The VAR thread

[UniFox21]

13 minutes ago, SemperEadem said:

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

We forget how in the dark we are at the game. At home we get told what's being checked before it's actually stopped in play, like the penalty today. We then see all the lines drawn and how close it is rather than just *review for X* .

 

They've had 1 and a half seasons, likely be over 2 to get the amount of info in the ground right and i guarantee it isnt

[Tom12345]

9 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

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 

They made an error.

 

The lines are drawn by the Var ref, not the software. You can go to EPL website to see how it works.

 

The Var ref, as you can see above, drew the line from Maddison’s lower arm, not the top of shoulder which is where he drew the line from for Alderweireld. Not consistent. If he did, Maddison’s line would have been further back and onside. He spent like 2 seconds looking at it. The technology is great, but the human application is bad.

 

Also, not clear and obvious.

 

Bad decision.

 

 

[Mehrez]

24 minutes ago, Phube said:

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

You celebrated a goal being ruled out? 

[Guest Kopfkino]

6 minutes ago, Tom12345 said:

They made an error.

 

The lines are drawn by the Var ref, not the software. You can go to EPL website to see how it works.

 

The Var ref, as you can see above, drew the line from Maddison’s lower arm, not the top of shoulder which is where he drew the line from for Alderweireld. Not consistent. If he did, Maddison’s line would have been further back and onside. He spent like 2 seconds looking at it. The technology is great, but the human application is bad.

 

Also, not clear and obvious.

 

Bad decision.

 

 

 

The lines are drawn by the hawk eye operator, not the VAR. The VAR just adjudicates the decision.

 

But the lines were drawn right, Alderweireld’s arm is down whereas Maddison’s is outstretched which makes it look like they are drawn to different standards but they aren’t. Alderweireld’s shoulder is the closest goalscoring part of his to the goal, Maddison’s is the bottom of his T-shirt line.

 

People are desperate for it to be onside because it’s a lovely goal and because VAR bashing is in vogue. But there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it from application of the tech or process 

[Phube]

6 minutes ago, Mehrez said:

You celebrated a goal being ruled out? 

Yup, my perceived correctness by far outweighs my happiness of Madders scoring!! 

[Scotch]

With respect to offsides, VAR should be used for obvious errors, like you can clearly see on the replay that they got it wrong. The minute they have to break out those lines across the pitch, the onfield decision should stand as it's not a clear and obvious error. 

[Phube]

6 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

With respect to offsides, VAR should be used for obvious errors, like you can clearly see on the replay that they got it wrong. The minute they have to break out those lines across the pitch, the onfield decision should stand as it's not a clear and obvious error. 

What? Which replay did you you see where you could tell for certain, cause I’ve yet to see one?

 

And what has clear and obvious got to do with anything?

[trabuch]

42 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

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 

And obviously we, as. mere football fans, can't be party to that. It's shit - we all know it. It hasn't stopped controversy, but it does ruin the game.

[jmono84]

42 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

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 

So they’ve used Auriers right foot and Maddison’s left elbow?! Complete mess if you ask me, look at how far behind Maddison feet are compared to Auriers right foot. That VAR ref needs to work on his ruler and body part skills

[StanSP]

2 minutes ago, jmono84 said:

So they’ve used Auriers right foot and Maddison’s left elbow?! Complete mess if you ask me, look at how far behind Maddison feet are compared to Auriers right foot. That VAR ref needs to work on his ruler and body part skills

I'd imagine that's perspective being different to how it is when it's level. 

[eblair]

50 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

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 

saw that aurier one originally and first time i lost faith in the tech, that is drawn from his right foot which there is no way is closer to his own goal than his left foot

[UniFox21]

Personally think they missed a bad one not sending the Villa player off. Similar to Lundstrum's.

[Ian Nacho]

VAR is for the clanger the ref dropped in the first half. Not to determine whether Maddison’s armpit hair is offside or not. 

[Scotch]

1 hour ago, Phube said:

What? Which replay did you you see where you could tell for certain, cause I’ve yet to see one?

 

And what has clear and obvious got to do with anything?

I suggest you go back and have another wee go at reading my comment because at no point in it did I say that you could tell for certain. 

 

Clear and obvious errors is the exact phrase they used as to why and how VAR would be used. Its applicable every single time it's used as it was stated as it was roled out that it would only be used in those cases. 

[Dan]

Blows my mind that actual fans want this shit in the sport. It's shit, and it will forever be shit.

[Guest SO1]

6 minutes ago, Dan LCFC said:

Blows my mind that actual fans want this shit in the sport. It's shit, and it will forever be shit.

Take slow motion replay out of sport and I totally agree with you. The sport is played and regulated by humans who make errors.  VAR is trying to strike a balance. The wingeing and moaning continues, man or machine.

[JR99]

The biggest difference today was that sky and VAR used 2 separate freeze frames... on the sky one, maddison is clearly onside as aurier keeps him on, using the VAR image he's off as they've both moved relative.  Look at the 2 pics in this thread and you'll see the ball moving in the var one, so the big question for me is how are they deciding when the ball has gone, and what resolution are these cameras capturing?

[ozleicester]

What actually is the point of VAR?... wasnt it to eliminate errors... all we have done is move the errors from the on field ref to the ref in a box (and spoil the game).

[Tom12345]

1 hour ago, JR99 said:

The biggest difference today was that sky and VAR used 2 separate freeze frames... on the sky one, maddison is clearly onside as aurier keeps him on, using the VAR image he's off as they've both moved relative.  Look at the 2 pics in this thread and you'll see the ball moving in the var one, so the big question for me is how are they deciding when the ball has gone, and what resolution are these cameras capturing?

Yeah exactly. Did anyone critique if they had froze the right frame? Should we hear the sound too so you can hear the foot hitting the ball? What about just playing it in normal

speed to review again? Why was the line to Maddison not from shoulder but from half way down his arm? Are the camera angles for the software correct? When it is this close, by a mm, it should be ruled in favour of the attacker as it should be. When I watched the play and then one replay at the time, I thought the goal was good and did not think for a second it would be ruled out. 

[messerschmitt]

I honestly don't understand VAR and it's rules of use, they seem to change in their explaination game to game, In the Liverpool game just before half time minamino was fouled just outside the penalty area and John Moss gave him the yellow card, VAR then looked at if it should have been red, while the VAR repalys were shown you could see Minamino was offside which the comentator mentioned but said VAR wouldn't be looking at the offside. Why? the yellow card stood and Liverpool had a free kick from a dangerous place. VAR reviewd a foul but ignored he was offside, Doesn't make sense to me. If VAR gets involved surely its to get the right decision.

[Guest worth_the_wait]

VAR was sold to everyone as a way of overturning "clear and obvious" errors, like Maradona's handball v England in 1986.

 

I don't think there has been a single blatantly obvious decicion that VAR has made, that everyone has agreed on.

 

Practically everything about how is it used is utter c r a p.

[davieG]

16 minutes ago, worth_the_wait said:

VAR was sold to everyone as a way of overturning "clear and obvious" errors, like Maradona's handball v England in 1986.

 

I don't think there has been a single blatantly obvious decicion that VAR has made, that everyone has agreed on.

 

Practically everything about how is it used is utter c r a p.

Fofana's penalty which the incompetent ref didn't even see as foul. Even Mourinho didn't dispute that.

[Vlad the Fox]

14 minutes ago, davieG said:

Fofana's penalty which the incompetent ref didn't even see as foul. Even Mourinho didn't dispute that.

The crime is that I think he did see it and just decided he wasn’t going to give it. It was at a point in the match when he was giving spurs all the little decisions and we were getting none, there was also the Albrighton booking (which was) but then their player getting away with a similar tackle without any card. You can’t blame it on the pressure of the crowd, maybe he was scared of jose but he was awful in that first half. 

[Wortho]

I might be wrong but didn’t Pawson ref our game at Arsenal earlier this season? We committed 9 fouls and he carded 5!!!

 

[Fox92]

2 minutes ago, Wortho said:

I might be wrong but didn’t Pawson ref our game at Arsenal earlier this season? We committed 9 fouls and he carded 5!!!

 

He is a shit ref and, for me, the worse in the league. I think he was the ref when Kompany should have been sent off against us early on (home game).

 

People still love to hate Jon Moss but I'd rather have him than Pawson/Mason etc. Moss is a level above those sort of refs.

Edited 21 December 2020 by Fox92