easy mistake to make but whole selling point of VAR is that will eliminate these mistakes when reviewed. Can’t even get that right!

[whelk]

13 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

It’s the kind of f**k up which changes games pretty much every week, without VAR, but everyone loses their mind when it happens once with VAR. As I’ve always said, the technology isn’t the problem, it’s the idiots using it.

You are right about us fucking it up. In Euros and World Cup hardly noticed it 

[Lighthouse]

12 minutes ago, whelk said:

No no, it eliminates any doubt of any offside decision ever being incorrect ever. Well worth pausing the game for minutes. 
and even when they realise a mistake they don’t have balls to tell the ref. Fucking deprived me of a fantasy assist. Bastards!

VAR did its job perfectly yesterday. The goal was wrongly given offside by the on field lino, without VAR it ends there and the net result is the same - no Liverpool goal. VAR then proved that the goal should have stood but was basically ignored.

[Baz Fl]

VAR works great, the people working it not so much

[whelk]

1 hour ago, Lighthouse said:

VAR did its job perfectly yesterday. The goal was wrongly given offside by the on field lino, without VAR it ends there and the net result is the same - no Liverpool goal. VAR then proved that the goal should have stood but was basically ignored.

You seem to marvel that tv pictures can be frozen. They can be slowed down too and rewound. Wow go VAR

Edited 2 October, 2023 by whelk

[Saint_clark]

Just don't understand why they are using current referees for VAR, all mates and chums working together not wanting to make each other look stupid. VAR should be an independent pool of newly hired and trained officials that have no problem telling a referee that they're a blind c*nt and need to go change their decision. 

[Dark Munster]

2 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

VAR did its job perfectly yesterday. The goal was wrongly given offside by the on field lino, without VAR it ends there and the net result is the same - no Liverpool goal. VAR then proved that the goal should have stood but was basically ignored.

I wouldn't say that, it failed to do its job (miserably). But I get your main point, VAR with idiots in control was no worse than having no VAR in that disallowed goal.

I think the moral of the story is, VAR run competently is better than no VAR, and VAR with idiots in control is no worse than no VAR.