How would you make it more scientific?
Refs & VAR 2020/2021 Discussion
- Thread starter Annihilate Now!
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran hold a long overdue conversation about United's awful league form with 1 win in 7. They discuss a disappointing draw at Bournemouth, a not so disappointing draw against Liverpool and a crushing defeat at Chelsea - Is time nearly over for Erik Ten Hag?
Then in a special second half of the pod, Nik welcomes Natalie ( https://twitter.com/natalie_17) to discuss the fortunes of Manchester United Women as they booked a place in the FA Cup Final after a historic first ever win vs. Chelsea.
Football would be much better and more entertaining again if they fecked VAR in the bin
This is exactly what I was thinking.
there is a point where you go over the speed limit and it isn’t when you get to 81 on the clock.
Offside is the same. I think for the most part VAR has gotten things right. People are complaining about it getting things right are talking rubbish. The problem isn’t the decision it is the law that enables the decision. Particularly for handball and offside.
For the penalty, I like the idea of only showing replay to ref in real time but has to be from multiple angles.
think var is doing alright to be honest
You wouldn't make it more scientific, you would analyse it less. Say for example, without using lines, or thicker lines or something. Not sure but different things have to be tried.
So his toe is offside in a thicker line. What happens then?
The problem I have with VAR now is you can't really get rid of it now...how can you?
All it takes is one team to have a goal scored from another team that was a yard offside and there would be calls to bring it back again
All it takes is one team to have a goal scored from another team that was a yard offside and there would be calls to bring it back again
The thicker line thing I was just throwing out there as a possible avenue. I think the best thing to do is not use a line and try that as that would presumably make it that only 'clear and obvious' errors are corrected, not these millimetre decisions.
But being offside is clear and obvious.
Ive made my peace with it by remembering that every wrongly given offside from past seasons are gone now. Actual great runs are now getting rewarded.
Offside just has to be offside or do we all hate defenders? We have to give them a chance!
Let's say you don't use lines and the goal is given. Then the broadcasters use their own lines that show he was offside. Do you think fans will say "oh but it's actually okay that he appears to be offside and the goal shouldn't have stood, because it was really quite narrow anyway so never mind"? Or will they say "what's the point of having VAR if they can't make the basic decisions they can make in all the other top leagues, we had the exact same offside call go against us last week, the bent refs are favouring Liverpool again, etc."
I would suggest the latter is a lot more likely than the former. After all, it's not like what you're suggesting hasn't been tried in other leagues. It just didn't work well, mostly because it is by its very nature a less accurate and more inconsistent system that will still see narrow calls be made, just worse.
There's little point in trading one offside system that annoys people for another less accurate offside system that still annoys people. Especially when both the systems you're changing from and to will be obsolete in a couple of years anyway as a semi-automated system comes in.
They draw up the lines to the best of their abilities, in accordance with the rules. Not entirely sure how that doesn't make sense. Doesn't matter if it's not accurate enough, it is what it is.
The biggest issue at hand is the nonsensical approach where the outcome depends on what the referee has seen. Just force the twat to review every situation where there's doubt if he fully saw the situation
How do you know that it's not accurate enough? The manufacturers claim it is, so what information do you have to disprove that claim? They have cameras recording at a minimum of 60fps, so they can tell when the ball is released with the margin of error being 0.016 seconds in terms of when the ball leaves the foot.
No, it's never going to be perfect and there are always going to be situations where a player moves from onside to offside within one sixtieth of a second, but it's better than an assistant who has an impossible job. If the assistant listens for the ball being struck from 70 yards away, that's a margin of error of about 0.2 seconds, and if the assistant has to turn his or her head after the ball's been played then that takes a certain amount of time, but definitely more than 0.016 seconds.
Right, so what would be clear and obvious to you in terms of offside?
Remember when everyone used to say that well if this happened anywhere else on the pitch it would be a foul so this should be a penalty . Well we have got to that now . I feel a lot of the stuff refs were letting go of is now being called because of slow motion replays . Again maybe the right decisions are being made but I feel like there are now far too many penalties & players are just looking for any sort of contact all the time . Soon it's going to be like field hockey out there
What's interesting is that even on a day like today when VAR actually gets all the calls right, the topic is still "VAR controversy". As opposed to actual focus on, say, Liverpool deservedly dropping points in a game in which they weren't as good as their opponents.
At some point the "controversy" of getting decisions right should probably stop being headline news. Maybe save it for when the decisions are actually bad.
Ironically the sections of the media who now help to stoke that theme (by deliberately placing VAR decisions at the front and centre of their coverage for the sake of outrage clicks) are the same sections who helped bring VAR into the game both by dissecting referee decisions to generate similar outrage. Not that they actually care, I suppose.
At some point the "controversy" of getting decisions right should probably stop being headline news. Maybe save it for when the decisions are actually bad.
Ironically the sections of the media who now help to stoke that theme (by deliberately placing VAR decisions at the front and centre of their coverage for the sake of outrage clicks) are the same sections who helped bring VAR into the game both by dissecting referee decisions to generate similar outrage. Not that they actually care, I suppose.
There’s more controversy with Var than without it which is a terrible reflection on the system. Either put it to a vote amongst the PL players , mgrs, ect .. to drop it forever. Or change it up. Put fecking 5 subs on a team and have the Mgrs challenge goals, fouls ect.. like in the NFL. If they lose a challenge they lose a sub. The calls were right today but they never would have been called without VAR and yet the moaning is louder. It has to go or change.
It makes me laugh.
The reason VAR was brought in was because refs were making so many mistakes. Now that VAR can give a definitive decision, people don't like it.
Instead of 2 hours of 606 moaning about the ref, it's now 2 hours of 606 moaning about VAR.
For me, I'd rather the correct decision than a wrong decision.
The reason VAR was brought in was because refs were making so many mistakes. Now that VAR can give a definitive decision, people don't like it.
Instead of 2 hours of 606 moaning about the ref, it's now 2 hours of 606 moaning about VAR.
For me, I'd rather the correct decision than a wrong decision.
It's not a great analogy, there is such things as phantom pregnancies and ectopic pregnancies.
Anyway back to the point your are right in that your either offside or your not but the technology we use is unable to actually confirm in the very tight calls it simply isn't accurate enough to give us clarity.
So Salah was offside according to VAR but in reality we actually dont no.
For the penalty I think the right decision was given, but not because the contact impeded welbeck, it didn't really but because it's a reckless challenge from Robertson.
It's an analogy that's often used in my country but, apparently, this is not the case on the island. Perhaps i should have thought of that before pressing the post button, i concede that. The reasons i was blunt were these: Firstly, there are some people who argue that, since it's very close, it's not a clear and obvious error. With the offside rule, the truth is that whenever the assistant gets the call wrong and a goal is (dis)allowed, it is a clear and obvious error because it changes the whole story of the game. Secondly, i really hate it when the managers of the big clubs are constantly moaning about it because i believe that deep down inside what they really miss is the "rub of the green" all big clubs were used to getting against the smaller clubs. Since yesterday, the whole country discusses Liverpool's complaints. Without VAR, Brighton would have been royally fecked by the official and it would have been an ordinary Saturday.
Regarding your second point. They claim that they are using the technology in such a pedantic way because they are pretty certain that they can make the right calls even when they have to work with the finest of margins. Especially, for a country whose officials were very hesitant right from the start to use VAR regularly (in Germany, for instance, they embraced it right away), this should tell you something. I'll try to translate an article one of the best journalists in my country wrote about VAR on Mane's offside against Everton (note: He's a die-hard Liverpool fan who flies to England whenever Liverpool are playing at Anfield). In it, he addresses topics like the "thicker red lines", the "frame used" etc. I think it's interesting in the sense that he portrays how these calls are much more nuanced than we actually think.
We start with the final picture, the one that was showed to the fans who were watching on TV.
This is it and if you're not interested in understanding what it is showing exactly, if you're not interested in the finer details, you will obviously claim that there's no offside here since Mane is behind "his" line. But he's not and he's offside. Let's take a look at it step by step:
The first step is to understand the process of the 3D lines. The lines we see on our screens ARE NOT THE ONES WHO ARE USED ON THE PLAYERS' BODIES (he's using capitals, it's not me yelling). VAR places these lines on the bodies of the two players and then the lines are being projected on the pitch to show which one is in front of the other. These two "final lines"(the red and the blue) show what the right call is but they are not the ones that are being used on the bodies of the players. They are the final result of the first lines that actually determine the decision.
"But the line used on the attacker is thicker"... It's not. On the contrary, it's a very thin one. Here it is in Mane's case:
It's the thin red line you can see in the picture. We don't need a second one for Mina since his leg is the most exposed part of Everton's defence, so we get the yellow line being drawn instantly on the pitch. Mane's line becomes "thicker" afterwards so that the viewers on TV can spot it without difficulties. Here it is:
It's for TV reasons that the attacker's line appears to be thicker on the screen of your TV. The defender's line becomes blue. Here:
As a result, we get a "final" picture that might look confusing but it's not.
The viewer's eye sees just the two "thick" lines and wonders at the decision. So does Klopp. They all claim that the red line doesn't touch Mane. But, as we explained, it does touch him. Klopp is a reasonable man. I believe that if they explain it to him in detail, he will understand it.
"Screw you, i still believe Mane's not offside". You insist, OK then. I'll just leave this here. In our case, the shot is taken from a right angle. That's why Mane "doesn't look" to be offside. This will help you, i believe:
We all know that the front columns are perfectly aligned with the ones on the rear. But in the picture, they don't look as if they aligned. As far as the left columns are concerned, the front one seems to be a bit ahead. As for the right ones, the rear one seems to be more exposed. The POV changes according to where the columns are in regards with the "centre" of the shot. In any case, they are not wrong-placed, we are certain that they are aligned. Mane's incident belongs to the cases "on the right side of the centre". In other words, he's more exposed that the naked eye can determine and just enough to justify the offside call.
This is it and if you're not interested in understanding what it is showing exactly, if you're not interested in the finer details, you will obviously claim that there's no offside here since Mane is behind "his" line. But he's not and he's offside. Let's take a look at it step by step:
The first step is to understand the process of the 3D lines. The lines we see on our screens ARE NOT THE ONES WHO ARE USED ON THE PLAYERS' BODIES (he's using capitals, it's not me yelling). VAR places these lines on the bodies of the two players and then the lines are being projected on the pitch to show which one is in front of the other. These two "final lines"(the red and the blue) show what the right call is but they are not the ones that are being used on the bodies of the players. They are the final result of the first lines that actually determine the decision.
"But the line used on the attacker is thicker"... It's not. On the contrary, it's a very thin one. Here it is in Mane's case:
It's the thin red line you can see in the picture. We don't need a second one for Mina since his leg is the most exposed part of Everton's defence, so we get the yellow line being drawn instantly on the pitch. Mane's line becomes "thicker" afterwards so that the viewers on TV can spot it without difficulties. Here it is:
It's for TV reasons that the attacker's line appears to be thicker on the screen of your TV. The defender's line becomes blue. Here:
As a result, we get a "final" picture that might look confusing but it's not.
The viewer's eye sees just the two "thick" lines and wonders at the decision. So does Klopp. They all claim that the red line doesn't touch Mane. But, as we explained, it does touch him. Klopp is a reasonable man. I believe that if they explain it to him in detail, he will understand it.
"Screw you, i still believe Mane's not offside". You insist, OK then. I'll just leave this here. In our case, the shot is taken from a right angle. That's why Mane "doesn't look" to be offside. This will help you, i believe:
We all know that the front columns are perfectly aligned with the ones on the rear. But in the picture, they don't look as if they aligned. As far as the left columns are concerned, the front one seems to be a bit ahead. As for the right ones, the rear one seems to be more exposed. The POV changes according to where the columns are in regards with the "centre" of the shot. In any case, they are not wrong-placed, we are certain that they are aligned. Mane's incident belongs to the cases "on the right side of the centre". In other words, he's more exposed that the naked eye can determine and just enough to justify the offside call.
Last edited:
The biggest problem with VAR is the dramatisation of it by the broadcasters.
The rules are the rules laid out at the beginning of the season. Yes there have been marginal calls like there was yesterday but offside is offside, 1cm or 10cm it doesn't matter.
They spend a fortune hiring pundits to talk about the game but all you're getting is opinions about VAR and not the game itself, because the focus is to try and create controversy.
The rules are the rules laid out at the beginning of the season. Yes there have been marginal calls like there was yesterday but offside is offside, 1cm or 10cm it doesn't matter.
They spend a fortune hiring pundits to talk about the game but all you're getting is opinions about VAR and not the game itself, because the focus is to try and create controversy.
Match of the day was a joke. They have ex-liverpool Danny Murphy proclaiming VAR should be scrapped as he doesn't want to see penalties like that given. He said as it looked like nothing in real time so it can't be clear and obvious.
It was clearly a penalty so how can it not be clear and obvious that the ref missed awarding a penalty?
If Welbeck had kicked Robertson in the same way and a free kick was awarded it wouldn't be an issue.
There were no complaints or outrage last season when other teams were experiencing the issues of VAR.
Good article.It's an analogy that's often used in my country but, apparently, this is not the case on the island. Perhaps i should have thought of that before pressing the post button, i concede that. The reasons i was blunt were these: Firstly, there are some people who argue that, since it's very close, it's not a clear and obvious error. With the offside rule, the truth is that whenever the assistant gets the call wrong and a goal is (dis)allowed, it is a clear and obvious error because it changes the whole story of the game. Secondly, i really hate it when the managers of the big clubs are constantly moaning about it because i believe that deep down inside what they really miss is the "rub of the green" all big clubs were used to getting against the smaller clubs. Since yesterday, the whole country discusses Liverpool's complaints. Without VAR, Brighton would have been royally fecked by the official and it would have been an ordinary Saturday.
Regarding your second point. They claim that they are using the technology in such a pedantic way because they are pretty certain that they can make the right calls even when they have to work with the finest of margins. Especially, for a country whose officials were very hesitant right from the start to use VAR regularly (in Germany, for instance, they embraced it right away), this should tell you something. I'll try to translate an article one of the best journalists in my country wrote about VAR on Mane's offside against Everton (note: He's a die-hard Liverpool fan who flies to England whenever Liverpool are playing at Anfield). In it, he addresses topics like the "thicker red lines", the "frame used" etc. I think it's interesting in the sense that he portrays how these calls are much more nuanced than we actually think.
We start with the final picture, the one that was showed to the fans who were watching on TV.
This is it and if you're not interested in understanding what it is showing exactly, if you're not interested in the finer details, you will obviously claim that there's no offside here since Mane is behind "his" line. But he's not and he's offside. Let's take a look at it step by step:
The first step is to understand the process of the 3D lines. The lines we see on our screens ARE NOT THE ONES WHO ARE USED ON THE PLAYERS' BODIES (he's using capitals, it's not me yelling). VAR places these lines on the bodies of the two players and then the lines are being projected on the pitch to show which one is in front of the other. These two "final lines"(the red and the blue) show what the right call is but they are not the ones that are being used on the bodies of the players. They are the final result of the first lines that actually determine the decision.
"But the line used on the attacker is thicker"... It's not. On the contrary, it's a very thin one. Here it is in Mane's case:
It's the thin red line you can see in the picture. We don't need a second one for Mina since his leg is the most exposed part of Everton's defence, so we get the yellow line being drawn instantly on the pitch. Mane's line becomes "thicker" afterwards so that the viewers on TV can spot it without difficulties. Here it is:
It's for TV reasons that the attacker's line appears to be thicker on the screen of your TV. The defender's line becomes blue. Here:
As a result, we get a "final" picture that might look confusing but it's not.
The viewer's eye sees just the two "thick" lines and wonders at the decision. So does Klopp. They all claim that the red line doesn't touch Mane. But, as we explained, it does touch him. Klopp is a reasonable man. I believe that if they explain it to him in detail, he will understand it.
"Screw you, i still believe Mane's not offside". You insist, OK then. I'll just leave this here. In our case, the shot is taken from a right angle. That's why Mane "doesn't look" to be offside. This will help you, i believe:
We all know that the front columns are perfectly aligned with the ones on the rear. But in the picture, they don't look as if they aligned. As far as the left columns are concerned, the front one seems to be a bit ahead. As for the right ones, the rear one seems to be more exposed. The POV changes according to where the columns are in regards with the "centre" of the shot. In any case, they are not wrong-placed, we are certain that they are aligned. Mane's incident belongs to the cases "on the right side of the centre". In other words, he's more exposed that the naked eye can determine and just enough to justify the offside call.
There was no controversy yesterday, every call was right.
Liverpool complain if the call is right, they complain if the call is wrong, they complain if the opposition uses subs, they complain about wind. These are not controversies and not basis in which to govern the game.
I have big problem with VAR because it is used in so many different ways that even referees don't know what to do. Looks like it is new rule every week.
I also have big problem with people talking about clear and obvious. It is (offside/goal/whatever) or it is not. There is nothing in between if you want to use technology.
Exactly. Clear and obvious is outdated anyway, its the same ref making both decisions. Pundits acting as if VAR is still overruling refs shows their biased reasoning.
There needs to be a higher focus on the linesman when waiting for VAR decisions. Acting as if wrongfully given offsides didnt hugely impact a lot of games pre VAR annoys me. Pretending every tight offside call went the way of the strikers is in that same bracket.
So they awarded a penalty to Brighton after VAR intervened, yet today the referee isn’t even asked to go look at the monitor for the challenge on Rashford?! The inconsistency in decisions is unacceptable.
They need to get rid of 'clear and obvious' and just go for the basic level of 'was it a foul'. Removing VARs ability to enshrine maddening inconsistencies would make it a lot more popular.
Foul on Rashford identical to foul on Welbeck yesterday. Handball by Bertrand didn’t get a second glance. Isn’t this poxy system supposed to make football fairer and less controversial?
Not sure if they both deserved a penalty but they definitely were worth a check by VAR
Totally agree. Players, managers and media continuously undermining the obvious.
Words like
a) ref should use common sense . Usual heard on MOTD or Manager of losing team.
b) He was only marginally offside . Used by commentators which is flawed and somehow hints of an injustice. If “the ball was only just over the line” was said they’d be sacked.
c) Henderson claiming it was never a penalty (after clear swing and connection with ankle). Last year however VAR was all well.
Clearly the delays in decisions kills atmosphere and celebrating a goal but not much negative to say. If they can speed up decisions and have an immediate VAR review indication to fans it might help
How can you say the implementation is not scientific. They pick the nearest frame to ball contact (not when he releases is by the way), if at that point the video shows offside then sorted. There has to be a point where it is accepted and not argued about in terms of millimetre. In Liverpool Echo after they felt all decisions went against them, there is this -“Overall, it wasn’t so wrong as to be not right, and it wasn’t so right as to be clearly not wrong”. Sums up the flawed views always expressed by losing manager.
Because being scientific would acknowledge that not all decisions can be made and there is a source of error associated with the technology.
Why didn't Rashford get a penalty? That was obviously a penalty. The commentator said it was a contact sport and not too much in it
Hilarious. If you are that aggressive in the box and miss the ball it's a clear penalty, there is no element of subjectivity involved. Yet, no mention of that anywhere and no comment about it being a contact sport when they scored from freekick after a foul similar to that one. There is a lack of use of VAR to actually intervene when it would be easy to apply consistency in a game and help out a terrible ref. If the first one isn't a penalty, then by that refs standard the freekick before the Southampton goal was a clear and obvious error.
Why wasn't the handball incident reviewed properly? Seemed very rushed. They don't have to stop the game to take longer than a 2 second look. At least show it in slow motion from the proper angle to make sure.
Hilarious. If you are that aggressive in the box and miss the ball it's a clear penalty, there is no element of subjectivity involved. Yet, no mention of that anywhere and no comment about it being a contact sport when they scored from freekick after a foul similar to that one. There is a lack of use of VAR to actually intervene when it would be easy to apply consistency in a game and help out a terrible ref. If the first one isn't a penalty, then by that refs standard the freekick before the Southampton goal was a clear and obvious error.Why wasn't the handball incident reviewed properly? Seemed very rushed. They don't have to stop the game to take longer than a 2 second look. At least show it in slow motion from the proper angle to make sure.
Same reason as the Tv companies don’t discuss the penalty and micro analyse it at half time.Why didn't Rashford get a penalty? That was obviously a penalty. The commentator said it was a contact sport and not too much in it
Why wasn't the handball incident reviewed properly? Seemed very rushed. They don't have to stop the game to take longer than a 2 second look. At least show it in slow motion from the proper angle to make sure.
I think that's a good analogy for the current state of things. People think that you don't get done for speeding on the motorway unless you're doing 80, whereas the actual limit (and point where you have no arguments) is 70.
What we're seeing is people moaning for, metaphorically, being caught at 71mph and moaning that there's no leeway.
All that's happened its that a binary rule is now able to be checked without the 'human error' that existed before the technology. Pre-VAR, you'd still get tight offsides as the linesman would be guessing. The only difference now is that it's probably 1% of them that are wrong instead of, well, most of them.
A good example, although filmed on a potato, was this goal from 5 years ago. Either ref or linesman thought they were being a smart-arse and got it horrifically wrong:
I'd rather see someone called offside for literally being a nose ahead, rather than having a crucial goal ruled offside incorrectly because of some non-quantifiable aspect (such as bias or mistakes)
Well there you have it. They drew the line on Watkins from the end of his shirt sleeve with a horizontal arm.
It may not be the rule but its the point the var ref is drawing his lines from
It may not be the rule but its the point the var ref is drawing his lines from
They then drew lines a 2nd time which made him look oneside, then changed the entire thing a 3rd time so he looked offside again.
All whilst completely ignoring the foul on him anyway.
At the end of the season, let the players decide do they want to keep it or not. They are the ones who are only getting affected by it really.
Sick to death watching matches now and literally anyone ever talks about is VAR. There was less controversial decisions without it
Sick to death watching matches now and literally anyone ever talks about is VAR. There was less controversial decisions without it
Stone well pen imo but if he's offside it can't be given id imagine. The defender had him around the neck.
But the foul started while he was onside.
Way too harsh on offside, not just tonight but the Bamford one the other week was a disgrace. Plus around 20 last season. At least they saw a bit of sense and moved away from the ridiculous pens they were giving for handball at the start of the season but I doubt they'll do the same on offsides anytime soon.