VAR - Not the hero we want, the one we need

[cyberman]

That’s a clear offside, there is daylight in between so no qualms about that one. I think the bigger issue is when it’s virtually level and it’s going to go down to a dangling shoelace or something equally daft. Perhaps there needs to be enough of a margin introduced to remove the ridiculousness from the decision and slightly favour the attacking side in these situations when it’s little more than a hairs breadth.

And what happens when an attacker is a hairs breadth offside from your make believe rule?

 

[RochaRoja]

That’s a clear offside, there is daylight in between so no qualms about that one. I think the bigger issue is when it’s virtually level and it’s going to go down to a dangling shoelace or something equally daft. Perhaps there needs to be enough of a margin introduced to remove the ridiculousness from the decision and slightly favour the attacking side in these situations when it’s little more than a hairs breadth.

Daylight requires there to be “daylight” between last part of the attacker’s body and the last part of the defender’s, not between two lines drawn on a screen.

This was particularly dumb because she actually had to move backwards to get to the ball after it was played. How has she gained an advantage when her being “offside” made it a more difficult chance?

 

[montpelier]

And what happens when an attacker is a hairs breadth offside from your make believe rule?

Player has already had the benefit of the tolerance/allowance I suppose.

 

[RochaRoja]

And what happens when an attacker is a hairs breadth offside from your make believe rule?

If the human eye can’t spot it on a slow-mo replay then the referee’s decision stands.

 

[montpelier]

Check after every goal is stupid as it purely exists scrutinize goals so they can be ruled out for the pettiest reasons. How can that possibly be an improvement to the game?

@RochaRoja - I think that was you.

Who decides what level of 'petty' gets waved off?

And only doing some goals? Is it a lucky dip?

(I am sympathetic to the overall thrust of what you're saying, honestly. So apologies for the smart-arsery)

 

[montpelier]

If the human eye can’t spot it on a slow-mo replay then the referee’s decision stands.

That sounds pretty reasonable & more 'real' possibly.

 

[cyberman]

Player has already had the benefit of the tolerance/allowance I suppose.

But its the exact same margin of error you are using?
Strikers get enough from this, they can he a hair breadth on as offside and every close decision will be allowed to play on and analysed. Unless the linesman goes against protocol then every through ball that was wrongfully flagged will stand etc. There's far more given to the game in terms of attacking play through VAR than taking away when enforcing the actual rules of the game.
How many hair breadth goals haven't been given since goal line technology has been introduced?

 

[cyberman]

If the human eye can’t spot it on a slow-mo replay then the referee’s decision stands.

You need lines on the replay because the camera isn't perfectly in line with the play.

 

[montpelier]

But its the exact same margin of error you are using?
Strikers get enough from this, they can he a hair breadth on as offside and every close decision will be allowed to play on and analysed. Unless the linesman goes against protocol then every through ball that was wrongfully flagged will stand etc. There's far more given to the game in terms of attacking play through VAR than taking away when enforcing the actual rules of the game.
How many hair breadth goals haven't been given since goal line technology has been introduced?

Yes, all reasonable points.

Once you decide it has to be what happens isn't it. And you are just moving the line. And I totally agree that all this favours attackers all the time anyway, basically.

 

[RochaRoja]

@RochaRoja - I think that was you.

Who decides what level of 'petty' gets waved off?

And only doing some goals? Is it a lucky dip?

(I am sympathetic to the overall thrust of what you're saying, honestly. So apologies for the smart-arsery)

Usually it’s pretty obvious from player/crowd/coach reactions when something controversial happens.

The problem is we’d probably start seeing players appealing for everything after goals are given to ensure they’re reviewed so long term you’d have the same issue.

If you have four VAR watching the game in real time on the monitors then why not just have a system where one of them can “flag” when an offense seems to have happened in real time and only perform the checks in those situations (or when the on pitch officials ask for a second opinion).

 

[RochaRoja]

You need lines on the replay because the camera isn't perfectly in line with the play.

Not really. If it’s unclear without the lines it’s hardly a blatant offside regardless of the angle.

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

That’s a clear offside, there is daylight in between so no qualms about that one. I think the bigger issue is when it’s virtually level and it’s going to go down to a dangling shoelace or something equally daft. Perhaps there needs to be enough of a margin introduced to remove the ridiculousness from the decision and slightly favour the attacking side in these situations when it’s little more than a hairs breadth.

Yep, I’ve no issue with that one. The problem is with the Lingard one or the famous AC Milan one, they are simply too close to call for a system that isn’t 100% perfect.

 

[cyberman]

Not really. If it’s unclear without the lines it’s hardly a blatant offside regardless of the angle.

But the camera doesn't run alongside play so there's a lot of angles where its not straight on.
As we stand there are many decisions that ate clearly offside. If we move this offside line up then those clear calls become less clear so the close calls that are cleared up by your rule change are replaced by the decisions that become less clear.
There's literally no difference.

 

[montpelier]

Usually it’s pretty obvious from player/crowd/coach reactions when something controversial happens.

The problem is we’d probably start seeing players appealing for everything after goals are given to ensure they’re reviewed so long term you’d have the same issue.

If you have four VAR watching the game in real time on the monitors then why not just have a system where one of them can “flag” when an offense seems to have happened in real time and only perform the checks in those situations (or when the on pitch officials ask for a second opinion).

Definitely the bold.

I think the last para issue is how it links to the idea that they want to keep the referee in control & not undermine him. There is a flaw in trying to maintain that approach as soon as you start using outside help with anything. The goal line stuff appears to stay with the ref & doesn't seem to do that & is pretty rare anyway.

 

[Zlatan 7]

I’m amazed people are still glossing over or totally ignoring the points raised about the inaccuracy of these offside calls and in some instances even comparing them to the success and accuracy of goal line tech.

The angle of camera, the exact precise point the ball leaves the passers boot, the exact frame they choose to stop footage on and draw their lines. It’s all a best guess game and no where near the accuracy of goal line tech.

It would be great for us as a viewer to see three frames, either side of the ball being played to see how much difference there is in the player positions due to the speed of the game, I’m
Genuinely curious about this.
In my mind the frame the var guys choose to use would make a massive difference in the call. I’ve obviously got nothing to back this up hence why I’d like to see it.

 

[cyberman]

I’m amazed people are still glossing over or totally ignoring the points raised about the inaccuracy of these offside calls and in some instances even comparing them to the success and accuracy of goal line tech.

The angle of camera, the exact precise point the ball leaves the passers boot, the exact frame they choose to stop footage on and draw their lines. It’s all a best guess game and no where near the accuracy of goal line tech.

It would be great for us as a viewer to see three frames, either side of the ball being played to see how much difference there is in the player positions due to the speed of the game, I’m
Genuinely curious about this.
In my mind the frame the var guys choose to use would make a massive difference in the call. I’ve obviously got nothing to back this up hence why I’d like to see it.

Has there been claims of VAR inaccuracy? Only place I've seen it are from posters reaching on here.

 

[sullydnl]

Either you accept the system in use or you decide that it is unreliable or you build some tolerance in - favouring attackers presumably, from the flavour of these critical comments.

You would think VAR would be better on offside than the bloke with a flag who did that West Ham v Liverpool game, for example.

This concept of 'a clear & obvious error' is getting to be more & more of a red herring isn't it?

The "clear and obvious error" concept doesn't apply to offsides so I'm not sure why you'd mention it in this context.

 

[RochaRoja]

But the camera doesn't run alongside play so there's a lot of angles where its not straight on.
As we stand there are many decisions that ate clearly offside. If we move this offside line up then those clear calls become less clear so the close calls that are cleared up by your rule change are replaced by the decisions that become less clear.
There's literally no difference.

Most pitches have lines mowed across the grass making it pretty clear. Again, if that doesn’t give you enough of a clue then don’t change the decision.

 

[RochaRoja]

The "clear and obvious error" concept doesn't apply to offsides so I'm not sure why you'd mention it in this context.

Because it was a phrase used a lot at the start when trying to promote VAR to hoodwink the public into thinking petty nonsense like this was not going to happen.

 

[TwoSheds]

I really don't understand why we can't just copy the successful implementation of video refereeing in numerous other sports. Or even the (surprisingly!) successful implementation in the last World Cup. Every competition seems to have different rules at play, it's ridiculous really.

In cricket, the umpire's on field call stands unless it is clearly wrong upon viewing the replay. In the case of whether something is hitting the stumps for example, there is a margin for umpire's call if anything less than half the ball would have hit. You get a few whingeing gits but broadly people tend to agree it works very well.

In the last World Cup when they had a screen the referee could go and watch himself, he was allowed to use his discretion based on whether he thought it was serious enough to overturn.

Given the above examples, why anyone thinks it sensible to overturn decisions based on the finest of margins judged by some faceless ref in the gods I just don't understand. VAR can work, but it must be implemented sensibly and consistently in all competitions in the same way. If the system isn't working, fine, tweak it and try again, but there shouldn't be licence for every competition to invent their own systems as they go along.

 

[RochaRoja]

Has there been claims of VAR inaccuracy? Only place I've seen it are from posters reaching on here.

There’s no possible way it can be 100%, they’re not using microchip technology or anything. It’s still just some blokes relying on low frame rate camera footage and arbitrary lines drawn on a screen.

 

[sullydnl]

Because it was a phrase used a lot at the start when trying to promote VAR to hoodwink the public into thinking petty nonsense like this was not going to happen.

Except they explicitly said it didn't apply to offsides. So if ye were hoodwinked it was by your own lack of understanding, not anyone else's doing. Can hardly keep bringing it up now like they sprang some elaborate trap on you.

 

[RochaRoja]

Except they explicitly said it didn't apply to offsides. So if ye were hoodwinked it was by your own lack of understanding, not anyone else's doing. Can hardly keep bringing it up now like they sprang some elaborate trap on you.

We were told for years before VAR came in that it was only ever going to be implemented to “eliminate refereeing howlers”. “Clear and obvious error” was also doing the rounds for a while before FIFA clarified that all goals would be checked which seems a deliberate ploy to get doubters onside.

Even if it’s not the FIFA rules, reviewing for clear and obvious errors is obviously the way it should be implemented.

 

[Zlatan 7]

Has there been claims of VAR inaccuracy? Only place I've seen it are from posters reaching on here.

So you think the offside VAR calls are accurate and don’t need improving?

The points I and others have raised are ‘reaching’?

 

[Vialli_92]

If it's marginal they should give advantage to the attackers because it's pretty clear they don't have the right cameras and technology to fully utilise VAR for offside and make the right call Everytime

If they get the right technology in and can freeze the frame the moment contact is first made with the ball and clearly distinguish offside or onside beyond a reasonable doubt then they should use it for marginal calls in my opinion

 

[cyberman]

So you think the offside VAR calls are accurate and don’t need improving?

The points I and others have raised are ‘reaching’?

I don't think we need a massive leap in technology to draw a straight line down a pitch no.
Honestly I've never heard this be brought up before, it just seems like it an used just to make a point as if we were supposed to be spoon fed the process as if we understand how it works.
It seems posters are saying its too accurate and noe its not completely accurate? If the latter were true then it would be brought up a lot more often.
Is there evidence that it isn't accurate on offside calls?

 

[Zlatan 7]

I don't think we need a massive leap in technology to draw a straight line down a pitch no.
Honestly I've never heard this be brought up before, it just seems like it an used just to make a point as if we were supposed to be spoon fed the process as if we understand how it works.
It seems posters are saying its too accurate and noe its not completely accurate? If the latter were true then it would be brought up a lot more often.
Is there evidence that it isn't accurate on offside calls?

I brought this point up last year, it’s not something new.

And it’s not about the ability to draw straight lines on a pitch, however simple you want to imply it is.

Frame rate, I’m not being funny but do you know what that is? The actual second When the replay is paused will make a difference to the call. Forget the drawing lines.
Players and the ball move so fast if you pause it on one frame player is onside, skip it forward a frame player is offside. Both frames show the passer in contact with the ball.

As I said, I’d like to see the frames and the difference between each frame skipped to see if there is that much difference. You seem to not think that even matters and it’s all about where this var ref draws his line. yes, that’s simple.

 

[fck]

I brought this point up last year, it’s not something new.

And it’s not about the ability to draw straight lines on a pitch, however simple you want to imply it is.

Frame rate, I’m not being funny but do you know what that is? The actual second When the replay is paused will make a difference to the call. Forget the drawing lines.
Players and the ball move so fast if you pause it on one frame player is onside, skip it forward a frame player is offside. Both frames show the passer in contact with the ball.

As I said, I’d like to see the frames and the difference between each frame skipped to see if there is that much difference. You seem to not think that even matters and it’s all about where this var ref draws his line. yes, that’s simple.

maybe you should call UEFA and tell them about FPS and if they heard about it. Joking aside it's always good to question things but do you really believe the people implementing the system are absolute morons? What is the basis for you doubting the accuracy.. are you an expert in this field or did you read it somewhere?

 

[Anustart89]

I wonder if people who think that a tiny offside (as seen on replays) should be allowed also think that a goal should be given if there’s still a tiny bit of ball above the goal line?

In theory, offside is as black and white as a goal, so the ‘clear and obvious’ line being peddled doesn’t apply to whether someone or the ball is past a certain line at a certain moment.

I do agree with the frame rate issue though, but they could have 60fps cameras running along the pitch on each side (following the last defender) so we’d get a straight look down the offside line and with the maximum amount of frames.

 

[RochaRoja]

I wonder if people who think that a tiny offside (as seen on replays) should be allowed also think that a goal should be given if there’s still a tiny bit of ball above the goal line?

In theory, offside is as black and white as a goal, so the ‘clear and obvious’ line being peddled doesn’t apply to whether someone or the ball is past a certain line at a certain moment.

I do agree with the frame rate issue though, but they could have 60fps cameras running along the pitch on each side (following the last defender) so we’d get a straight look down the offside line and with the maximum amount of frames.

“In theory” being the crucial word there.

The ball crossing the line is literally the whole point of the game, it’s not a daft archaic rule which has changed multiple times over my lifetime. I’m not sure how the two can be equated.

And, yeah, it can be accurately detected whether the ball has crossed the line instantly with no human involvement.

 

[Zlatan 7]

maybe you should call UEFA and tell them about FPS and if they heard about it. Joking aside it's always good to question things but do you really believe the people implementing the system are absolute morons? What is the basis for you doubting the accuracy.. are you an expert in this field or did you read it somewhere?

I’ve never said UEFA have not heard of frame rates, I questioned the people on here saying it can’t be improved and talk as if it is 100% accurate.

I certainly think the accuracy has been brushed over as you can’t argue with ‘texhnology’ According to some.

All I’m trying to get across is, if it’s being used to make calls and change decisions of kneecaps and a few mm here or there is on/offside then it should be accurate and not guesswork.

No one has provided different frames to see how it could be affected so I struggle to see how people with concerns can be laughed at. I guess we should all just sit back, keep paying our money and accept technology is king.

 

[Zlatan 7]

I wonder if people who think that a tiny offside (as seen on replays) should be allowed also think that a goal should be given if there’s still a tiny bit of ball above the goal line?

In theory, offside is as black and white as a goal, so the ‘clear and obvious’ line being peddled doesn’t apply to whether someone or the ball is past a certain line at a certain moment.

I do agree with the frame rate issue though, but they could have 60fps cameras running along the pitch on each side (following the last defender) so we’d get a straight look down the offside line and with the maximum amount of frames.

Again, stop comparing offside mm calls with goal line tech, it’s totally fecking different.

 

[Seven Seas Sardines]

Again, stop comparing offside mm calls with goal line tech, it’s totally fecking different.

Only difference is that it takes longer to confirm.

 

[Mb194dc]

This discussion is still going on?

He's offside per the tech employed. You is can clearly see from the still. It is not accurate to atomic level but far better than the manual approach.

Even the goal line technology has a margin of error.. not that it's admitted. I was wondering if Ronaldo's second goal v Atletico crossed the line in reality...?

Thing is the technology is still more accurate and fair overall and still very worth having in top level football.

 

[Zlatan 7]

Only difference is that it takes longer to confirm.

Yeah, ok

 

[montpelier]

I only ''peddled'' the 'clear and obvious' line as a slightly sarky observation at the way VAR & then us talking about it have now moved on to marginal offsides - possibly too close to call - offsides as well as a lot of other (different) stuff that is just a matter of opinion. I want to stress at this point for the hard of thinking that marginal offsides & matters of opinion are DIFFERENT things here. Clearly offside ought not to be a matter of opinion.

But all the VAR fanboys (and quite often often pass-agg) produce is that no decisions are a matter of opinion, THE RULES have no grey areas & every VAR judgement is correct, basically.

This is a pretty good post about the offside arrangements, mind.

This discussion is still going on?

He's offside per the tech employed. You is can clearly see from the still. It is not accurate to atomic level but far better than the manual approach.

Even the goal line technology has a margin of error.. not that it's admitted. I was wondering if Ronaldo's second goal v Atletico crossed the line in reality...?

Thing is the technology is still more accurate and fair overall and still very worth having in top level football.

 

[wr8_utd]

VAR was just used in the Under 20 WC in the penalty shootout for a keeper rushing off the line and the save was ruled out and penalty retaken. This is a brilliant use of the technology imo. Keepers have gotten away this forever and if it cuts it down then kudos to VAR.

 

[FigmentOfYerImagination]

Exactly. There should be a tolerance of about half a foot, about 15cm. So if the defenders and the attackers line falls within the tolerance they are given on side. Pretending that the tech is able to give an accurate reading to millimetres is just ridicules.

First of all, don’t mix two measurement standards. It’s silly.

Second, measuring 0 cm is not okay, but measuring 0 at 15 cm is.

You don’t get that you make the rule 100% the same, just shifted away from a clear marking (defender lineup), making it even harder to make a proper ruling. Your idea sucks and just shifts your own problem with the initial concept 15cm along.

 

[FigmentOfYerImagination]

We don't. Its more a change to the offside rule than VAR.

No it isn’t. It is the exact same off-side rule, just applied a few centimeters towards the goal.

It doesn't have to be 10cm. I said any number which can be considered an obvious variation. What's the current margin of error?

If it can be any amount of cm... How about we use 0cm?

 

[cyberman]

I brought this point up last year, it’s not something new.

And it’s not about the ability to draw straight lines on a pitch, however simple you want to imply it is.

Frame rate, I’m not being funny but do you know what that is? The actual second When the replay is paused will make a difference to the call. Forget the drawing lines.
Players and the ball move so fast if you pause it on one frame player is onside, skip it forward a frame player is offside. Both frames show the passer in contact with the ball.

As I said, I’d like to see the frames and the difference between each frame skipped to see if there is that much difference. You seem to not think that even matters and it’s all about where this var ref draws his line. yes, that’s simple.

It doesn't really matter what you understand though. You really think these questions arent answered with the amount of money thrown in?
Honest question, has this been brought up before or are you grabbing frame rates from thin air?