• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

VARguments

Safc98 said:
Short memory
Click to expand...

I’ve not. The sort of complaints managers had a decade ago were the same as today: the penalty we should have got for a clear push in the box but a reluctance by a referee to give it for fear of influencing the game.

Managers were never complaining vigorously about offsides where a shoulder was shown to be an inch closer to the goal than the defender. Replays weren’t that detailed, there was a grey area of uncertainty and within that grey area referees were given the benefit of the doubt. Frankly ten years ago if Keith Andrew’s made a song and dance about the goal that would have given Burnley the lead he’d have looked ridiculous: his team had blown a 3 goal lead, hadn’t defended properly, the replay and interpretation wouldn’t have been in anyway supportive of any complaint and he’d lose credibility.

It was the clear offsides which caused controversy and the fouls. The decision quality for the latter simply hasn’t moved forward and the decision quality for the former has been redefined. Overall quality has declined with VAR.
 

Jack Blue said:
I’ve not. The sort of complaints managers had a decade ago were the same as today: the penalty we should have got for a clear push in the box but a reluctance by a referee to give it for fear of influencing the game.

Managers were never complaining vigorously about offsides where a shoulder was shown to be an inch closer to the goal than the defender. Replays weren’t that detailed, there was a grey area of uncertainty and within that grey area referees were given the benefit of the doubt. Frankly ten yes years ago if Keith Andrew’s made a song and dance about the goal that would have given Burnley the lead he’d have looked ridiculous: his team had blown a 3 goal lead, hadn’t defended properly, the replay and interpretation wouldn’t have been in anyway supportive of any complaint and he’d lose credibility.

It was the clear offsides which caused controversy and the fouls. The decision quality for the latter simply hasn’t moved forward and the decision quality for the former has been redefined. Overall quality has declined with VAR.
Click to expand...
& they want to bring it in for corners next season ffs
 
dsr-burnley said:
The VAR man for the handball spent five minutes watching the same clip again and again and again, trying to see a handball. So of course he saw it. He could have seen a pink elephant flying by if he had concentrated so hard and had so much wanted to see it.

What I want to know is what was he doing for the first 4+ minutes, unable to see what he later decided was clear and obvious?

As for the offside, they don't have the technology to judge by 2 inches. For that to be offside, they have to be certain that the photo(s) were taken at the exact moment that the boot came in contact with the ball. If the image was taken at the moment the ball left the boot, then it's too late. In the time that the ball is in contact with the boot, Anthony would have moved the two inches needed to make the difference.
Click to expand...
Nobody ever talks about your last point. They're trying to measure millimetres at the front but everyone just accepts that they've got the exact moment the ball was passed

An umpires call type buffer of 25cm or so would stop that
 
Last edited:
Sandboy said:
Nobody ever talks about your last point. They're trying to measure millimetres at the front but everyone just accepts that they've got the exact moment the ball was passed

An umpires call type buffer of 25cm or so would stop that
Click to expand...
Or just give a benefit of the doubt to the attacker if it's not "clear and obvious". All sports have issues with how technology is implemented - rugby used to have it right with the referee asking "is there any reason why I can't award the try" for example. Now you have games being re-reffed and no clarity over how or whether decisions get overturned.

They should start with offside decisions as those should be the easiest and clearest. If you don't have evidence inside 60 seconds then just go with the onfield decision. If it's within a margin of error then give benefit of the doubt to the attacker.
 
No idea how Rugby Union, Rugby League, Tennis, American Football, Basketball, Cricket, American Football & Ice Hockey all managed to managed to implement TV technology without issues but the biggest Sport in the world can't seem to manage it.
 
Randy Ostrich said:
Or just give a benefit of the doubt to the attacker if it's not "clear and obvious". All sports have issues with how technology is implemented - rugby used to have it right with the referee asking "is there any reason why I can't award the try" for example. Now you have games being re-reffed and no clarity over how or whether decisions get overturned.

They should start with offside decisions as those should be the easiest and clearest. If you don't have evidence inside 60 seconds then just go with the onfield decision. If it's within a margin of error then give benefit of the doubt to the attacker.
Click to expand...
The simple way to judge offside is simply to look at the photo - if the photo clearly shows that the linesman is wrong, then the decision gets changed' if it does not clearly show that the lineman is wrong, then the linesman is right. The whole concept of "level" in offside is that it means "too close to call" - it was never intended to mean "so close that an Olympic photo fisnish camera couldn't separate them". Apply the laws the same as they are in non-VAR matches - ie. offside is judged by the torso, not the feet, and by the naked human eye = and the VAR call could be made in 15 seconds.

Quite apart from anything else, yesterday we had 8 minutes waiting for decisions. In what world is that good for the game?
 
Buzzers boot boy said:
Var isn’t the problem.

the problem is the people using it are the same people who get everything wrong that 99 people out of 100 can watch an incident and make a decision within half a minute.

The officials are the reason why fans are so against it.

They get involved in stuff that would never be questioned and go to the far end of a fart to look for reasons to take the joy out of everything.

They can’t be trusted to get the blatant things correct which snowballs into questions about every decision.

The arrogance they show while doing it is another thing that makes everything unpalatable.

The le fee pen today as an example is an easy decision for anyone who’s watched, played,or been involved at any level of football to make.

It’s a pen every day of the week and twice on a Sunday but the ref who should just give it, doesn’t and then the idiots who get every angle under the sun still don’t give it !!!

It’s simple.
Click to expand...
For all it'll start with a load of mistakes while it learns, bringing in a consistent solution in AI to review this stuff will be the key. Although also a sad day that human decision making it taken away.
 
How about offside is judged by the feet only? Just being leant forward a bit more than the defender shouldn’t mean the attacker is offside
 
Jack Blue said:
I’ve not. The sort of complaints managers had a decade ago were the same as today: the penalty we should have got for a clear push in the box but a reluctance by a referee to give it for fear of influencing the game.

Managers were never complaining vigorously about offsides where a shoulder was shown to be an inch closer to the goal than the defender. Replays weren’t that detailed, there was a grey area of uncertainty and within that grey area referees were given the benefit of the doubt. Frankly ten years ago if Keith Andrew’s made a song and dance about the goal that would have given Burnley the lead he’d have looked ridiculous: his team had blown a 3 goal lead, hadn’t defended properly, the replay and interpretation wouldn’t have been in anyway supportive of any complaint and he’d lose credibility.

It was the clear offsides which caused controversy and the fouls. The decision quality for the latter simply hasn’t moved forward and the decision quality for the former has been redefined. Overall quality has declined with VAR.
Click to expand...
It has opened Pandora’s Box on marginal calls has VAR, but it definitely has improved decision making, even as much as I think referees feel empowered to give penalties and red cards knowing they have the safety net, as opposed to Kavanagh in the Mags cup game who looked petrified to make a big call without his safety net.
 
Buzzers boot boy said:
Var isn’t the problem.

the problem is the people using it are the same people who get everything wrong that 99 people out of 100 can watch an incident and make a decision within half a minute.

The officials are the reason why fans are so against it.

They get involved in stuff that would never be questioned and go to the far end of a fart to look for reasons to take the joy out of everything.

They can’t be trusted to get the blatant things correct which snowballs into questions about every decision.

The arrogance they show while doing it is another thing that makes everything unpalatable.

The le fee pen today as an example is an easy decision for anyone who’s watched, played,or been involved at any level of football to make.

It’s a pen every day of the week and twice on a Sunday but the ref who should just give it, doesn’t and then the idiots who get every angle under the sun still don’t give it !!!

It’s simple.
Click to expand...
The VAR official yesterday was James Bell a man who has never reffed a Premier league match!

In my opinion he has been led by Gillet decisions on the penalty and GX tackle and did nit have tge onfidence or balls to over rule Gillet.

Some Refs are making decisions or non decisions in the hope that VAR will pull them out of the mire but for that to happen strong officials who are not afraid to upset their peers are needed at VAR central.
 
NodsNeph said:
How about offside is judged by the feet only? Just being leant forward a bit more than the defender shouldn’t mean the attacker is offside
Click to expand...
That's similar to Wenger's daylight rule but it would never work as an attacker could stand goal side of a defender and simply leave a trailing foot back behind the defender to stay onside.

It would be also make it harder to make offside calls in lower leagues without VAR, especially if there's a few players along the line such as a free kick.

I hoyed this image up ages ago just to show what could also happen as the right side is onside by feet and the left is Wenger's daylight rule. It sounds good but as I said would be harder to officiate without the tech in the lower leagues so it's never going to happen. Decisions were bad before VAR but they'd be even worse trying to get humans to call offside when bodies can overlap, rather than looking across a line to see who is furthest forward.

Logon or register to see this image
 
Last edited:
dsr-burnley said:
As for the offside, they don't have the technology to judge by 2 inches. For that to be offside, they have to be certain that the photo(s) were taken at the exact moment that the boot came in contact with the ball. If the image was taken at the moment the ball left the boot, then it's too late. In the time that the ball is in contact with the boot, Anthony would have moved the two inches needed to make the difference.
Click to expand...
This is a long winded post but it may help some and I'm not defending VAR but rather explaining how it works given loads clearly don't know. They do have tech as they use 100 frames per second video. This isn't the video we see on TV as that's 50FPS. The SAOT finds the first frame that show the contact and you're talking small margins here. I'd dare say that given the tech these days, they could end up using AI to interpolate the gap between 2 frames (TVs do it now with motion smoothing).

How does the system work?​

The system uses up to 30 newly installed cameras mounted around Premier League stadiums – with several capturing footage at 100 frames per second, twice the frame rate of typical broadcast cameras.
The cameras track the exact movement of the ball as well as up to 10,000 surface "mesh" data points per player - meaning the technology will track to see if any attacking player involved in the build-up to any incident was offside.

Even with the small margin between frames, the attacker gets an advantage with offside with a thicker line as I've shown on here a few times before such as HERE. There's been a few times where this advantage has resulted in a goal, yet guess what, people moaned about the goal being allowed even though it 'looked offside'. There was one in the Leeds Villa game. Watch where the blue circle starts from as it's further up the arm that the white wall. This is the thickness of the green line across the deck. The left side of the line is where the blue circle is, the right side is where the white wall is. The Leeds player's boot on actually within the advantage.

Logon or register to see this image


A close up showing the actual offside line, the blue circle but the advantage offside line being further down the arm, the white wall. This is probably what 90% of football fans probably don't know about the offside advantage but it's there if you know where to look. Also note how the closer you get to real life size, how much thicker the advantage line looks compared to thin lines on a TV screen. It's certainly bigger than a toenail.

Logon or register to see this image


Here's yesterday's image and now if you understand where to look, you can see the advantage. I've chopped it up to make it easier to follow. Top left is the defender showing the true offside where the blue circle is at his foot and you can see a small bit of white/red line in front of it.

The top middle is when the view swings around and you can see the red line across the deck and the defender's foot is to the right of that line. The top right is the attacker with his shoulder pushing through the white wall. Now look down below his feet and follow the red line as you can see it's actually to the right of the while wall. If you look bottom left, I've zoomed in even more to show the defender's line and beside it the attacker's line.

This red line is the advantage as the right side is the true offside marked by the defender's position and the left of the red line is the limit for the attacker with the thin white wall. This is what people don't see or even know about so they just focus on the bit of the attacker sticking through the whie wall. More of Anthony's shoulder was still ahead of the true offside line because if they used the actual line then it would be even more of the body offside.



Maybe now anyone who has been brave enough to read this far will now also know about it. It's the way they've designed the graphics that's shit as it just doesn't show it clearly enough but I think they do it on purpose so it can't be analysed in fine detail like you could before when they used to zoom in and show it on TV.

Anyway, in the past, offsides were incorrect by inches, 6 inches, a foot, half a yard or even yards and everyone kicked off about it. Yet here it is within inches either way but weighted towards the attacker and people still moan about the small margins. Offside is objective and the line has to be somewhere.

I'm not fussed about it any more as at least it's more consistent now the decision is always within a short margin of error. It certainly can't be well off or on like it was in the past and potentially favouring certain teams. Though IMO they still need to increase the advantage with an even thicker line that removes any doubt of it being ruled out for offside incorrectly so that any offside given is 100% offside and it's the onside that has the margin of error but goals still stand.
 
Last edited:
ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK said:
That's similar to Wenger's daylight rule but it would never work as an attacker could stand goal side of a defender and simply leave a trailing foot back behind the defender to stay onside.

It would be also make it harder to make offside calls in lower leagues without VAR, especially if there's a few players along the line such as a free kick.

I hoyed this image up ages ago just to show what could also happen as the right side is onside by feet and the left is Wenger's daylight rule. It sounds good but as I said would be harder to officiate without the tech in the lower leagues so it's never going to happen. Decisions were bad before VAR but they'd be even worse trying to get humans to call offside when bodies can overlap, rather than looking across a line to see who is furthest forward.

Logon or register to see this image
Click to expand...
Cheers, my thoughts were both feet really
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top