The VAR thread

[MonmoreStef]

For all the VAR decisions made this season the penalty yesterday must have been the most clear and obvious error it’s had to over turn so far. Really what VAR was brought in for unlike many of its other interventions. 

[mikey_b]

9 minutes ago, Vlad the Fox said:

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. 

agree with this, was an absolute stone wall pen and he had the best view on the pitch. I am unsure what is more baffling, him not giving it live or needing the amount of replays he did before he gave it. was a foul on vardy just before the albrighton booking that was a definite bookin

[Sly]

You’d think with the technology, they’d be able to advise the ref, “that’s foul number 3 from holberg”, he needs a booking. It might stamp out more of the dark arts.

[Phube]

10 hours ago, Foxy_Bear said:

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. 

 

 

11 hours 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. 

Seems pretty certain to me?

[Phube]

1 hour ago, worth_the_wait said:

 

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.

How about a blatant shove on I think Fofana in a Spurs game, if I remember correctly?

Edited 21 December 2020 by Phube

[Fox92]

1 hour ago, Sly said:

You’d think with the technology, they’d be able to advise the ref, “that’s foul number 3 from holberg”, he needs a booking. It might stamp out more of the dark arts.

Honestly man it's just basic referring isn't it. Hjogberg made at least 5 fouls and didn't get booked.

 

I think when we play in Europe the referee's are better, but I'm not sure if that's because they are good or because ours are so bad.

 

The standard of referring for such a global league is horrific.

[Scotch]

1 hour ago, Phube said:

 

Seems pretty certain to me?

Ok, so what you have done there is take half a sentence of my post, misquoted it in reference to a particular incident when in fact the post was ENTIRELY about VAR in general and how it should NOT be used when it isn't a blatant mistake. 

 

If I HAD been talking about yesterday, it would have been the perfect example on when VAR SHOULDN'T intervene as it wasn't a clear offside. 

[Jimbo]

1 hour ago, Phube said:

How about a blatant shove on I think Fofana in a Spurs game, if I remember correctly?

The thing is that decision shouldn't have need VAR to intervene. If VAR wasn't a thing we'll never know of it would have been given or not. 

Too may refs are going down the same route as refs in rugby, and are using it as safety net. Some seem to scared and/or confused to give decisions knowing that VAR will help them out.

 

Knowing Pawson though, he would never have given that as a pen, as he didn't. He's such a bad ref and a prime example of refs giving decisions to "bigger" teams. 

[StanSP]

14 minutes ago, Jimbo said:

The thing is that decision shouldn't have need VAR to intervene. If VAR wasn't a thing we'll never know of it would have been given or not. 

Too may refs are going down the same route as refs in rugby, and are using it as safety net. Some seem to scared and/or confused to give decisions knowing that VAR will help them out.

 

Knowing Pawson though, he would never have given that as a pen, as he didn't. He's such a bad ref and a prime example of refs giving decisions to "bigger" teams. 

It's not VAR's fault that refs are now scared to make a decision, blatant or not, so it can't be used as something to beat it with. VAR has its flaws, but referee incompetence is not one of them. Ironically it's brought in to try and correct those incompetencies. 

[Jimbo]

1 minute ago, StanSP said:

It's not VAR's fault that refs are now scared to make a decision, blatant or not, so it can't be used as something to beat it with. VAR has its flaws, but referee incompetence is not one of them. Ironically it's brought in to try and correct those incompetencies. 

I agree, but are we starting to see refs relying on it rather than make a decision? It could be argued that we are. 

We'll never know now, like yesterday, without VAR does the ref give the penalty? Or has he not given it knowing that VAR would step in and correct him of needed? Or did he just not give it because he's such a bad ref? I know its more likely 2nd option, but there will be, and probably are refs that don't give the decision so the flow of the game isn't interrupted knowing that they can fall back on VAR. To be fair, they've probably been instructed somewhere down the line to do just that. 

 

[NaijaFox]

2 hours ago, davieG said:

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

 

2 hours ago, Vlad the Fox said:

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. 

 

2 hours ago, mikey_b said:

agree with this, was an absolute stone wall pen and he had the best view on the pitch. I am unsure what is more baffling, him not giving it live or needing the amount of replays he did before he gave it. was a foul on vardy just before the albrighton booking that was a definite bookin

The Richard-Head was looking directly at the incident.

 

Picture Credit: LCFC.com

[davieG]

1 minute ago, NaijaFox said:

 

 

The Richard-Head was looking directly at the incident.

 

Picture Credit: LCFC.com

I saw his position and was shouting at the TV which MrsG hates me doing but this time she actually joined in. 

[Kopfkino]

4 hours ago, Foxy_Bear said:

Ok, so what you have done there is take half a sentence of my post, misquoted it in reference to a particular incident when in fact the post was ENTIRELY about VAR in general and how it should NOT be used when it isn't a blatant mistake. 

 

If I HAD been talking about yesterday, it would have been the perfect example on when VAR SHOULDN'T intervene as it wasn't a clear offside. 

Except it was a clear offside because the technology, the thing that can most accurately deem that, showed it to be. You can’t say it’s not a clear offside because it doesn’t look clear from a camera angle that leads people to wrongly believe that Aurier is the last defender. Even under the Dutch system of a margin of error, he’d still be given offside. Fortunately, Brendan clearly understands there is no argument and I’ve no idea why the fans can’t.

 

When VAR was trialled before the Hawkeye crosshairs offside system came in, Kane had one allowed because the camera angle used made him look onside and then Chelsea afterwards protested because there was an angle showing him offside.

 

It might be a miserable way of governing football (although nobody complained when the lines allowed Iheanacho’s goal against Everton to stand despite the camera angle not clearly showing the linesman to be wrong) but saying it’s wrong or not clear is foolish. Saying not ,clear and obvious’ has just become a way of justifying decisions people don’t like.

[st albans fox]

6 hours ago, Vlad the Fox said:

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. 

kevin's tackle was borderline red …….he took kane out around the midriff !!

[Scotch]

17 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Except it was a clear offside because the technology, the thing that can most accurately deem that, showed it to be. You can’t say it’s not a clear offside because it doesn’t look clear from a camera angle that leads people to wrongly believe that Aurier is the last defender. Even under the Dutch system of a margin of error, he’d still be given offside. Fortunately, Brendan clearly understands there is no argument and I’ve no idea why the fans can’t.

 

When VAR was trialled before the Hawkeye crosshairs offside system came in, Kane had one allowed because the camera angle used made him look onside and then Chelsea afterwards protested because there was an angle showing him offside.

 

It might be a miserable way of governing football (although nobody complained when the lines allowed Iheanacho’s goal against Everton to stand despite the camera angle not clearly showing the linesman to be wrong) but saying it’s wrong or not clear is foolish. Saying not ,clear and obvious’ has just become a way of justifying decisions people don’t like.

The point I was making is that as soon as you have to start drawing lines for armpits to the floor and the lines along the pitch then it ISN'T clear. I'm not saying it wasn't offside, I'm saying it was NOT a clear and obvious error by the officials and that was what we were told that VAR would be there to clean up. 

 

Another point to make about all that technology that we see them is with the freeze frame and the lines and all that, in instances like yesterday, we don't see when the pass was made so it all has no context without that. 

[StanSP]

Hmmm

 

 

[mozartfox]

May be check the position of the players 'feet' and forget all this armpit / T-shirt malarkey. That would also be much easier to check - I think?

[Aus Fox]

10 hours ago, mozartfox said:

May be check the position of the players 'feet' and forget all this armpit / T-shirt malarkey. That would also be much easier to check - I think?

This is all it needs and would take all of the arguments away for me. Non of this an armpit here and there.

Think about why the rule exists in the first place, the advantage comes in a foot race for the ball. armpits and arms pointing towards where the ball should be played give the attacker no clear advantage. If it’s always on the position of the feet then many of the arguments go away.
 

[simon789us]

regarding the offside rule when they are that close why dont we go with to linesmans decision at the time bit like cricket umpires call ??? 

[Tom12345]

Besides the obvious problem with the approach VAR is taking re offline decisions, I think they need to change the rule so that the line should be measured from the center of gravity - say the middle of the pelvis / bottom. In the case of the Maddison “goal”, having a should not in anyway be offside as he was more just leaning forward as he is about to accelerate and run; it is not his problem if the defender is lazy and walking sideway and not leaning forward. The natural instinct should be to measure from the middle of the bottom. Besides the issues with taking measurement on a seemingly millimeter basis which is riddle with rooms for errors and subjective judgement (despite being made out to be objective), it is ridiculous to try to measure whether it is the knee or shoulder or armpit that is offside. It is really crazy.

 

Also, is that secondary vertical line accurate?

[st albans fox]

14 hours ago, mozartfox said:

May be check the position of the players 'feet' and forget all this armpit / T-shirt malarkey. That would also be much easier to check - I think?

I doubt it’s much different to check but it would certainly be easier for joe public to understand and accept ......of course imagine a forward scoring with a diving header from a short cross into the box where his head is a yard or more ahead of the defender whilst his foot isn’t ....are you ok with that ????
 

2 hours ago, Tom12345 said:

Besides the obvious problem with the approach VAR is taking re offline decisions, I think they need to change the rule so that the line should be measured from the center of gravity - say the middle of the pelvis / bottom. In the case of the Maddison “goal”, having a should not in anyway be offside as he was more just leaning forward as he is about to accelerate and run; it is not his problem if the defender is lazy and walking sideway and not leaning forward. The natural instinct should be to measure from the middle of the bottom. Besides the issues with taking measurement on a seemingly millimeter basis which is riddle with rooms for errors and subjective judgement (despite being made out to be objective), it is ridiculous to try to measure whether it is the knee or shoulder or armpit that is offside. It is really crazy.

 

Also, is that secondary vertical line accurate?

I agree with the sense that may make but it will still lead to the lines, delays,  and a similar argument as to whether it is/isn’t fair. and how do you judge where the COG is on a player that accurately ???

[mozartfox]

Less concerned about heads than armpits.  If the goal scorer was diving and his body is behind the last defender that always been offside.  Armpits has been introduced by VAR.

[Facecloth]

20 hours ago, Jimbo said:

The thing is that decision shouldn't have need VAR to intervene. If VAR wasn't a thing we'll never know of it would have been given or not. 

Too may refs are going down the same route as refs in rugby, and are using it as safety net. Some seem to scared and/or confused to give decisions knowing that VAR will help them out.

 

Knowing Pawson though, he would never have given that as a pen, as he didn't. He's such a bad ref and a prime example of refs giving decisions to "bigger" teams. 

Parson is definitely one the refs who uses VAR as a safety net. Clocked it a few times in games not involving Leicester. He holds off on most big decisions and let VAR take over. When they were trying it out in the FA cup a couple of seasons back he was refing a Liverpool WBA game,  and back then the ref had to refer things to VAR if he wanted them checking. He sent pretty much everything to VAR to check. He doesn't want to make a decisions.

[jammie82uk]

18 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

a camera angle that leads people to wrongly believe that Aurier is the last defender. Even under the Dutch system of a margin of error, he’d still be given offside. Fortunately, Brendan clearly understands there is no argument and I’ve no idea why the fans can’t.

My issue with this is Toby Alderweireld only narrowly appears to be the last defender when the lines are drawn because of a rough guess of where his T-Shirt line is and because the line From Aurier is measured from his right foot 

According to the VAR system apparently Aurier’s right foot is the closest thing to goal for me that is physically impossible due to not just how Aurier is standing when it is paused but also due to his motion in the few seconds before the picture was paused for the VAR check 

 

 

[messerschmitt]

I don't think technologically we are too far away from being able to have offsides automatic in real time. GPS and sensors on the ball to time the kick and movement, something simular for the players, perhaps boots and chest.

Hawkeye in tennis apparently can be a few centimeters off, it's not perfect but it's consistent, the same for everyone.

Getting human intervention removed is the best thing, with people drawing lines where they want and guessing when the ball was kicked is asking for problems.