VAR and Refs | General Discussion | May 15: Premier League clubs to vote on proposal to scrap VAR from next season

[Licha-Vidic]

FAO: Everyone who argued this bollocks for the Garnacho call.

Angles do matter, especially when drawing the down body line to the offside line. The pitch offside drawings remain same BUT the body part line is the crucial part with angles.

Garnacho goal was a legit goal.. The pitch side direct camera angle was very clear.

If you use a back camera, it will always show the picture to be on forward state. They used Gabriel shoulders as a drop down body part because of using the back angle, while from the pitch side angle it was Gabriel head keeping Garnacho on-line.

People argued for the sake of it.

Japan goal in world cup proved this very well.

 

[acnumber9]

@NotThatSoph explained it better than I did and I just landed at the pub, so I'll let him carry on the discussion.

A quote: “The Premier League uses at least five calibrated cameras to determine the positions of the players and find the perfect angle to arrive at the correct decisions.”

To me that sounds like it depends on which of these angles they use.

https://sportsbrief.com/football/48125-how-offside-rules-work-var-alejandro-garnacho-denied-arsenal/

 

[brian017]

I'd keep him. He ain't ever making this mistake again.

Instead of "Check complete", they should say "offside" or "onside". Would avoid so much confusion

 

[Who gives a...]

The VAR guys sounded so incompetent. They should have just let the replay operator handle it. The guy who is probably paid the least out of the lot of them sounded like the only one who knew what an absolute bollock they dropped while the others are all..... 'great mate, yeh mate, thanks mate, offside, goal, yeh........ oh ****'

 

[acnumber9]

Same frame though, isn’t it?

Maybe, I’m not sure.

 

[UnitedSofa]

Instead of "Check complete", they should say "offside" or "onside". Would avoid so much confusion

“Check complete, goal stands”

 

[Annihilate Now!]

The thing that strikes me about this is... Why don't these lot just talk to each other like normal feckin human beings? Why do they think they're in the army and one of them is in Vietnam? Genuinely if you put "Roger" or "Over" after each sentence it would not like out of place

 

[calodo2003]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Zlatan 7]

No, I'm not, I've read through this discussion several times. The people saying that the angle didn't matter were saying the exact thing I said. You're using this audio as claiming that they were wrong, when the audio is perfectly consistent with that they (or we, as I was one of them) said. You're just wrong, you won't find a single example in this thread to the contrary.

You were adamant that garnacho was offside, i pointed out that the frame used when they released the ball was wrong with fa rules that you dismissed and now we’ve heard that var will choose or look for best angles to draw the lines that you’re still dismissing. I guess some people just hate to admit they were wrong when they were being so dismissively correct, albeit wrongly.

 

[UnitedSofa]

The thing that strikes me about this is... Why don't these lot just talk to each other like normal feckin human beings? Why do they think they're in the army and one of them is in Vietnam? Genuinely if you put "Roger" or "Over" after each sentence it would not like out of place

Really don’t understand why some think the way they’re talking is Alien. Sounds pretty normal to me for a regimented practice.

 

[Annihilate Now!]

Really don’t understand why some think the way they’re talking is Alien. Sounds pretty normal to me for a regimented practice.

VAR Check complete, check complete. That's fine, perfect (showing Diaz is clearly onside). Off.

Referee: Cheers mate

VAR: Thank you mate

Referee. Well done boys. Good process

Yeah, that's how people usually converse.

 

[NotThatSoph]

A quote: “The Premier League uses at least five calibrated cameras to determine the positions of the players and find the perfect angle to arrive at the correct decisions.”

To me that sounds like it depends on which of these angles they use.

https://sportsbrief.com/football/48125-how-offside-rules-work-var-alejandro-garnacho-denied-arsenal/

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

The example they use is that the correct bodypart isn't visible at one angle, so they use another one where it is.

 

[RedRocket9908]

You were adamant that garnacho was offside, i pointed out that the frame used when they released the ball was wrong with fa rules that you dismissed and now we’ve heard that var will choose or look for best angles to draw the lines that you’re still dismissing. I guess some people just hate to admit they were wrong when they were being so dismissively correct, albeit wrongly.

This is what I said, they are supposed to use the frame from the point the ball is played but on the Garnacho one against Arsenal you can clearly see they didnt and being just 1 frame out either way can make a big difference.

Ive seen images that show Garnacho was onside.

 

[90 + 5min]

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

The example they use is that the correct bodypart isn't visible at one angle, so they use another one where it is.

Those are just excuses for not putting line when the first contact is taken in pass sequence. They drew lines when ball was under way. Why is that? Maybe it have something to do with a certain team?

Garnacho is onside and we should demand recordings from that game, including recodrings from Tottenham and Crystal Palace games where we lost. Not because our opponents were better teams. But because of some crazy decisions.

 

[Fr. Todd Unctious]

What bunch of morons

 

[Josep Dowling]

VAR Check complete, check complete. That's fine, perfect (showing Diaz is clearly onside). Off.

Referee: Cheers mate

VAR: Thank you mate

Referee. Well done boys. Good process

Yeah, that's how people usually converse.

It’s actually a joke. Why would you say off if you meant onside?

Pretty basic stuff to say goal stands, onside, or something that doesn’t confuse the referees. So basic it’s a joke they can’t get it right.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Those are just excuses for not putting line when the first contact is taken in pass sequence. They drew lines when ball was under way. Why is that? Maybe it have something to do with a certain team?

Garnacho is onside and we should demand recordings from that game, including recodrings from Tottenham and Crystal Palace games where we lost. Not because our opponents were better teams. But because of some crazy decisions.

I'm talking with someone about how angles are used, contact with the ball is completely irrelevant here and a different conversation.

 

[antsmithmk]

VAR Check complete, check complete. That's fine, perfect (showing Diaz is clearly onside). Off.

Referee: Cheers mate

VAR: Thank you mate

Referee. Well done boys. Good process

Yeah, that's how people usually converse.

I don't understand the 'off' bit. They all clearly thought he was onside. So why say 'off'. Strange.

 

[antsmithmk]

It’s actually a joke. Why would you say off if you meant onside?

Pretty basic stuff to say goal stands, onside, or something that doesn’t confuse the referees. So basic it’s a joke they can’t get it right.

It can't be beyond them to say it properly. For the sake of ambiguity they could say the goal should stand and the score is now 1-0 or whatever. Too much fluff around on/off and should or shouldn't.

 

[Alex99]

The thing that strikes me about this is... Why don't these lot just talk to each other like normal feckin human beings? Why do they think they're in the army and one of them is in Vietnam? Genuinely if you put "Roger" or "Over" after each sentence it would not like out of place

I don't mind the "jargon" so much, but the fact that they're using all of these in-house phrases without having a proper protocol for how decisions are communicated is baffling. You hear the audio for the rugby and cricket video or technology reviews and the communication process is so clear.

Every single review should start with an explanation of what is being checked, and details of the player(s) involved, and should end with a confirmation that the on-field decision is to stand, or be overturned.

Ref: On-field decision is offside against Liverpool number seven - goal disallowed. Check requested for offside against Liverpool number seven.

VAR: Checking for offside against Liverpool number seven. [...] Check complete. No offside. On-field decision overturned. Goal can stand.

 

[P-Ro]

That audio clip is fecking delightful . The scousers are going to be raging so hard

 

[Fr. Todd Unctious]

That audio clip is fecking delightful . The scousers are going to be raging so hard

As frustrating as the ineptness is the fact it's happend to the scouse cnuts makes it extremely funny at the same time.

 

[arnie_ni]

The angle doesn't matter in that once you've drawn the line from the correct body part, it will map the same from any other angle. So whether the image you see is from an angle that makes it look more/less offside, it's going to be the same result. Perspective doesn't impact the lines.

But obviously they still have to use angles that a) let them see the relevant body parts and b) presents the offside in a clear way.

Of course it matters though. The guy controlling the line moved it up to the defenders foot to the point he believes is furthest back. That point can easily be manipulated by the angle used.

It's imperative the correct angle is used.

Edit
I actually see this is effectively what you've said.

 

[arnie_ni]

The video doesn't say anything to the contrary. They're choosing the best angle to correctly identify which players and which bodyparts to use. When the same players and same bodyparts are used, then the line will show the same result no matter the angle. But, if a bad angle makes them choose the wrong player, or the correct player but the wrong bodypart, then the wrong line will be drawn which can obviously impact the results. That wrong line would also be the same irrespective of the angle.

With the Garnacho call different people made different points.

1) The angle was bad, if they had chosen a better angle then he might have looked onside. This is wrong, the lines would have been the same no matter what.

2) The angle was bad, it made it look like Gabriel's shoulder was the correct point when it was in fact his head. If the line had been drawn from his head, then Garnacho might have looked onside. This is more sensible, because obviously a line drawn from a different point might show a different result, but it's wrong because the correct bodypart was used.

I thought everyone was arguing point 2 but I could be mistaken

 

[hungryhippo]

The worst thing to come from that was the complete lack of care in finding the correct frame for when the ball left Salah's foot.

I understand how the onside/offside problem happened and it shouldn't happen again. But if that is the amount of care taken for the most crucial part of deciding an offside, then that's ridiculous.

Nah, it was not a close call. If it is a close call, they will look much closer at the kick point.

 

[acnumber9]

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

The example they use is that the correct bodypart isn't visible at one angle, so they use another one where it is.

It’s an example. That doesn’t prove that the angle they choose to draw the lines from doesn’t make a difference.

 

[Sarni]

I just can't understand why they were in such a rush with this one. From the scoring of the goal to the ref restarting play was 35 seconds. Some VAR checks take more than 5 times that.

I think that's because it was so obvious that they did not need to perform multiple checks from multiple angles. It wasn't even close to being offside.

The issue is they misunderstood what had happened on the pitch.

 

[NotThatSoph]

It’s an example. That doesn’t prove that the angle they choose to draw the lines from doesn’t make a difference.

Of course it doesn't prove that, because what you're quoting is about something different.

They use 3d-mapping, and the cameras are calibrated so that which camera or which angle doesn't matter. You can see it briefly described under the paragraph "Pitch camber". The first paragraph about calibrated cameras, which is what your article is referencing, says: " Before each match, Hawk-Eye calibrates multiple cameras to give many options when showing an offside decision in the event that a body part is covered in one camera."

 

[acnumber9]

Of course it doesn't prove that, because what you're quoting is about something different.

They use 3d-mapping, and the cameras are calibrated so that which camera or which angle doesn't matter. You can see it briefly described under the paragraph "Pitch camber". The first paragraph about calibrated cameras, which is what your article is referencing, says: " Before each match, Hawk-Eye calibrates multiple cameras to give many options when showing an offside decision in the event that a body part is covered in one camera."

Ok but will the angle chosen not influence where they put the lines?

 

[MrMarcello]

I think you’re completely misunderstanding or now misrepresenting what the argument has been. If you’re behind the play you don’t have a clear view of what body part is furthest forward, also it’s basic geometry that even if you do have a clear view of the body part, the farthest forward face of that body part is going to be different the greater the angle. They had a perfectly parallel angle for the Garnacho indecent and decided to use an angle from behind which is obviously going to introduce a degree of error.

I'm curious if technology is there to investigate and invest that would create a 3D box map around the pitch to say 7-8 feet high, or maybe crossbar height. Then something that allows the ball to transmit to the 3D box map and perhaps a chip/something on the player somewhere, per say the shirt or shorts that would allow for video to capture a player's silhouette to then see where feet, legs, heads, etc. are placed on such tight calls.

Perhaps roving/stationed cameras on each side of the pitch box that tracks along with the play so that any given moment a sideline 3D view is available.

And add a second on-field ref so that one is always with/in front of play and the other is behind play. Adding an additional official cleaned up the NHL imo.

 

[Andycoleno9]

Audio is pure comedy. Dumb and dumber.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Ok but will the angle chosen not influence where they put the lines?

Not if they click on the same bodypart. As said repeatedly, if a bad angle makes them choose the wrong player, or the correct player but wrong bodypart, then yes, it will of course result in a different line. In that sense the angle is important.

 

[Zlatan 7]

Not if they click on the same bodypart. As said repeatedly, if a bad angle makes them choose the wrong player, or the correct player but wrong bodypart, then yes, it will of course result in a different line. In that sense the angle is important.

So the angle chosen matters. Finally

 

[Flying high]

Nah, it was not a close call. If it is a close call, they will look much closer at the kick point.

I'd hope so too. But what are you basing this on other than clearly they should?

 

[90 + 5min]

I'm talking with someone about how angles are used, contact with the ball is completely irrelevant here and a different conversation.

You are aware that cameras don't work every time. Go back to last year with Saka scoring goal against Liverpool or Wovles being denied clear goal against Liverpool because of lack of camera.

Garnacho was onside. That is why we need recordings and transparency.

 

[NotThatSoph]

So the angle chosen matters. Finally

Yes, "finally".

The angle doesn't matter for how the line is drawn, they're choosing the best angle to identify which player and what bodypart to use.

 

[Zlatan 7]

Yes, "finally".

Yes, finally . Just admit your condescending attitude of it being definitely offside was wrong. You didn’t know the rules of when they should freeze the camera and refuse to acknowledge the multiple posters saying the camera angles mattered. Got there in the end.

 

[acnumber9]

Not if they click on the same bodypart. As said repeatedly, if a bad angle makes them choose the wrong player, or the correct player but wrong bodypart, then yes, it will of course result in a different line. In that sense the angle is important.

So the choice of angle used has a material impact on whether a player is offside or not?

 

[Sweet Square]

Omg the audio is so fecking funny. We live in such a stupid world and it’s amazing.

 

[NotThatSoph]

So the choice of angle used has a material impact on whether a player is offside or not?

Yes, in the choice of which players and which bodyparts to use. If the judges are unsure, they can also try different bodyparts, but with a good angle that's usually not necessary.

Both me and @sullydnl said several times that camera angles are important for this function, so you already know that I of course acknowledge this. Why are you asking as if you don't?