The VAR thread

[Unabomber]

Wow Babylon really likes VAR

[David Lowe]

30 minutes ago, Babylon said:

No, he’s offside. Measure from where you want on their players. If you do it how VAR does it (for good reason), he’s offside. 

I’m not arguing against you, you are obviously more technical than me. I’m just saying that as a football fan I look at the line on Match of the Day and Barnes appears to be onside. Can’t they demonstrate better why he is off?

[Robo61]

2 hours ago, Super_horns said:

Heard someone say it came in after the World Cup but seems a very harsh rule .

 

The 1st and 2nd players are likely to be showing much more dissent .

It may be a harsh rule,  but the player should have known that getting involved when two others were already making the same point was likely to get him in trouble.  So only one person to blame and that is not the ref

[Silebyfox_89]

30 minutes ago, David Lowe said:

I’m not arguing against you, you are obviously more technical than me. I’m just saying that as a football fan I look at the line on Match of the Day and Barnes appears to be onside. Can’t they demonstrate better why he is off?

I know it's not the rule but the fact we're having to draw lines to 'prove' an offside is death by analysis.

The process is taking far too long to come to a conclusion and thus delaying the follow of the game.

 

[Babylon]

3 hours ago, David Lowe said:

I’m not arguing against you, you are obviously more technical than me. I’m just saying that as a football fan I look at the line on Match of the Day and Barnes appears to be onside. Can’t they demonstrate better why he is off?

Being able to see the whole process would be a start. So people can see what’s measured and how.

 

The whole thing is a bag of shit, especially in the stadium. 

 

[yorkie1999]

4 hours ago, Babylon said:

Found the bigger pic, it’s far clearer perspective wise to show thickness of lines changing. 

Still think he’s onside. The more I look at it the more I think the var line is incorrect, and unless Harvey Barnes has got size 15 boots and the ball has turned into a comet, it think it’s the wrong frame for when the ball left nachos foot. For decisions like this, they should go back to the rule that the benefit of the doubt is with the striker because, although it works in a fashion, it’s not accurate enough. For one thing, var for offsides is not taken from the correct place, which should be the goal line, not the edge of the penalty box, no way in a million years is the penalty box line dead parallel to goal line.

[majaco]

7 hours ago, jammie82uk said:

Just caught up on watching Ref watch and Dermot was adamant that Lemina must have been booked the 2nd time for dissent for having said something to the referee because the 3rd person thing doesn’t exist and never has,

so what is this statement from the premier league. 

https://www.premierleague.com/news/65240

 

Surrounding match officials 

A yellow card for at least one player when two or more from a team surround a match official.

 

5 hours ago, David Lowe said:

Yes but the third player knows only 2 are allowed.

 

4 hours ago, Super_horns said:

Well do they in the heat of the moment ?

 

I mean we know players appeal for anything!

The rules are applied weakly.  When the rules are applied, a problem is created.

 

When a local league ref, we had a talk from a ref (anagram  of Tteve Sanner) who explained it was about selling a decision to the cameras.

 

 

[Bert]

4 hours ago, Babylon said:

Found the bigger pic, it’s far clearer perspective wise to show thickness of lines changing. 

My point was. The shirt line goes through the red line. If the shirt line isn’t deemed to be hand ball then why isn’t offside the same? It clearly runs through it. 

[st albans fox]

32 minutes ago, Bert said:

My point was. The shirt line goes through the red line. If the shirt line isn’t deemed to be hand ball then why isn’t offside the same? It clearly runs through it. 

According to some on here, we can’t see the correct perspective because we don’t see the down lines from the point plotted on the players.  Because we cant see the down lines, I can’t say that they are wrong but I also can’t see the perspective either ……

 

dier’s line certainly looks like it was plotted from the inside of his t shirt line rather than the outside

[HighPeakFox]

11 hours ago, Babylon said:

Do none of you people know ... what perspective is FFS. 

Come on Babs, you've been on this forum long enough to know the answer to that.  

 

DISCLAIMER a la @volpeazzurro - tongue very much in cheek.

Edited 16 February 2023 by HighPeakFox

[jammie82uk]

7 hours ago, majaco said:

 

 

The rules are applied weakly.  When the rules are applied, a problem is created.

 

When a local league ref, we had a talk from a ref (anagram  of Tteve Sanner) who explained it was about selling a decision to the cameras.

 

 

This is Jarred Gillett in his last game in the Australian league 3 years ago 

 

 

 

Edited 16 February 2023 by jammie82uk

[ozleicester]

"Its purpose is to eliminate clear and obvious mistakes that can be missed by officials in real time..."

Good to see that the introduction of VAR has beena resounding success, solved all of those questionable decisions and has improved the game for all.

The problem with VAR is like that of capitalism... we all spend so long discussing the intricacies  of.. "was he off or on" etc etc... instead of loking at the system itself as a failure in its entirety.

Edited 16 February 2023 by ozleicester

[Bert]

1 hour ago, jammie82uk said:

This is Jarred Gillett in his last game in the Australian league 3 years ago 

 

 

 

I remember when this first came out. The Lino that thought he was the ref really annoyed me  

[Wasyls Pec Deck]

All it’s done in my view is move imperfect human decision making from pitch side to studio.

 

And now the concerns that the tech is not up to scratch - like pressing pause on a VHR and putting these thick lines on the picture. Who’s to say it was paused at exactly the right moment or the lines are accurate. It’s like it’s been developed by a school project or something. Until offsides are made objective through the use of good enough tech - like goal line tech - then I merely see it as reproducing human error in a studio.

[HighPeakFox]

15 minutes ago, Wasyls Pec Deck said:

All it’s done in my view is move imperfect human decision making from pitch side to studio.

 

And now the concerns that the tech is not up to scratch - like pressing pause on a VHR and putting these thick lines on the picture. Who’s to say it was paused at exactly the right moment or the lines are accurate. It’s like it’s been developed by a school project or something. Until offsides are made objective through the use of good enough tech - like goal line tech - then I merely see it as reproducing human error in a studio.

This is an excellent post.

[grobyfox1990]

1 hour ago, ozleicester said:

"Its purpose is to eliminate clear and obvious mistakes that can be missed by officials in real time..."

Good to see that the introduction of VAR has beena resounding success, solved all of those questionable decisions and has improved the game for all.

The problem with VAR is like that of capitalism... we all spend so long discussing the intricacies  of.. "was he off or on" etc etc... instead of loking at the system itself as a failure in its entirety.

Humans love to look at a few isolated instances and call something a compete failure. The amount of incorrect goals, that would’ve stood, that have been ruled out far outweigh the few instances of human error. Pundits have to debate the ar5e out of VAR decisions because they have hours of broadcast to fill 

[st albans fox]

44 minutes ago, Wasyls Pec Deck said:

All it’s done in my view is move imperfect human decision making from pitch side to studio.

 

And now the concerns that the tech is not up to scratch - like pressing pause on a VHR and putting these thick lines on the picture. Who’s to say it was paused at exactly the right moment or the lines are accurate. It’s like it’s been developed by a school project or something. Until offsides are made objective through the use of good enough tech - like goal line tech - then I merely see it as reproducing human error in a studio.

Which is why the semi automated offside used in the CL is so much better 

quick results and the balls have sensors in them so the players positions are frozen at the point that the ball moves forwards 

 

but the PL have refused to introduce it mid season (Italy did because they had a weekend of horrendous var calls like we’ve just had) 

 

mind you, even this system wouldn’t have worked at the emirates because mason didn’t even look at the right incident !  It would have worked at palace though. (And our place ).  

[Babylon]

10 hours ago, Bert said:

My point was. The shirt line goes through the red line. If the shirt line isn’t deemed to be hand ball then why isn’t offside the same? It clearly runs through it. 

The shirt is 5ft in the air, the lines are at foot level. What it looks like on the picture is nothing more than perspective messing with how people interpret it. If you find the position of his arm at ground level, relevant to Barnes foot (using the horizontal and vertical VAR lines I keep going on about). Then it doesn't go through the line, and Barnes foot is ahead of it. 

[Babylon]

11 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

Still think he’s onside. The more I look at it the more I think the var line is incorrect, and unless Harvey Barnes has got size 15 boots and the ball has turned into a comet, it think it’s the wrong frame for when the ball left nachos foot. For decisions like this, they should go back to the rule that the benefit of the doubt is with the striker because, although it works in a fashion, it’s not accurate enough. For one thing, var for offsides is not taken from the correct place, which should be the goal line, not the edge of the penalty box, no way in a million years is the penalty box line dead parallel to goal line.

The VAR lines are fine. 

 

There are certain limitations, including the fact cameras don't run at 10000 frames a second. So you have to pick a frame and the one they chose is the one where clearly the ball is in motion, if you go for the previous frame you wouldn't even know it had been played. I totally agree about benefit of the doubt, but in the way we do things now, he's off. 

[Dan]

The cons of VAR are barely disputable yet the pros are nowhere near guaranteed. I wonder if one day they'll realise their error. It's not fit for purpose and it's actively worsening the sport. These aren't teething problems, it fundamentally doesn't work.

[pmcla26]

6 minutes ago, Dan LCFC said:

The cons of VAR are barely disputable yet the pros are nowhere near guaranteed. I wonder if one day they'll realise their error. It's not fit for purpose and it's actively worsening the sport. These aren't teething problems, it fundamentally doesn't work.

It's not VAR, it's the people operating it. The system is fit for purpose, the officials aren't. 

[Dan]

25 minutes ago, Pete52 said:

It's not VAR, it's the people operating it. The system is fit for purpose, the officials aren't. 

No, it's VAR. I've heard this myth way too many times now and it just isn't true. When there is a system in place that without any doubt is going to kill the buzz, the euphoria, ruin the moment then that for me was the end of the debate before we even got onto what it brought to the table. The fact we've sacrificed the former to not even get the right decisions just adds insult to injury.

 

It's got to go. It's awful.

[leicsmac]

42 minutes ago, Dan LCFC said:

No, it's VAR. I've heard this myth way too many times now and it just isn't true. When there is a system in place that without any doubt is going to kill the buzz, the euphoria, ruin the moment then that for me was the end of the debate before we even got onto what it brought to the table. The fact we've sacrificed the former to not even get the right decisions just adds insult to injury.

 

It's got to go. It's awful.

The romantic ideal of what football is that drives this particular sentence, that is then somehow being "ruined" by technology - as if there was a statistically significant difference in "purity" before and now and as if that wasn't completely subjective - is what isn't true IMO.

[Super_horns]

Definitely feel the fans wouldn’t vote for it but they didn’t get a say..

[pmcla26]

1 hour ago, Dan LCFC said:

No, it's VAR. I've heard this myth way too many times now and it just isn't true. When there is a system in place that without any doubt is going to kill the buzz, the euphoria, ruin the moment then that for me was the end of the debate before we even got onto what it brought to the table. The fact we've sacrificed the former to not even get the right decisions just adds insult to injury.

 

It's got to go. It's awful.

It worked fine at the World Cup.