The VAR thread

[Fox in the North]

Even the Spurs fans have said they would be fuming if that was given against them.

[Kopfkino]

36 minutes ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

I just think they should get rid of the lines. Watch a replay and if it's not clear either way, stick with the on field decision.

And then the tv companies draw their lines on to show the decision was wrong and everyone whinges, exactly as MOTD did with Man Utd - West Ham game.

 

It’s miserable but offside decisions can’t really be contested and now the tech is there, the only chance you have of getting rid of the lines is with an automatic AI solution

[MonmoreStef]

Anybody who bets horse and dogs and watches races knows the dangers of judging very close finishes from tv pics that are not in line with the winning post.  The angle of the pics used to rule that goal out are ridiculous.  No way on Earth they can be anywhere near 100% accurate. The camera needs to be in line.  

[st albans fox]

30 minutes ago, NaijaFox said:

Yep, we wuz robbed today.

Shouldn't it be "clear and obvious error" to over turn? 

 

Offside is apparently an exact science using the lines and software .....

 

anyway, the point is that offside isn’t a ‘clear and obvious’ issue 

 

15 minutes ago, MonmoreStef said:

Anybody who bets horse and dogs and watches races knows the dangers of judging very close finishes from tv pics that are not in

line with the winning post.  The angle of the pics used to rule that goal out are ridiculous.  No way on Earth they can be anywhere near 100% accurate. The camera needs to be in line.  

apparently the software draws the lines perfectly horizontally across the pitch ...... it shouldn’t be that tricky really but I still hate it 

 

that looks about the same as the son offside at our place last season ......

[Leicester_Loyal]

I've looked at that picture for about 3 hours and Aurier still looks further back than the CB

[astoriafox]

I think var is so easy to sort out. Challenge system, 1 or 2 challenges per half (no more, to stop time wasting)by the captain alone. If a situation is not seen on the pitch by any player or official, how can it be deemed as clear and obvious error after the event? Today's goal by Madison would never have been analysed for being offside as no one at the time thought it was.... Ironically just like aurier against us last year!  

[Super_horns]

Villa had a goal harshly ruled out too.

 

Trouble is they won't get rid of it now as managers would complain about it not being used again having come in.

 

Cna they not make some sort of clear and obvious rule for offsides ?

 

That everyonre might agree on..

[HighPeakFox]

1 minute ago, Super_horns said:

Villa had a goal harshly ruled out too.

 

Trouble is they won't get rid of it now as managers would complain about it not being used again having come in.

 

Cna they not make some sort of clear and obvious rule for offsides ?

 

That everyonre might agree on..

Why bother? They ignore it on penalty calls.

[shailen]

I'm okay with these tight offside calls as offside by definition isn't subjective. If it's 1mm or 10 yards, offside is offside. Yes it is frustrating and the science is not exact but decision making is much more better than before we had VAR in the game. What it does eliminate are some howlers by officials. 

[Super_horns]

Ture - does seem to be a lottery just like it was before VAR!

 

Just it takes longer and makes the officials look even worse.

[Captain...]

2 hours ago, NaijaFox said:

Yep, we wuz robbed today.

Shouldn't it be "clear and obvious error" to overturn? 

 

I've said it in the post match thread, but why the fvck is the camera at such a weird angle. The linesman looks down the line why is the camera not.

[twister]

its the main reason I dont miss being at games, VAR is unbearable soulless monster designed to ruin the game.

[alanf0x]

If VAR wasn’t around we wouldn’t have gone 1-0 in at the break due to the incompetence of the referee!!! 

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

Not sure if it's been mentioned in here but the Sky's replay of the disallowed goal (and freeze frame of Justin striking it) has must be at least a couple of frames back from the one the VAR stopped on (where the ball had clearly left Justin's boot and was practically in the air).

 

Draw the lines on Sky's freeze frame and Maddison would very much be onside (kept on by Aurier at the very least) - surely striking a ball is black and white and not subjective? 

[jmono84]

3 hours ago, NaijaFox said:

Yep, we wuz robbed today.

Shouldn't it be "clear and obvious error" to overturn? 

 

Why line it from Maddison’s elbow and the shoulder of the CB?

 

And why haven’t they checked Aurier? I can see from the lines in the grass in this pic he’s the furthest defender back.

 

why have the made such a mess of this??

[Kopfkino]

2 hours ago, MonmoreStef said:

Anybody who bets horse and dogs and watches races knows the dangers of judging very close finishes from tv pics that are not in line with the winning post.  The angle of the pics used to rule that goal out are ridiculous.  No way on Earth they can be anywhere near 100% accurate. The camera needs to be in line.  

If you’re gonna comment on it at least make the effort to understand how the technology because yes way the technology is accurate irrespective of the camera angle.

 

Whether people like this way of governing football or not, the accuracy of the technology isn’t really a problem. Yeah there’s a margin of error (goes both ways ofc) but that exists with goal line technology and nobody ever mentioned that the one Albrighton cleared off the line from Firmino being within the margin of error for example. The reason why is because it’s an instant decision. Whinge about VAR as a system all you like but you just look stupid criticising the actual tech when that’s almost always more likely to be right than the linesman or a fan that thinks it looks onside from the same stupid angle they think the tech can’t make a decision from

[Kopfkino]

8 minutes ago, jmono84 said:

Why line it from Maddison’s elbow and the shoulder of the CB?

 

And why haven’t they checked Aurier? I can see from the lines in the grass in this pic he’s the furthest defender back.

 

why have the made such a mess of this??

They did check it from Aurier to begin with and he was more offside. Then they moved it to Alderweireld

 

They really haven’t made a mess of it. The technology was operated and worked how it should

[TeamRocket]

Only way this is ever gonna work is if there are a cam ever mm in a line on both side like that goal line tec stuff

[Apollo]

Surely people aren’t defending VAR when it comes to offsides? Whether it’s the technology or the rule itself doesn’t matter - the end result is the same. A shambles.

[jmono84]

5 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

They did check it from Aurier to begin with and he was more offside. Then they moved it to Alderweireld

 

They really haven’t made a mess of it. The technology was operated and worked how it should

Did they? I watched the game and didn’t see any lines against Aurier. Strange how that image clearly shows Aurier is deeper.

[Ian Nacho]

What irritates me is that if that was in the champions league, it would stand. 

[SemperEadem]

The whole euphoria of returning to football will swiftly be over because of VAR.

[Phube]

I can’t believe how many people here can’t understand perspective. 
 

The image we see can never tell you who is offside, the computer programme does it in 3D space and the lines and angles are accurate. The only contentious decision is where you claim the offside part of the player is; that is the law of the game, not VAR. 

 

Even when watching the game I thought Maddison was offside and didn’t celebrate until it was confirmed. 
 

There is no way forward with offside as there is no one way everyone would agree is the best and will cause contentious decisions. 
 

The only thing to know is that there hasn’t been one offside goal scored or onside goal ruled out for one and half seasons, and I for one am happy with that!

[UniFox21]

43 minutes ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said:

Not sure if it's been mentioned in here but the Sky's replay of the disallowed goal (and freeze frame of Justin striking it) has must be at least a couple of frames back from the one the VAR stopped on (where the ball had clearly left Justin's boot and was practically in the air).

 

Draw the lines on Sky's freeze frame and Maddison would very much be onside (kept on by Aurier at the very least) - surely striking a ball is black and white and not subjective? 

Because we don't actually use equipment with the accuracy to detect the exact frame the ball is released. 

[Kopfkino]

13 minutes ago, jmono84 said:

Did they? I watched the game and didn’t see any lines against Aurier. Strange how that image clearly shows Aurier is deeper.

This was the Aurier one, yellow line in line with his foot

 

This was the Alderweireld one, zoom in and you can clearly see green between Aurier and the line, meaning he is further forward.

 

Obviously the camera angle tricks the eye into thinking Aurier is deeper but he isn’t actually. The technology can deal with that, a human looking at it can’t