Sunny Jim
Full Member
Ive just seen replays od Maguires goals and Shaws could....the goal shouldve stood. Nothing wrong with IT. Also yellow seems fair for the challenge.
The implication here is that he only watches the slow motion, as if parachuted from Neverland or something, having experienced a total recall. Were that the only thing available to him, fears of information loss would be much more understandable.Sigh.. here I go.
The Luke Shaw decision is something that has been bothering me and something I have been sensing in the undercurrent of the VAR wave that hasn't been explored yet. I'm going to try to put it into words.
Lets first look at what happened: Luke shaw went for a 50-50 with the Burnley player, got some of the ball, and the ref who was in full view of it, did not deem it to be a foul.
Then he looks at it in slo-mo and thinks, "Hang on! I see studs coming to contact with leg. Therefore, it is a possible red card offense!".
There seems to be an assumption that looking at an incident in slow motion is necessary for the referee to make a decision. It seems sensible on the face of it. If you see something happening slowly, you have more time to process whats happening and parse through what actually happened with all the knowledge possible. HOWEVER, what seems to be never really discussed and factored into the VAR protocols is that there's a ton of very relevant information lost when we watch an incident like that in slow motion. Things like "momentum" and "speed of action" are very important in determining things like "excessive force" or "potential to cause injury". So when the referee looks at the slo-mo especially with the additional emphasis on the frame where the studs meet the leg, he basically had no choice under the rules but to say its a at least a possible red card offense. Whereas in real time, he saw that as soon as Shaw got the ball he pulled out of the challenge and while the studs did meet the leg, the potential to cause injury was not as extreme as it looks.
Note here that Shaw did NOT get a red card!
Why? Because the ref knows instinctively the tackle was not that dangerous and not worthy of a red. However, by the letter of the law it really should have been a red. (I have seen Shaka Hislop of ESPN FC, among others, argue just that).
So, what are the bigger implication of this?
I think all in all, Kevin Friend probably did the right thing. However, he's getting shit on by everybody for it both ways. And therefore, I think this is an unsustainable situation. Either we take this seriously and properly contextualize the use of slow motion replays on VAR, or we risk falling to the opposite extreme where over time literally any contact between studs on player regardless of context would be red card.
I dunno, maybe people think thats for the better, but I would argue it would make football a lot more methodical, and a lot less fun.
TLDR: slo-mo replays are paradoxically less accurate depictions of an incident and should be used with care in VAR
I did say that I thought Friend did the right thing in the end. And maybe you're right and this is not going to be an issue, and I hope you are. But I think unless as the idea of "slo-mo being inaccurate" catches on in the zeitgeist and normal discussion and while clowns like Jaime Redknapp can just say uncontested "You just wanna see consistency, you could see it given", then I fear we slide almost uncontested more and more into that territory.The implication here is that he only watches the slow motion, as if parachuted from Neverland or something, having experienced a total recall. Were that the only thing available to him, fears of information loss would be much more understandable.
What I would hope he actually does is to just use the slow motion as the supplement piece of the jigsaw in retention. He would have seen the incident in real time just a couple of minutes ago and surely still remembers things like speed and momentum. He then just adds the zoomed in, slow motion information, and then tries to reconstruct the incident in his head.
The two main problems is the refs. Their training, their fitness and ability to apply rules.Sigh.. here I go.
The Luke Shaw decision is something that has been bothering me and something I have been sensing in the undercurrent of the VAR wave that hasn't been explored yet. I'm going to try to put it into words.
Lets first look at what happened: Luke shaw went for a 50-50 with the Burnley player, got some of the ball, and the ref who was in full view of it, did not deem it to be a foul.
Then he looks at it in slo-mo and thinks, "Hang on! I see studs coming to contact with leg. Therefore, it is a possible red card offense!".
There seems to be an assumption that looking at an incident in slow motion is necessary for the referee to make a decision. It seems sensible on the face of it. If you see something happening slowly, you have more time to process whats happening and parse through what actually happened with all the knowledge possible. HOWEVER, what seems to be never really discussed and factored into the VAR protocols is that there's a ton of very relevant information lost when we watch an incident like that in slow motion. Things like "momentum" and "speed of action" are very important in determining things like "excessive force" or "potential to cause injury". So when the referee looks at the slo-mo especially with the additional emphasis on the frame where the studs meet the leg, he basically had no choice under the rules but to say its a at least a possible red card offense. Whereas in real time, he saw that as soon as Shaw got the ball he pulled out of the challenge and while the studs did meet the leg, the potential to cause injury was not as extreme as it looks.
Note here that Shaw did NOT get a red card!
Why? Because the ref knows instinctively the tackle was not that dangerous and not worthy of a red. However, by the letter of the law it really should have been a red. (I have seen Shaka Hislop of ESPN FC, among others, argue just that).
So, what are the bigger implication of this?
I think all in all, Kevin Friend probably did the right thing. However, he's getting shit on by everybody for it both ways. And therefore, I think this is an unsustainable situation. Either we take this seriously and properly contextualize the use of slow motion replays on VAR, or we risk falling to the opposite extreme where over time literally any contact between studs on player regardless of context would be red card.
I dunno, maybe people think thats for the better, but I would argue it would make football a lot more methodical, and a lot less fun.
TLDR: slo-mo replays are paradoxically less accurate depictions of an incident and should be used with care in VAR
I'm not privy to Stockley Park discussions and have no idea how often those exact words are used. It's a very broad term and can mean a lot of different things to different people. I suspect they'll have an operational definition of clear and obvious though, filled with a bit more exact descriptive content.I did say that I thought Friend did the right thing in the end. And maybe you're right and this is not going to be an issue, and I hope you are. But I think unless as the idea of "slo-mo being inaccurate" catches on in the zeitgeist and normal discussion and while clowns like Jaime Redknapp can just say uncontested "You just wanna see consistency, you could see it given", then I fear we slide almost uncontested more and more into that territory.
Think how much more sanitized the game has become compared to 15 years ago already. It's gone from "two footers - straight red" to "studs showing - straight red" to "he got the ball but his follow through was a bit high - possible red". My point is that, nobody explicitly makes the point that just because there's contact - it's not wrong or illegal or dangerous or a foul. This is the reason why diving is such a big problem too, by the way - because refs give penalties when players go down and there's contact - often forgetting about the bigger picture as you say.
My point may even be less about VAR and its technical application and more about the way the refs talk about it and the way it is covered by the media. For example, did you know the whole "clear and obvious" never even enters into the discussion during a VAR check? Yet everyone covering the game from the pundits to even former refs seem completely obsessed with it after every VAR referral.
PS: An additional point, How routinely do you now see a perfectly good tackle called a foul for basically no reason other than it looked dangerous? Two people flying towards each other with full intent to get there first will always look dangerous!
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
it’s going to happen with an offside at some point as well.Interesting point about VAR clusterfeck in our game. Cavani got injured in the foul by Robbie Brady. He was off the pitch getting treated as a result and we had to defend the freekick from Shaw’s foul without one our best headers of the ball. Because of an injury from a cynical, dangerous foul that VAR deemed never to have happened.
Without VAR, play stops for the Shaw foul. Or play continues and the foul on Cavani is appropriately dealt with.Several individuals (referees) didn’t deem it dangerous play, otherwise there was nothing preventing them from sending him off. So nothing to do with the var clusterfeck in our game.
Without VAR play doesn't stop for the Shaw foul, don't need to be speculative about that as that's what actually happened. Undoing the injury is just not something VAR can do. It can (correctly) award the Shaw foul, as it did, and then there's the second opportunity for someone to look at the nasty foul on Cavani. Were it deemed dangerous there was nothing preventing the referee from either sending the defender off or giving him a yellow card, but he didn't do it, and not because he was forced to think of it as something that didn't happen, but because he didn't think it was a dangerous foul.Without VAR, play stops for the Shaw foul. Or play continues and the foul on Cavani is appropriately dealt with.
It’s only now we have VAR we have these weird situations where players can get hurt in a nasty tackle worthy of a booking that we have to pretend didn’t happen. That never happened before. Even more surreal when said player can’t defend the free-kick which led to the ref having to ignore the foul that injured them.
Nope. That’s not true.Without VAR play doesn't stop for the Shaw foul, don't need to be speculative about that as that's what actually happened. Undoing the injury is just not something VAR can do. It can (correctly) award the Shaw foul, as it did, and then there's the second opportunity for someone to look at the nasty foul on Cavani. Were it deemed dangerous there was nothing preventing the referee from either sending the defender off or giving him a yellow card, but he didn't do it, and not because he was forced to think of it as something that didn't happen, but because he didn't think it was a dangerous foul.
I'm pretty sure he can still caution him for recklessness, even if, for the purposes of the game, everything else is disregarded. That's certainly the case for violent conduct and excessive force.Nope. That’s not true.
Nope. Apparently can only give a red card in that scenario. Not yellow.I'm pretty sure he can still caution him for recklessness, even if, for the purposes of the game, everything else is disregarded. That's certainly the case for violent conduct and excessive force.
Would love to read what you've read.Nope. Apparently can only give a red card in that scenario. Not yellow.
It’s in this thread higher up. Part of the explanation released by Stockley Park to try and clear up the weekly Var-related irritation and confusion.Would love to read what you've read.
I'm sorry, I just can't seem to find that. Are you talking about the Dale Johnson tweet? Because that one very evidently states the opposite.It’s in this thread higher up. Part of the explanation released by Stockley Park to try and clear up the weekly Var-related irritation and confusion.
Yes. Read the whole thread.I'm sorry, I just can't seem to find that. Are you talking about the Dale Johnson tweet? Because that one very evidently states the opposite.
I did.Yes. Read the whole thread.
The referee books Shaw because in a VAR review all disciplinary action should be taken. Even though it was not a red card review, Friend could still have sent Shaw off. Options open to Friend were: 1) Shaw red / yellow / nothing & Burnley FK 2) Brady red / yellow & Man Utd FK
The Brady card was cancelled because anything after the Shaw tackle 'no longer happened'. This applies only to denying a goalscoring opportunity or stopping an attack. Cards stand for serious foul play, reckless challenge, dissent, violent conduct, unsporting behaviour, etc.
I came here to post this exact same thing. It's ridiculous for obvious offsides to not be flagged until the end of the passage of play. Happened several times in this game. a VVD type injury feels like it will be inevitableit’s going to happen with an offside at some point as well.
am all for not raising the flag, but sometimes it’s so bloody obvious, and both teams have to carry on - there will be incidents of serious injuries as a result of this ridiculous approach.
The new offside law says that if a player intentionally plays the ball that it negates the offside, but I don't think they were thinking about players coming in from behind defenders who are trying to control the ball. As far as I'm concerned Rodrigo was involved in the play prior and during the control of the ball and that should be offside. Either way, the offside law has to be looked at. How that can be deemed onside and not an advantage to the attacker but a player with a toe nail ahead of play can be considered an advantage and offside just seems backwards to me...Thats an insanely bad decision. Don't understand it. Clearly the refs don't know what the feck they're doing, or sometimes (often times) ignore the rules for pure game narrative. Which is basically match fixing just because of their feeling during the game.