"I know a couple of morons on the Internet" is not a good argument to discuss the concept of VAR.
VAR - Not the hero we want, the one we need
- Thread starter Pavl3n
- Start date
One thing I don't get though, why are people moaning about a correct decision now, no matter how marginal? That must be a new.
Because @The Firestarter, BT sport also produced a frame in which it was nigh on impossible to see if the decision was in fact correct or not.
From my point of view it's not even outrage at referee mistakes that's driving this, it's common sense. Even if referees are operating at the same standard and even if the game is still largely the same, our resources have improved massively.
Nearly every aspect of modern life has been improved by the application of technology, not least other sports. It would be rather bizzare if football couldn't also be improved by the appropriate application of technology too.
Quite apart from living in a world of increased scrutiny and social media, we also live in a world where people are used to everything being made more efficient by advances in technology. You don't need to be regularly outraged by referee mistakes to expect football to move with the times.
Is the current iteration of VAR good enough? Clearly not. What happened yesterday was clearly very silly, despite the correct decision being reached. That's fine though as there is still plenty of scope to improve things to the point where we're getting better decisions at an acceptable cost. Which is what will likely happen as the other option (doing nothing and leaving football as it was in the 1990s) will only become less and less palatable as the years go by.
Nearly every aspect of modern life has been improved by the application of technology, not least other sports. It would be rather bizzare if football couldn't also be improved by the appropriate application of technology too.
Quite apart from living in a world of increased scrutiny and social media, we also live in a world where people are used to everything being made more efficient by advances in technology. You don't need to be regularly outraged by referee mistakes to expect football to move with the times.
Is the current iteration of VAR good enough? Clearly not. What happened yesterday was clearly very silly, despite the correct decision being reached. That's fine though as there is still plenty of scope to improve things to the point where we're getting better decisions at an acceptable cost. Which is what will likely happen as the other option (doing nothing and leaving football as it was in the 1990s) will only become less and less palatable as the years go by.
I saw it , and that was yesterday. Now it's determined to be correct and the moan continues.
I do as it happens, but it was a reply quoting your own post:
I told you who it was mostly a hot topic for, although I used words more like whingeing soft gits than morons.
If you don't want replies to your posts then you have an option not to post in the first place.
Probably because it's so marginal that using the one picture that shows half a kneecap offside as proof doesn't convince a lot of people. How do we know that was the exact moment the ball left Young's foot? Even a few hundredthsof a second difference would change the picture again. Never mind the fact that the line doesn't look completely parallel to the 18 yard line, even in the "correct" picture.
As long as we're nowhere near a system that allows a much shorter time spent on the whole thing, then don't implement it. Don't get me wrong, I'm for VAR and what it is supposed to achieve but not at the cost of confusion and time delays. I hope a compromise is found (like a limited number of use per teams decided on appeals).
VAR should not be used in every single situations, this wil feck up football.
VAR should not be used in every single situations, this wil feck up football.
It won't be parallel , it's called perspective projection.
It probably shouldn't look parallel.
Except it's also pundits, managers and players who talk about referee mistakes and not some insignificant group in the corner of the internet.
VAR is not the future; it's a relic of the past. Most video creators on social media platforms have higher production values.
The FA are having record turnovers and profits are sky-high; yet they still have such a primitive system. 3d imaging, tracking chips in balls, boots and the pitch, offside line technology are all available to use. But it costs £££ so the FA are reluctant.
When they showed the 'London centre' for VAR last night; it was like they called up a few lads from last nights FA dinner to check the video in a cupboard.
The FA are having record turnovers and profits are sky-high; yet they still have such a primitive system. 3d imaging, tracking chips in balls, boots and the pitch, offside line technology are all available to use. But it costs £££ so the FA are reluctant.
When they showed the 'London centre' for VAR last night; it was like they called up a few lads from last nights FA dinner to check the video in a cupboard.
there was a suggestion on a lunatics only radio phone-in I accidentally heard last night that to avoid delay - you just kick off again with the VAR decision undecided-pending & the score is adjusted when the VAR result comes in
why has no one thought of this before?
- it's absolute genius, I reckon they should get it implemented quickly before someone scores 2-3 VAR goals within a minute of each other
why has no one thought of this before?
- it's absolute genius, I reckon they should get it implemented quickly before someone scores 2-3 VAR goals within a minute of each otherDetermined how @The Firestarter? in a different frame you mean?
That's the whole fecking point, 2 frames, 2 different decisions. That's the whole point of the moaning. Who decides which frame is more correct? Which frame is the exact point the ball left Young's foot? It's impossible and that's why VAR shouldn't be used be in millimetre decisions unless it can provide an Olympic 100m sprint level of accuracy.
Yes they do, unfortunately, I accept that.
You repeat about people on the internet, in corners for some reason, whereas I was thinking more of people I speak to in real life, work, pubs, matches, and so on. There is no shortage of idiots out there spouting crap about referees, perhaps you'll give me that in return.
So potentially you could leave the ground after full time and if the VAR decisions hadn't all been reviewed by then you'd find out whether your team won, lost or drew by listening to Talksport on the way home in the car?there was a suggestion on alunatics onlyradio phone-in I accidentally heard last night that to avoid delay - you just kick off again with the VAR decision undecided-pending & the score is adjusted when the VAR result comes in
why has no one thought of this before?
For every topic there are plenty of idiots who talk/whine about it, referee calls are no different - perhaps even more so, because people are very emotionally involved. That doesn't mean that authorities are driven by their tears though.
That would still be offside as any part of the body that can score is considered
I was not referring to those that deny the decision, but rather to the ones who acknowledge it and state "Yeah but it was such a tiny offside no linesman could've seen it", or similar.
My first thought on Mata's goal was it was offside by a mile. Replay's proved otherwise and it turned out to be the right call to wave the goal. It was marginal, but it was still offside. What I would like to see is the offside law changed to benefit the attacker. I'd like to see it changed so that there needs to be space between the attacker and the defender. So in a case like Mata's yesterday when his knee was slightly ahead he would be deemed onside...
There is the 'if in doubt, allow play to continue' guidelines already that would have seen yesterday's goal to stand and nobody to mention it again, no delays,no wiggly lines, no nothing. Often referred to as the benefit of the doubt but perhaps more accurately described as referees not being able to give something if they're not sure.
After all the debate, would the FA dare to use VAR in the Cup Final?
Concentrate on whatever you want.me said:
Well if the ref or linesman see it it's called for a foul, decision made. If a manager uses his two calls and one of them is found to be wrong then tough shit. We all agree that you can only call on the var for offside if it results in a goal and even then it should be the managers calling for the review and not the officials. If they missed the call and the manager doesn't contest then the game continues.
On a side note I would also like to see a player get booked for calling for a video review. I don't think I can stand all the pussies in the game gesturing to the ref for a review that he didn't dive like a cnut.
I have a question...
If a player is 'Onside' but raises their hand and points in front of them to indicate to their teammate where they want the ball and in doing so puts their arm in an offside position. Does that make them offside?
If a player is 'Onside' but raises their hand and points in front of them to indicate to their teammate where they want the ball and in doing so puts their arm in an offside position. Does that make them offside?
You do realise that they had to apologise to Wales because a decision that the TMO took in their match against England cost them the game? Big important International match ruined by TMO.
How about they just use it for penalties (including handballs) and red cards. I mean if it's used like yesterday with a difference of the top of a knee cap, something it's practically impossible to see with the naked eye 20 yards away while having to look at two places at once then we might aswell turn the pitch in to a gridiron and have two linesman either side.
Attacking players won't have a chance playing off the shoulder if the margins are measured in millimeters. It's not two horse noses coming over the line for a photographic finish, it's two legs, two knees, two feet and ten toes. The rule also states you are offside if any part of you're body that can score a goal is beyond the last defender so where does that leave a players head? If his whole body is in line but his forehead is out (Gervinho may as well retire) as much as Mata's knee yesterday then how is that fair.
Offside should be left out of VAR completely and an independent review panel set up to take action against egregious calls by the linesman or ref. If someone is two yards offside and the linesman or ref miss it then they shouldn't be officiating at the highest level of the game but if they make the correct call like the Kane penalty then they should be applauded and the decision highlighted for the public, stating that this was the correct call within the laws of the game so shut you're fecking mouths Liverpool fans.
Define the offside rule more clearly and you don't need a video recall. My opinion is it should be clear space between the attacker and defender for an offside and none of this bullshit of head shoulders knees and toes. Offside should be about the position of you're body on the pitch not body position. Also, if the federations are all about the professional game and amateur game in tandem so where do these fine margins fit in on a Sunday morning in the park.
Attacking players won't have a chance playing off the shoulder if the margins are measured in millimeters. It's not two horse noses coming over the line for a photographic finish, it's two legs, two knees, two feet and ten toes. The rule also states you are offside if any part of you're body that can score a goal is beyond the last defender so where does that leave a players head? If his whole body is in line but his forehead is out (Gervinho may as well retire) as much as Mata's knee yesterday then how is that fair.
Offside should be left out of VAR completely and an independent review panel set up to take action against egregious calls by the linesman or ref. If someone is two yards offside and the linesman or ref miss it then they shouldn't be officiating at the highest level of the game but if they make the correct call like the Kane penalty then they should be applauded and the decision highlighted for the public, stating that this was the correct call within the laws of the game so shut you're fecking mouths Liverpool fans.
Define the offside rule more clearly and you don't need a video recall. My opinion is it should be clear space between the attacker and defender for an offside and none of this bullshit of head shoulders knees and toes. Offside should be about the position of you're body on the pitch not body position. Also, if the federations are all about the professional game and amateur game in tandem so where do these fine margins fit in on a Sunday morning in the park.
True, surely tracking chips in boots and ball make the most sense and it's instant.
Football is apparently the only sport where emotion plays a role so it cannot be implemented.
One thing's for sure though and that's the fact that VAR in this form is not really technology. This is akin to CL matches adding anther referee in the penalty box and seemingly had no impact whatsoever. One would think offside decisions should be the easiest thing to get right given its the one part of the game where there are no shades of grey. Either you're offside or you're not.
Yup, they did, and very quickly too. I have faith in their system of accountability to ensure this doesn't happen again, unlike the zero faith I have in how football seems to be going about it.
(Also not to quibble, but they still would have lost the game. If they get 7 points for the try, and no guarantee because of the difficulty of the kick, then you'd have to deduct 3 points for the penalty which I read was in the same sequence).
No, you can't play the ball with your arm so it doesn't count when looking at whether a player is offside.
No, you can only be offside through a body part you can score with.
Take VAR out of the equation for a moment.
That call yesterday was a clear indication of the offside rule being unfit for use.
The linesman made his call as he saw it. It is only when we get to freezing an image (which could be stopped at the start, middle or end of contact with the ball, affecting the points of reference.), that we then microscopically examine this image, and come to the conclusion that the defenders hand is discounted and Mata's knee is the furthest point which can legally touch the ball.
How ridiculous to ask a human to make that call in real-time!
Without VAR it is impossible to get that right everytime, yet that is how we are applying the rule.
I don't think VAR in its current state should be used for offside. More importantly, this "legal body part " criteria is adding an extra dimension, to make the job for the linesman impossible. Then he is open to criticism using this photo finish, forensic examination.
Remove the "body part" rule, and let the assistant refs do their jobs, with a chance of being right.
That call yesterday was a clear indication of the offside rule being unfit for use.
The linesman made his call as he saw it. It is only when we get to freezing an image (which could be stopped at the start, middle or end of contact with the ball, affecting the points of reference.), that we then microscopically examine this image, and come to the conclusion that the defenders hand is discounted and Mata's knee is the furthest point which can legally touch the ball.
How ridiculous to ask a human to make that call in real-time!
Without VAR it is impossible to get that right everytime, yet that is how we are applying the rule.
I don't think VAR in its current state should be used for offside. More importantly, this "legal body part " criteria is adding an extra dimension, to make the job for the linesman impossible. Then he is open to criticism using this photo finish, forensic examination.
Remove the "body part" rule, and let the assistant refs do their jobs, with a chance of being right.
Hawkeye have released a statment saying that the image on the telly with the wonky lines was not what the VAR saw... It was due to a "technical error"
VAR to the rescue in the Gladbach vs. Dortmund game
Which still begs the question why was it created by VAR in the first place?Hawkeye have released a statment saying that the image on the telly with the wonky lines was not what the VAR saw... It was due to a "technical error"
Do they genuinely think this is an adequate explanation? They really need to properly explain what the hell that image was and why it ever existed.Hawkeye have released a statment saying that the image on the telly with the wonky lines was not what the VAR saw... It was due to a "technical error"
Meanwhile the whole usage of VAR needs reviewing. They claim it's for obvious mistakes, and as far as I know nobody has changed the rule on benefit of the doubt going with the attacker, but then you get a decision like yesterday. It's nuts.
They should have something similar to the "Umpires decision" zone in cricket - band of uncertainty in which they will not overturn a decision (though possibly waited towards giving the attacker the advantage). Only overturn clear errors.
Mata goal at first half should have stood, just looking at the live footage and the reply it looks to me like they decided to botch the decsion by purpose.