This is also a bad angle. It's just the flip side of the opposite angle. This one is more likely to make the ball appear as if it is in, whereas the other one is more likely to make the ball appear as if it is out. Straight down the line is the most helpful, but even then it can still be hard to tell if it's just a situation where the edge of the sphere is straddling the line.
VAR and Refs | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
I wonder if those posters still hold that view seeing the replays? I would argue he is unfortunate in a way, it's probably the one foul he didn't necessarily mean, but it's so bad when you see where and how the foot follows through. I would say it is very clear cut as a red and a peno.
That is the problem you can't remove the subjectivity from most of the decisions in football, even under video replay alot of penalties and red cards have people arguing about what is the right decision. Even offsides are controversial because they are trying to be so arbitrary about a law that was never meant to be so arbitrary you could say the same about handballs aswell.
It also doesn't help that the VAR is always going to subconsciously biased towards the onfield referees decision. Which ultimately creates inconsistency.
The whole VAR system is broken and currently mis-used. Perhaps rather than basically re-refereeing games which is what is happening at the moment. We need to take the cricket idea of giving the teams the ability to review certain decision. Maybe allow them two a game each to be called by captain or coach within a certain time (e.g. 30 seconds)of said decision.
On Top of that to remove any possible bias from the VAR we should probably have two compleatly separated VAR's who are also compleatly detached from the game and the onfield ref. They don't know the score, what has happened in the game or most importantly what the onfield refs decision is. All you do is show them the incident in question and they make what should an unbiased decision based on the video evidence alone.
Is the VARS return a split decision e.g. one says penalty and the other says no penalty then we go with the onfield decision because clearly there is no clear or obvious error. Obviously if they both decide the opposite to the onfield ref then the onfield refs decision is overturned. And if they all agree we obviously stick with the decision.
You could use it for offisides aswell forget this arbitrary idea of drawing lines, it will never be perfect even the semi-automatic system has a considerable margin of error. We still let the game play on, and then if a goal is scored the linesman makes his decision as usual, the VARS again unaware of anything including the linesman's decision watch the incident in full speed and then get to see the still frame closest to when the ball was released, then they make there decision and same as above in regards to split decisions etc.
I don't think it can carry on as it is. Its ruining the game IMO and if anything it's creating greater scrutiny and more controversy than pre VAR. Pre VAR there was an acceptance that the referee will make mistakes there only human after all. But some teams and managers are demanding perfection which is impossible with all the subjective decisions.
They should get back to clear and obvious, they're micromanaging games again.
Casemiro's yellow card last season that turned into a red, wasn't a clear and obvious mistake, ref gave a yellow, if you slow it down and select the worse looking angle and call the ref over he may opt for a red but you can do this many times a game and come to a different decision.
If someone is yards offside and it's missed then yes, if a goal is scored by punching the ball. A player punched in the face.
A wider tolerance is needed for offside as we're not using the best tech with these silly lines on oblique low frame video. If most of the body is inline with the defender then it's goal. If you need minutes to determine then it's wrong and spoiling the game's flow and we're down to micromanaging games and coming across it's certain teams under the microscope.
How many players will start from an offside position and make a lunge for the ball jostling with a defender and get nowhere near it and someone else scores that is the intended target. They're flagging up highly subjective things when they want and letting similar things go. One could flag 20,30,50 indictments per game, fans want the rare and obvious sorted within seconds.
With this ball out of play thing, if zoom down any pitch at the byline it will waver in and out quite badly, same with the whole pitch so what is straight line for offside in a crooked outline. We'd need lasers at each corner and hawk eye tech to cover the pitch to make a virtual image.
Casemiro's yellow card last season that turned into a red, wasn't a clear and obvious mistake, ref gave a yellow, if you slow it down and select the worse looking angle and call the ref over he may opt for a red but you can do this many times a game and come to a different decision.
If someone is yards offside and it's missed then yes, if a goal is scored by punching the ball. A player punched in the face.
A wider tolerance is needed for offside as we're not using the best tech with these silly lines on oblique low frame video. If most of the body is inline with the defender then it's goal. If you need minutes to determine then it's wrong and spoiling the game's flow and we're down to micromanaging games and coming across it's certain teams under the microscope.
How many players will start from an offside position and make a lunge for the ball jostling with a defender and get nowhere near it and someone else scores that is the intended target. They're flagging up highly subjective things when they want and letting similar things go. One could flag 20,30,50 indictments per game, fans want the rare and obvious sorted within seconds.
With this ball out of play thing, if zoom down any pitch at the byline it will waver in and out quite badly, same with the whole pitch so what is straight line for offside in a crooked outline. We'd need lasers at each corner and hawk eye tech to cover the pitch to make a virtual image.
Last edited:
i think the real question is should refs be forced to take performance enhancing drugs? they’d get the big decisions right more often than not if they were forced to take drugs that meant they grew extra ears on their backs to listen for cheating, or developed the eyes of a hawk to spot even the most minor of discretions. if a byproduct of that is michael oliver becomes sterile then i don’t see any downsides.
Or how my generation doesn't understand how people even watched football during the backpass era.
That people are focusing on the wrong things.
There are no camera angles available that enables VAR to make calls on such close calls. Whoever is in charge of VAR should be fully aware that with the ball so close to the line, there is no way they can say for certain if it’s marginally on the line or not, which numerous examples have shown, including Nevilles video.
In the Newcastle match, they made the right choice when they considered if the ball had gone out or not. There’s no way they can make a clear cut decision on it, so they leave it. But that decision is the complete opposite of what Kavanagh did in our match against Brighton, when in an extremely similar situation he decided that the ball had gone out of play and thus overturned the on pitch decision. Obviously it’s somewhat hysterical to see two completely different approaches being hailed as the right approach by a certain former refereree, but yeah…
Then the VAR screws up by not acknowledging the effect Joelinton has on Gabriel, as Joelinton jumps for the header too early and on the way down he has both arms stretched out high on Gabriels back, obviously obstructing him and preventing him going up for the header.
That is a pretty clear penalty. The defender shoves the player in the back when he is just about to shoot causing the shot to miss target.
It is bad that many times these are not given, by the likes of Taylor and others.
It's the clear and obvious thing that is killing them.
The referee decides it's a foul one week and not a foul next week. The VAR ref thinks its a close one so not an obvious error that can be overturned, but the next week the VAR ref decides its worth a look and the ref changes his mind.
It is either a foul or it isn't. They should work together to get the right decision, not be continually second guessing each other.
They never lost the clear and obvious. It is still there. Except that the clear and obvious is dependent on the whims of the VAR ref.
Some of the rules are not obvious and leave room for interpretation, which is bad in itself, but the VAR problems are compounded by sheer incompetence and inconsistencies of the refs.
The exceptionally marginal offsides are also extremely irritating
An example of that was the Son disallowed goal last night. The reason why he looked bewildered was because he felt that he had timed his run perfectly so that he was level with the defender. But nowadays, adjudging that you are level means that you are 90% likely off in the eyes of VAR, because VAR will prove that a part of your body is ahead of the defender. It is almost impossible to be mathmatically level, but players are taught to push that line with the last defender so they appear to be in real time, which is what Son did.
Pre-VAR, that goal would have probably counted, and there wouldn't have been much debate about it in the papers because Son was more or less level with the defender, good enough for the lino to keep his flag down. The defender isn't even trying to play Son offside, and yet he gets the decision because it appears part of Son's body is off.
The sad thing was was that was a beautiful goal, very well constructed by Spurs. But it was chalked off due to a marginal offside that no-one but a computer could detect in real time. This wasn't the most marginal of calls, but we see it all the time now, and it is undermining good attacking play and rewarding ordinary defending.
An example of that was the Son disallowed goal last night. The reason why he looked bewildered was because he felt that he had timed his run perfectly so that he was level with the defender. But nowadays, adjudging that you are level means that you are 90% likely off in the eyes of VAR, because VAR will prove that a part of your body is ahead of the defender. It is almost impossible to be mathmatically level, but players are taught to push that line with the last defender so they appear to be in real time, which is what Son did.
Pre-VAR, that goal would have probably counted, and there wouldn't have been much debate about it in the papers because Son was more or less level with the defender, good enough for the lino to keep his flag down. The defender isn't even trying to play Son offside, and yet he gets the decision because it appears part of Son's body is off.
The sad thing was was that was a beautiful goal, very well constructed by Spurs. But it was chalked off due to a marginal offside that no-one but a computer could detect in real time. This wasn't the most marginal of calls, but we see it all the time now, and it is undermining good attacking play and rewarding ordinary defending.
Last edited:
It’s nowhere near out. Could tell even at live speed at the time. When the goal was scored my first thought was a potential offside because the keeper was out. Everything else seemed fine. Massive fuss over nothing because var looked at different things for ten minutes.
As for clear and obvious, Maradona hand ball was obvious, Henry’s handball was obvious, voller spitting on gullit was obvious. This micro managing of every little incidence is beyond a joke. Just leave the game alone and if there is a glaringly obvious incident the ref has missed let him know. Sitting looking at replays for five minutes trying to decide if something is obvious is clearly not obvious
Age fecked that up didn’t it, my bad, sorry voller. And damn you rijkaardIt's incredible how the media has changed their tune on this all of a sudden, but not surprising in the slightest.
I hope Ten Hag makes some noise about this, but he seems set on taking the 'dignified' route despite every other manager being happy to pipe up and pile pressure on the refs - which has been proven to work.
It shouldn't, but it absolutely does.
Exactly
In your defense, it was 33 years ago.
Have a Broodje Frikandel and calm down.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I'm sure he didn't try to diminish the second biggest football achievement in Dutch history on purpose.
Yes, ha.
And Henry was about 15 years ago and Maradona almost 40 years. This is how far you have to go back for clear mistakes that a ref missed (although I think the spitting happened after red cards anyway) but just used it as an obvious offence. The rest of these subjective is it isn’t it a foul will never be resolved with VAR.
Don’t you have ketchup in Germany
But you are clearly interpreting things in the rule that aren't there. Maguire does not need to keep the other player from getting to the ball, that is not in the rule. He needs to clearly attempt to play the ball while it is close and also impact on an opponent while doing so. Maguire is clearly attempting to play the ball, he (and the defender) is close to reach it, and he is in physical contact with a defender doing so, so he is clearly impacting on him. Just because you want the rule to be something it is not does not mean it is.
They have curry ketchup
I don't think the Dutch like to be called German.
Anyone thought about the impact on strategy when there are massive great breaks all the time in a match now? It makes it far more difficult for an attacking team to keep momentum - half the point of that is to tire out the defending team with constant pressure.
The match last night must have had almost 20 minutes of breaks in it. That's not good for the players at all, and the fans...man.
The match last night must have had almost 20 minutes of breaks in it. That's not good for the players at all, and the fans...man.
Also wonder if it played a role in VDV's hamstring going - standing around for so much time then going back to full sprints can't be good for muscle integrity...
There's a bit of history there, and I think we all know what...
2012. Hans Trinkenschuh, out on the piss with his mates, stole one of the shoes belonging to Erik "Yesh Shmokey Pancakesh" De Boer and proceeded to enjoy ten pints of lager with it. Erik told everyone in the Netherlands about it, during an annual clog making seminar, and it was decided that Hans and his German mates were all cnuts.
I’m going back to bed
i reckon fans would be far more forgiving of referees if they walked a mile in their shoes. we should campaign for ea sports to develop a yearly “referee simulator” game.
it’s fifa/football manager, but you’re the ref. you’ll start as a 6 year old kid at school, weaker than all the other kids, worse at football. you’ll be teased and taunted for it, you’ll be humiliated, picked last for any team game. head flushed down the toilet, a play thing for attractive girls to crush brutally and publicly as you fail to go through puberty.
you’ll grow up resenting all the popular kids, resenting the sporty ones, you’ll realise the only way to get them back is to become an authority figure and subjugate them for all the years of pain they caused. you’ll try out for the police, but your general incompetence and racism will see you fail your entrance exams, even though the chief of police was very impressed with your racism.
jt’s then you’ll go to referee school, ruining sunday league games as you go, before falling upwards towards the premier league.
it’s fifa/football manager, but you’re the ref. you’ll start as a 6 year old kid at school, weaker than all the other kids, worse at football. you’ll be teased and taunted for it, you’ll be humiliated, picked last for any team game. head flushed down the toilet, a play thing for attractive girls to crush brutally and publicly as you fail to go through puberty.
you’ll grow up resenting all the popular kids, resenting the sporty ones, you’ll realise the only way to get them back is to become an authority figure and subjugate them for all the years of pain they caused. you’ll try out for the police, but your general incompetence and racism will see you fail your entrance exams, even though the chief of police was very impressed with your racism.
jt’s then you’ll go to referee school, ruining sunday league games as you go, before falling upwards towards the premier league.
Nah.. It's just wurst envy.
That just sounds like everyone's childhood but without the refereeing bit at the end. Right?
Very good points.
Football’s going full NFL. Only without the change of roster after each of the advertisement breaks.
I was thinking that myself, that's like calling a Scotsman English!
Where you go and abuse your position of authority due to unresolved issues in your childhood.
You mean this decision
https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content...und-rashford.jpg?strip=all&w=620&h=413&crop=1
Clearly out.
Effectively rewarding incompetence.
Token gesture of pushing him down to the Championship for one game
That's not a fecking frikandel. That's it, we're invading you.
It clearly is, I learned at school that if it looks like food it's Wurst and if it looks like a turd it's Frikandel.
You're not supposed to tell them in advance ffs.