VAR replays to be shown on screens at Premier League matches

[yorkie1999]

14 hours ago, davieG said:

You could argue based on the narrow margin that the original decision was not an 'obvious error'.

 

I'm not totally familiar with the cricket video reviews but don't they have to be very obvious to over rule the umpires decision/

Cricket is a fairly easy sport to review, as is tennis as there is only a couple of positions to monitor and they are always the same. A camera behind the bowler and a camera in line with a stationary batsman. Oh and a snicko in the stumps. Maybe footballers will have to start wearing microphones in their boots!!

[yorkie1999]

3 hours ago, filbertway said:

Should they have an inch tolerance for goals as well? If it's offside it's offside. Whether it's an inch or a yard. It's the only thing that can be clear and obvious.

No because the goal posts  don’t move so you can always say if it was over the line or not.

[davieG]

6 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

Cricket is a fairly easy sport to review, as is tennis as there is only a couple of positions to monitor and they are always the same. A camera behind the bowler and a camera in line with a stationary batsman. Oh and a snicko in the stumps. Maybe footballers will have to start wearing microphones in their boots!!

I wouldn't have thought a simple off side position was harder to review than an lbw.

As far as I can see they're not always given out even though the ball has been shown to have hit the stumps if not stopped. That seems very subjective to me. Unless I'm mistaken.

[st albans fox]

14 hours ago, Facecloth said:

It was an inch at most. Its meant to be for clear and obvious errors. It was a ridiculous decision to rule the goal out.

Offside isn’t ‘clear and obvious’ - it’s supposed to be factual based on the image 

 

but as has been noted above, how accurate is the line and the freeze frame 

 

the answer (imo) is to make the line thicker .... that gives a tolerance and margin of error ..... of course, Within that could be that if the ‘offside’ part of the body falls within the extra thick line (either way) then it becomes ‘linesman’s call’ as is the case with lbw and a small contact with the stumps which the cricket authorities recognise is outside the realms of accuracy with a system that is predicting where the ball will track ....

 

that will involve linesmen putting the flag up and play continuing (which will be the case in the PL next season) - could be a recipe for chaos although communication between Lino and ref should ensure that clear offsides are blown up immediately and it’s only the close calls which are brought into the ‘choas’ of flag up and play continuing ....

[Jimothy]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

Offside isn’t ‘clear and obvious’ - it’s supposed to be factual based on the image 

 

but as has been noted above, how accurate is the line and the freeze frame 

 

the answer (imo) is to make the line thicker .... that gives a tolerance and margin of error ..... of course, Within that could be that if the ‘offside’ part of the body falls within the extra thick line (either way) then it becomes ‘linesman’s call’ as is the case with lbw and a small contact with the stumps which the cricket authorities recognise is outside the realms of accuracy with a system that is predicting where the ball will track ....

 

that will involve linesmen putting the flag up and play continuing (which will be the case in the PL next season) - could be a recipe for chaos although communication between Lino and ref should ensure that clear offsides are blown up immediately and it’s only the close calls which are brought into the ‘choas’ of flag up and play continuing ....

No, VAR is supposed to correct clear and obvious errors. If her whole body had been offside and the linesman missed it, that's clear and obviously an error, if her toe is offside like last night, that is not clear and obvious, nobody could spot that with the naked eye, so VAR shouldn't be getting involved.

[coolhandfox]

18 minutes ago, Facecloth said:

No, VAR is supposed to correct clear and obvious errors. If her whole body had been offside and the linesman missed it, that's clear and obviously an error, if her toe is offside like last night, that is not clear and obvious, nobody could spot that with the naked eye, so VAR shouldn't be getting involved.

That's not the guidelines for offside for VAR, you are on or off, it has nothing to do with be clear and obvious.

 

 

[Plastik Man]

On 05/06/2019 at 19:40, davieG said:

If it's while they're making the decision it probably wont affect the atmosphere as that'll be crap anyway but if it's after yeah and how pointless.

 

Wont matter anyway because you can't get a decent signal.

Exactly this, no effing signal! 

[filbertway]

Fair point on it being dependent on the time frame, though I'd assume these are cameras that slow down to hundredths of a second which should help to be able to pinpoint the moment the ball leaves the players' boot.

I'd agree with St Alban's idea of having thicker lines, then if the attackers line is clearly past the defender's line then it's off.

[simon789us]

Forgive me if I’m wrong but isn’t VAR supposed to be for the plain and obvious mistakes England’s offside goal the other night was as tight as a ducks arse not plain and obvious should be like cricket captain has one or two referrals per game challenge it and it’s wrong keep your review loose it and you lost it stops all refs reviewing every little detail

[coolhandfox]

2 hours ago, simon789us said:

Forgive me if I’m wrong but isn’t VAR supposed to be for the plain and obvious mistakes England’s offside goal the other night was as tight as a ducks arse not plain and obvious should be like cricket captain has one or two referrals per game challenge it and it’s wrong keep your review loose it and you lost it stops all refs reviewing every little detail

Not for offsides, you on or off, nothing to do with clear and obvious 

[st albans fox]

37 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

Not for offsides, you on or off, nothing to do with clear and obvious 

And it’s clear and obvious errors re goals (inc build up) or pens.  Plus mistaken identity and checking reds/possible reds 

 

the offside needs tweaking as per my earlier post ....

 I want to keep the benefit of doubt with the strikers ..... otherwise we are in danger of strikers holding their runs and the goal count drops a bit 

[HybridFox]

On 05/06/2019 at 19:01, AKCJ said:

"The Premier League says it is also looking at ways for supporters to view the clips on handheld devices via an app".

 

Should be doing everything we can to encourage people to get off their phones IMO.

Can just imagine it having a "vote for your decision" poll to play along 

[norwichfox]

We need a massive VAR fanzone outside the ground with enormous screens for the pleasure of seeing all the decisions go against us and to consider Maddison's diving antics whilst he saunters off the pitch to a red card (given he apologised for diving and has probably done even more of it since that apology).

[volpeazzurro]

It's a Pandora's box. Stop start, spontaneous eruption of celebration of goals will be gone, replaced by a tentative cheer whilst awaiting a potential review. Even penalty decisions are subjective as two pundits can disagree or even dispute the amount of contact required. Sometimes a referee's gut feeling,  though not scientific enough for some, is sufficient. Instead of questioning referee decisions, Match of the Day will be questioning VAR decisions so effectively we can't be that much further forward. Goal line technology is straight forward, an undisputable which is good.VAR is hardly a giant step forward as it's still subjective and disputable therefore how can it be the answer. Highly trained referee's and equally trained assistants with the balls to make their own decisions should be the order of the day. In chase of the holy grail we are slowly sucking the spontaneity and life out of the game together with the whole atmosphere and reason we go down there for. I think it's a step too far by far.

[ThaiFox]

I loathe VAR. 

 

For me it will cause far more problems than it will solve.

 

It also ruins the spontaneity of the game.

 

[StanSP]

51 minutes ago, ThaiFox said:

For me it will cause far more problems than it will solve.

 

Problems such as?

 

When VAR was first being bandied about, and in it's very early stages, many thought it would take out the controversy of the game and eradicate what you can talk about down the pub or at work with your mates. That clearly hasn't been the case as there's still so much to talk about. It provides contentions moments just like football did before VAR existed.

 

As for causing more problems than it'll solve - hardly. It solves, and has solved, many moments in football which would have been missed. Obvious offsides, penalty calls, things missed by officials.

 

When it comes to the problem of handballs in the penalty area etc - for me that's more an issue with the ambiguity of the rules than anything else. Again, before VAR existed, there was still grey areas about what constituted a handball and it still seems to be the case now. The other problem is that many replays are often showed in (ultra) slow-motion. It takes away the real-time effect. 

[l444ry]

The concept of *clear and obvious* errors does not apply to offsides. A player is either onside or offside - you cannot be a little bit pregnant. So if a player is offside by a matter of inches, the goal will be ruled out. The only time the phrase *clear and obvious* is used in the VAR Handbook is when referring to goal scoring opportunities. The actual phrase used is *was the decision clearly wrong?*

 

[st albans fox]

5 hours ago, l444ry said:

The concept of *clear and obvious* errors does not apply to offsides. A player is either onside or offside - you cannot be a little bit pregnant. So if a player is offside by a matter of inches, the goal will be ruled out. The only time the phrase *clear and obvious* is used in the VAR Handbook is when referring to goal scoring opportunities. The actual phrase used is *was the decision clearly wrong?*

 

But at some point you’re almost pregnant !

 

The discussion re when does the ball leave the players foot is what I’m interested in ..... how accurate is the freeze frame ?

[l444ry]

7 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

But at some point you’re almost pregnant !

 

The discussion re when does the ball leave the players foot is what I’m interested in ..... how accurate is the freeze frame ?

Not sure myself but they apparently have software that maps the whole pitch and freezes the point of ball release and the run of players at the same time.

[Vlad the Fox]

They need to remove the pitch side monitor. Obvious calls like offside are straight forward but if they can’t make a decision themselves in their little refs caravan then it isn’t clear and obvious. While I feel it will balance out some of the big club bias regarding borderline decisions I wonder how far that will be true, take the var penalty Switzerland were awarded the other night, and imagine Vardy taking a similar slight knock in the 90th minute at Man City last month with the score at 0-0, is the ref giving us that penalty? I’d bet most bottle it. 

[ThaiFox]

21 hours ago, StanSP said:

Problems such as?

 

When VAR was first being bandied about, and in it's very early stages, many thought it would take out the controversy of the game and eradicate what you can talk about down the pub or at work with your mates. That clearly hasn't been the case as there's still so much to talk about. It provides contentions moments just like football did before VAR existed.

 

As for causing more problems than it'll solve - hardly. It solves, and has solved, many moments in football which would have been missed. Obvious offsides, penalty calls, things missed by officials.

 

When it comes to the problem of handballs in the penalty area etc - for me that's more an issue with the ambiguity of the rules than anything else. Again, before VAR existed, there was still grey areas about what constituted a handball and it still seems to be the case now. The other problem is that many replays are often showed in (ultra) slow-motion. It takes away the real-time effect. 

Problems such as? How about the problems that occur in just about every VAR decision?!!

 

I watched the two England matches yesterday, and both had debatable  VAR decisions.

 

Wilson's goal being disallowed was a joke. If every VAR is going to disallow such goals for contact every game will be 0-0, or 10-10. All players pull and push in goalmouth situations. A penalty could be given on every occasion, or every goal disallowed. It's 50/50. Arms are flailing, there is shirt pulling, there are players diving, etc, etc, etc.

 

Both of Pickford's feet were off the line when he saved the penalty in the shootout. Why wasn't VAR used then? It was the winning goal! (In fact in every penalty taken one of the goalkeeper's feet was not on the line, and none were retaken).

 

England's women scored their first from a penalty for handball. If the referee gives it I'm fine with that. If they see it as accidental I'm fine with that. Looking at endless replays just allows the situation to be even more contentious than it would have been if it was a straight referee decision. It looked a little unlucky as it didn't look as if she deliberately moved her arm to the ball. She looked in a natural position. 

 

The World Cup final was ruined by VAR. Spuds result at Man City in the C/L was ruined by VAR. Spuds 'winning' goal was handball, but VAR didn't pick that up. Stirling's 'winner' at the end, correctly ruled out by VAR, would have balanced things up if it wasn't for VAR. So again, VAR wasn't working properly.

 

VAR is always going to throw these situations up. And it ruins the spontaneity of the game as I made in my previous post. The stopping and starting after every incident which currently covers VAR and the games will end up being two hours long.

 

VAR will suck the soul from football, just like corporate sponsorship, crazy transfer fees, and ridiculous wages have.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RowlattsFox]

The more I see of VAR the less I like it, yes it will stop the occasional horrendous decision but it is mostly going to be used for marginal decisions that are open to interpretation. Eventually teams will stop celebrating their goals too heavily whilst waiting to see if it is checked, next time Jesse Lingard goes through and scores he will naturally think twice. Players will become wise to it, they will try and win handballs, already at least one attackers goes to ground at every set piece in case something is picked up and they will start demanding everything is checked.

 

VAR refs should notify the ref if he has made an absolute howler, otherwise it should be left to the on-field referee to decide.

 

 

[CosbehFox]

They should build like a robolino - camera like one what you have at a racetrack and it goes up and down the line. It glows red when someone past the line of the defence. Then it's a simple when was the ball passed question. 

 

I am now patenting this as we speak. 

[Xen]

6 minutes ago, Cardiff_Fox said:

They should build like a robolino - camera like one what you have at a racetrack and it goes up and down the line. It glows red when someone past the line of the defence. Then it's a simple when was the ball passed question. 

 

I am now patenting this as we speak. 

If we could reduce it to that, then we could be onto something.

Taking the concept of your idea and running with a little, players often wear trackers under their shirts anyway for the clubs' analysts to review data, so surely it would be fairly simple to include a GPS-style device(s) which tracks each player's position on the pitch in real-time, with a computer somewhere keeping a live list of who's offside at any given moment - similar to your 'robo-lino'.

 

If there's an offside call, just establish when the pass was made (and which players are affecting play) and consult the list to see if they're offside.

 

No more arguments about playing someone on/offside by a stray ankle or whatnot as each player is reduced to a single coordinate on the pitch. 

[blaaklint]

but that would only measure a specific part of their body, the rest (ie a leg or their head) could be offside