VARguments

[ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK]

The rule is wrong. Advantage should be given to the attacker.

Should be a foot or a **** hair at least. Not a toenail.

What happens when it's toenail either way of that foot?

As for advantage, see th2 posts as it's been in place 3 seasons now

https://www.readytogo.net/smb/threads/var-has-ruined-top-level-football.1632082/post-40543109

https://www.readytogo.net/smb/threads/var-has-ruined-top-level-football.1632082/post-40543231

 

[stan the man]

My humble opinion

VAR should be only used for 'clear and obvious' the howlers in bygone times of a referee missing players more than a yard offside should be the reason for VAR ...... toenails and elbows etc should have no involvement. Close enough is onside (won't happen now though)

These arguments over a toenail or a line perspective is what's the problem.

 

[ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK]

My humble opinion

VAR should be only used for 'clear and obvious' the howlers in bygone times of a referee missing players more than a yard offside should be the reason for VAR ...... toenails and elbows etc should have no involvement. Close enough is onside (won't happen now though)

These arguments over a toenail or a line perspective is what's the problem.

As has been said in reply many a time to this suggestion, what if it's a toenail either than a yard? If it's a toenail under a yard offside but given as a goal do you not think fans will just say the same thing? You can't just say "It was close enough" as then a fan of the other team will say "But it was 1mm/toenail from close enough". There has to be a 'line drawn' somewhere than changes onside to offside.

One issue with offside is that some still don't know there is no 1mm line that separates onside and offside like it once did. There's an advantage given to the attacker that means there a 'grey' area and it's been in place since the start of the 2021/22 season. I've explained this a few times on here and these 2 posts explain how it works and give some red and blue line examples and how the law changed 3 seasons ago.

https://www.readytogo.net/smb/threads/var-has-ruined-top-level-football.1632082/post-40543109

https://www.readytogo.net/smb/threads/var-has-ruined-top-level-football.1632082/post-40543231

Here is a simple graphic showing how the thicker lines give more than a 1mm/toenail advantage to the attacker. The attacker is clearly offside in both positions but with the thicker lines he could still be onside due to this grey area (the red and blue lines width). The red line is the attacker and the furthest point comes back towards the defender. The blue is the defender and his furthest point goes towards the attacker. If the 2 lines don't overlap by anything at all then it's offside. If they overlap just slightly then it's given as onside but when it's close then it's harder to see on a TV. It's pointless trying to use your eyes just looking at players to see if it's offside as the viewing angle perspective and image size and quality makes it difficult to even see it.

Logon or register to see this image

This is what it looks like on a TV screen as it's not that close up, especially when players are further away from the camera. You can barely see the gap now and given the gap is darker due to the grass than it just looks like there's no gap at all when it's this close even with the white background.

Logon or register to see this image

You can see the thicker lines when you look at the nearest bit of the VAR lines to the camera. Looking back at the Man Utd v Coventry offside, see how thick they are in comparison to the linesman in this zoomed in part of the VAR image. The thickness of the 2 is the thickness of the linesman leg and similar to the above example. You can't see the gap between the lines due to the image quality and size but the computer knows there will be one there, even is it's the smallest gap allowed.



Aye people will say what about the kicking of the ball and drawing of the lines and error of margin but this can be 50/50 either way. What the thicker lines do is give more of that error of margin to the attacker. If more fans knew about this advantage then there probably wouldn't be as much fuss about it being 1mm/toenail. The error of margin given the frame rate can be small if the players are more static between the 2 video frames. However, like in the Man Utd v Coventry game, when a player is offside in the frame prior to the one VAR use and also offside in the frame rate margin of error doesn't exist and even more so if the thicker lines are used.

It's all changing next season with the semi-automated stuff that will be more accurate and consistent than drawing lines manually. Though one thing I think they're not doing is adding this advantage to the attacker as there will still be a small error of margin. This will mean the same arguments about it being 1mm/toenail which I agree with. What they should do is look at the error of margin and give it to the attacker so there is no doubt that when he is given offside, he was 100% offside. Leave the margin of error in the "was he really onside?" range as that means goals that are scored will still count as it can't be proven 100% he was offside.

 

[dangermows]

I think advantage should be given to the defending team.

Too many rules favour the attacker already.

My humble opinion

VAR should be only used for 'clear and obvious' the howlers in bygone times of a referee missing players more than a yard offside should be the reason for VAR ...... toenails and elbows etc should have no involvement. Close enough is onside (won't happen now though)

These arguments over a toenail or a line perspective is what's the problem.

Offsides have never been included in the clear and obvious. The linesmen aren't making decisions. They are letting the play flow and allowing the video folk to check afterwards.

The clear and obvious applies to refereeing decisions. VAR will ask the ref to have another look if it is felt a howler has been made.

The semi final is a perfect example of this when you look at the offside goal and the harsh penalty.

That’s not a good argument at all Bernie mate.

Looks like it's Bernie who doesn't like being wrong.

 

[Fleagle]

The technology works. The argument is does the technology improve or spoil the game?

There's also the fact that even though the technology works, the way in which it is used arguably doesn't work. It slows down the game, gets involved in contentious decisions where it still comes down to a human eye and a human interpretation.

I do think there's a place for VAR. It benefits almost every other sport. Football just needs to find out how to use it effectively

I’m not convinced by this. Other sports use it in exactly the same situations and in exactly the same way that causes controversy in football, but without causing controversy in those sports. I think football is just temperamentally unsuited to it.

An example to parallel the Coventry offside as a factual line decision might be a no ball in cricket. Given by eye it was a complete lottery, not least as it expected the umpire to be looking at two things at once. Given by the technology it is now judged by the width of a gnats cock essentially without controversy.

People also on about rugby. Lots of judgement calls there, applying the same “clear and obvious” standard football does. Perhaps the visible way the on field and television officials talk to each other helps, but ultimately it’s still a human judgement. Largely accepted.

I think the only reason we don’t argue about the magic goal line watch is that we can’t see it working so we take it on trust. The technology used in the World Cup, which covers the whole goal line not just the area within the goal, did provoke controversy as I recall when it reversed the referee for that Japan goal because there was also an image people could argue about.

The problem isn’t VAR for me it’s the culture of the sport. I think it makes it impossible for us to get it to work.

 

[Vicham]

That doesn't explain how they know when to draw the line. A tenth of a second earlier and he's onside.

14 cameras for goal decision system. God knows how many for the match. And none of them focusing on when the ball is played. Only on the line. It is beyond ridiculous.

 

[ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK]

14 cameras for goal decision system. God knows how many for the match. And none of them focusing on when the ball is played. Only on the line. It is beyond ridiculous.

Note what he said as a tenth of a second is 5 frames of 50FPS video and players can move some distance in that time. Though given Wright was well offside to begin with as he was barely moving yet Bissaka was running back then a bit common sense tells you he would have been further offside.

Some go on about 1mm/toenails but most are probably oblivious to the advantage that is then given to the attacker when VAR draw the thicker lines that only need to overlap slightly which is explained in detail in the post just above. The time in between 50FPS is 0.02 seconds (quicker than the blink of an eye) and on most occasions in that time the 2 players may move a few inches. There's also the fact that the actual touch is within that 0.02 seconds so the actual touch may only mean players have moved a very small distance in a time less than 0.02 seconds.

You mention cameras and clubs voted against using semi-automated cameras this season but they installed an extra 4 cameras to add to the numerous ones that VAR already use.

You must be logged on to see external links

The Premier League will not adopt the automated offside system used in the Champions League and World Cup for next season but will have four extra cameras at stadiums to help VARs.

What VAR do is take the frame where the initial contact is shown but it may be using a different camera will be closer with more detail. That is synced up with all the other cameras. They can also use other camera angles to pick the spot for the lines using the 3D tech that is calibrated for the pitch. They also hoy in the thicker lines to give more of the benefit of doubt to the attacker. The final image VAR show is to simply show the view across the pitch with the lines and players all in view and not the closeup angles used to see the touch/draw lines. This wider field of view image also makes whatever gap it was look a lot smaller when in reality the gap is far bigger than 1mm/toenail.

I’m not convinced by this. Other sports use it in exactly the same situations and in exactly the same way that causes controversy in football, but without causing controversy in those sports. I think football is just temperamentally unsuited to it.

An example to parallel the Coventry offside as a factual line decision might be a no ball in cricket. Given by eye it was a complete lottery, not least as it expected the umpire to be looking at two things at once. Given by the technology it is now judged by the width of a gnats cock essentially without controversy.

People also on about rugby. Lots of judgement calls there, applying the same “clear and obvious” standard football does. Perhaps the visible way the on field and television officials talk to each other helps, but ultimately it’s still a human judgement. Largely accepted.

I think the only reason we don’t argue about the magic goal line watch is that we can’t see it working so we take it on trust. The technology used in the World Cup, which covers the whole goal line not just the area within the goal, did provoke controversy as I recall when it reversed the referee for that Japan goal because there was also an image people could argue about.

The problem isn’t VAR for me it’s the culture of the sport. I think it makes it impossible for us to get it to work.

It still isn't perfect and never will be as there will still be a margin of error. Though a lot of the frustration and anger towards offsides would be a bit less if people knew the tech involved, how it worked and the basics of offside laws regarding when it actually should be taken, the point of contact of the ball and not when it's released for example.

The semi-automated stuff will be quicker and more accurate but it's obvious fans will still pick at it but can't accept that it can never be perfect. Aye it may not be perfect but there is a point where being onside has to become offside. They can't really use Wenger's method as it means that an attacker stood behind a defender with his toenail between the defender's legs will be onside. The onside/offside line is still there also so it's just moving the problem. With the current offside law, they can at least eliminate most of that doubt by giving the attacker the extra width line so there's no doubt at all he was offside. If that was in place and meant that no offside given was incorrect so every goal ruled out was correct I think some people would still bring up the 1mm/toenail just for the sake of moaning.

 

[ir35]

I’ve had a season ticket for thirty years and watched some absolute rubbish as well as seen the game become ridiculously corrupt, but still renewed. With VAR now ruining the experience even further, next season might just be the final nail in the coffin.

 

[Fleagle]

14 cameras for goal decision system. God knows how many for the match. And none of them focusing on when the ball is played. Only on the line. It is beyond ridiculous.

You seem to be confusing three different systems. The goal decision system uses separate cameras from the semi-automated offside system. The semi-automated offside system doesn’t need a camera to determine when the ball moves, because it uses a sensor inside the ball for that, which has a higher signal rate than the cameras do, and the EPL doesn’t use the semi-automated technology anyway but that’s through its own stupidity/through some jobs for the boys decision to keep the idiots drawing lines not because of any flaw in the technology.

The way the EPL does offsides is indeed beyond ridiculous. But that’s down to the EPL. Better technology is there. They choose not to use it.

 

[bernardbresslaw]

Note what he said as a tenth of a second is 5 frames of 50FPS video and players can move some distance in that time. Though given Wright was well offside to begin with as he was barely moving yet Bissaka was running back then a bit common sense tells you he would have been further offside.

Some go on about 1mm/toenails but most are probably oblivious to the advantage that is then given to the attacker when VAR draw the thicker lines that only need to overlap slightly which is explained in detail in the post just above. The time in between 50FPS is 0.02 seconds (quicker than the blink of an eye) and on most occasions in that time the 2 players may move a few inches. There's also the fact that the actual touch is within that 0.02 seconds so the actual touch may only mean players have moved a very small distance in a time less than 0.02 seconds.

You mention cameras and clubs voted against using semi-automated cameras this season but they installed an extra 4 cameras to add to the numerous ones that VAR already use.

You must be logged on to see external links

The Premier League will not adopt the automated offside system used in the Champions League and World Cup for next season but will have four extra cameras at stadiums to help VARs.

What VAR do is take the frame where the initial contact is shown but it may be using a different camera will be closer with more detail. That is synced up with all the other cameras. They can also use other camera angles to pick the spot for the lines using the 3D tech that is calibrated for the pitch. They also hoy in the thicker lines to give more of the benefit of doubt to the attacker. The final image VAR show is to simply show the view across the pitch with the lines and players all in view and not the closeup angles used to see the touch/draw lines. This wider field of view image also makes whatever gap it was look a lot smaller when in reality the gap is far bigger than 1mm/toenail.



It still isn't perfect and never will be as there will still be a margin of error. Though a lot of the frustration and anger towards offsides would be a bit less if people knew the tech involved, how it worked and the basics of offside laws regarding when it actually should be taken, the point of contact of the ball and not when it's released for example.

The semi-automated stuff will be quicker and more accurate but it's obvious fans will still pick at it but can't accept that it can never be perfect. Aye it may not be perfect but there is a point where being onside has to become offside. They can't really use Wenger's method as it means that an attacker stood behind a defender with his toenail between the defender's legs will be onside. The onside/offside line is still there also so it's just moving the problem. With the current offside law, they can at least eliminate most of that doubt by giving the attacker the extra width line so there's no doubt at all he was offside. If that was in place and meant that no offside given was incorrect so every goal ruled out was correct I think some people would still bring up the 1mm/toenail just for the sake of moaning.

You're missing the point. I don't care if Var means the correct decision is made, I've always said that it will spoil the experience of those who actually go to games. Bollocks to this shite about being able to celebrate twice.

 

[dangermows]

I think that Coventry decision proves exactly what I said in my first post.

It was offside.

You don't understand how the technology works.

Yes I do. It was clearly offside. You're wrong. No harm done. Night.

I know you hate to be wrong, but you're wrong.

You're missing the point. I don't care if Var means the correct decision is made.

 

[bernardbresslaw]

Here he is. SMB royalty.

 

[steadybreeze]

I hate VAR, i dont watch Premiership games because of it, i hate the way decent football podcasts now spend all their time debating decisions instead of the game itself, it has ruined the game for me. BUT having said all that this notts forest business has made me laugh this week, i see tonight its wolves fans freaking out so watched the highlights and WTF...how the hell can he dissallow that?? And its Attwell again, the game has gone!

 

[bernardbresslaw]

The Swedes have decided they don't want VAR.
Sensible decision.

 

[Faust17]

As someone on here posted (or maybe Twitter), there probably isn’t a single time a fan has uttered the words ‘I wish we had VAR’ in the championship or below… which begs the question why is it there. Who wants it and who is pushing for its existence?

Fans don’t pretty obviously.
Players? Probs don’t care
Refs? Surely not - makes them look useless when they make two or three ‘clear and obvious’ errors a game in front of 40k people. They must feel like right chumps being called over to the screen.
TV? Maybe - increases the drama. The ‘will it, won’t it’ soap opera angst.

So who is pushing it? Lord knows

 

[tunstallhill]

As someone on here posted (or maybe Twitter), there probably isn’t a single time a fan has uttered the words ‘I wish we had VAR’ in the championship or below… which begs the question why is it there. Who wants it and who is pushing for its existence?

Fans don’t pretty obviously.
Players? Probs don’t care
Refs? Surely not - makes them look useless when they make two or three ‘clear and obvious’ errors a game in front of 40k people. They must feel like right chumps being called over to the screen.
TV? Maybe - increases the drama. The ‘will it, won’t it’ soap opera angst.

So who is pushing it? Lord knows

the TV companies have always pushed it. the first couple of years saw every single pundit and commentator jam in somewhere into every single broadcast the phrase 'look, we need it and ultimately i think its good for football...''

there was and is very little, if any, public criticism of it. bare in mind just about every single proper footy fan has uttered the words 'var is utter shite' or 'var is ruining football'.... yet not one pundit, commentator, presenter or ex player has ever said they want rid of it. they are clearly told by the TV companies to skirt around the subject and praise it as much as possible, and avoid at all costs from criticising it.

the whole thing stinks. absolute morons in charge of massive organisations, who couldn't run a f***ing bath. i blame the private education system

 

[Matnab]

As someone on here posted (or maybe Twitter), there probably isn’t a single time a fan has uttered the words ‘I wish we had VAR’ in the championship or below… which begs the question why is it there. Who wants it and who is pushing for its existence?

Fans don’t pretty obviously.
Players? Probs don’t care
Refs? Surely not - makes them look useless when they make two or three ‘clear and obvious’ errors a game in front of 40k people. They must feel like right chumps being called over to the screen.
TV? Maybe - increases the drama. The ‘will it, won’t it’ soap opera angst.

So who is pushing it? Lord knows

Referees shouldn't feel like chumps. I just can't get my head round what people can't understand. Even after years and years of referees getting decisions wrong people still can't seem to grasp that in real time you don't have a chance in hell of not making huge errors. They always have and they always will. Real time, shit vantage point, obstructed view etc - they don't stand a chance!

I honestly think VAR could work if they let a panel of 3 decide big decisions from the control room (reds, pens and fouls leading to goals). Who would make up those panels is the only challenge.

 

[Fleagle]

As someone on here posted (or maybe Twitter), there probably isn’t a single time a fan has uttered the words ‘I wish we had VAR’ in the championship or below… which begs the question why is it there. Who wants it and who is pushing for its existence?

Fans don’t pretty obviously.
Players? Probs don’t care
Refs? Surely not - makes them look useless when they make two or three ‘clear and obvious’ errors a game in front of 40k people. They must feel like right chumps being called over to the screen.
TV? Maybe - increases the drama. The ‘will it, won’t it’ soap opera angst.

So who is pushing it? Lord knows

The short answer is the clubs. They voted it in and they show no appetite for voting it out again.

The harder question to answer is why? Perhaps the reduction in error matters more to them and the reduction in stadium spectator experience matters less. Perhaps they think it does add drama to the TV spectacle. Perhaps they just made a mistake and haven’t yet got in a place to admit it. But they are the ones who pushed for it and who ultimately brought it in.

 

[tunstallhill]

I honestly think VAR could work if they let a panel of 3 decide big decisions from the control room (reds, pens and fouls leading to goals). Who would make up those panels is the only challenge.

i've been the biggest critic of it since day one, and hate it with a passion for what it has took from football. however, the only way in my opinion how it could work would be for there to be a time limit on VAR decisions, 5 seconds or 10 seconds.

if it can't be corrected in 5 seconds then its not a clear and obvious error

 

[Matnab]

i've been the biggest critic of it since day one, and hate it with a passion for what it has took from football. however, the only way in my opinion how it could work would be for there to be a time limit on VAR decisions, 5 seconds or 10 seconds.

if it can't be corrected in 5 seconds then its not a clear and obvious error

This is a commonly suggested idea. I just think there'd be a huge circus around the whole thing. It'd literally be a week before accusations of inconsistency abound because one mistake was corrected and an even more obvious wasn't. It'd just become another avenue for managers and fans to spit the dummy out.