Reconsidering VAR

[sacreblueits442]

On 23/02/2020 at 11:13, Finnegan said:

The technology is great and will only get better. 

 

Our application of it in the Premier League is quite possibly the worst I've ever seen, though. Its hideous. 

 

One thing I will say is that football fans have a huge disposition to be partisan, biased, blind and incredulous over the most petty shit. Just look at the Do They Mean Us thread, pundits getting struck off for life because they weren't nice enough about Leicester, then next week we always knew they were one of the good ones because they praise us. 

 

The same shapes peoples opinions of VAR, the reaction to so many VAR incidents this season has been pathetic just because a decision went against a team. I mean, sorry, but Praet has his arms way out from his body, turning away from the ball, it's a stonewall penalty. Everyone's just up in arms because it was against us. 

 

Wolves fans going apeshit over it since the first day of the season when a goal was totally, legitimately ruled out for a handball. Chelsea fans booing it when Giroud is clearly a yard offside. 

 

People don't care if its accurate, they're just being petty if shit is given against their team in the same way we'll boo a ref all match because he doesn't give a foul for Maddison doing his best Grealish impression, even though we hate it when Grealish gets fouls. 

 

So there's definitely an extent to which fans need to have a look at themselves and shut the **** up at times. That said, there's definitely an extent to which VAR needs a major review. For a start, they have to be given more authority to overturn an on field decision or what's even the point? 

 

But they also need to be held accountable. The league could get away with blindly defending refs when they were making mistakes in real time on the pitch. But the same video ref watching extensive, UHD replays from multiple angles of Lo Celso almost breaking a leg and Ederson concussing Iheanacho in consecutive incidents and doing nothing about it? **** that guy, he's endangering player safety, he should be disciplined and the public should know its happened. 

 

Same with the guy that refused to give the most blatant handball in the world against Villa (sorry but De Bruyne is entitled to protect his face) which cost us a place in a cup final. There's no excuse for decisions like that when you've got ten thousand angles to watch it from. 

 

So, keep VAR, definitely. But stop using it to protect referees and protect the elite institution of the "big six" and start actually using it impartially and fairly. 

 

The technology isn't the problem, the corrupt as **** governing body is. The technology is great, it gives us so many possibilities but they're being ignored so that guys like Mike Dean can keep being a celebrity household name at the expense of the nations sport. 

.. I really couldn't read all this post, but the gist of it is we as supporters of the club are bias and unable to be objective.!! 

  The reason why we are so disgruntled is because of the inconsistent application and interpretation of the rules.. The Praet incident was a penalty the use of his arms increased the size of his silhouette and therefore stopped a potential goal scoring chance. Debruyne using his hand to protect his face is clearly a penalty. 

 We have had numerous calls against us recently which did not go in our favour and in the cold light of day the decisions were poor. 

[Lambert09]

How would VAR work in this situation. 

 

A corner comes in, is clearly hand balled but the ref misses it. Play goes on, a player 2 foots someone and snaps their leg in half and gets an obvious red card. Would VAR just go back reward the penalty and the player with the red card is unpunished as technically it never happened? 

 

I swear the guys running it are just hoping something like this doesnt happen because the rules seem blurry to me. 

[StanSP]

8 minutes ago, squarez said:

it's literally how maths works mate

So, by your law of averages logic, you're telling me that if we have 10 decisions go against us in the first half of the season, we'll automatically have 10 decisions go for us in the second half of the season? 

 

I don't believe you. 

[Lambert09]

1 minute ago, sacreblueits442 said:

.. I really couldn't read all this post, but the gist of it is we as supporters of the club are bias and unable to be objective.!! 

  The reason why we are so disgruntled is because of the inconsistent application and interpretation of the rules.. The Praet incident was a penalty the use of his arms increased the size of his silhouette and therefore stopped a potential goal scoring chance. Debruyne using his hand to protect his face is clearly a penalty. 

 We have had numerous calls against us recently which did not go in our favour and in the cold light of day the decisions were poor. 

They just stated that anytime the arm is above the shoulder its handball, so consistency or not, that shouldn't even be debatable. 

[squarez]

2 minutes ago, StanSP said:

So, by your law of averages logic, you're telling me that if we have 10 decisions go against us in the first half of the season, we'll automatically have 10 decisions go for us in the second half of the season? 

 

I don't believe you. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean

 

Hope this helps 👍

[squarez]

Or to put it less snidey, over the course of one specifically defined discrete range of games? No.

 

Over the course of a statistically significant number of refereeing decisions? Yes.

Edited 25 February 2020 by squarez

[Guest ttfn]

1 hour ago, Lambert09 said:

How would VAR work in this situation. 

 

A corner comes in, is clearly hand balled but the ref misses it. Play goes on, a player 2 foots someone and snaps their leg in half and gets an obvious red card. Would VAR just go back reward the penalty and the player with the red card is unpunished as technically it never happened? 

 

I swear the guys running it are just hoping something like this doesnt happen because the rules seem blurry to me. 

The red card would stand and they’d go back for the penalty - this applies for serious foul play and violent conduct red cards only as far as I know.

 

I actually think the protocol for lots of these possible (but rare) scenarios is pretty sound. The problem is not the technology or its presence, it’s the back-slapping culture of the Premier League refs and their refusal to act on what is right in front of their eyes.

[Paninistickers]

1 hour ago, squarez said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the_mean

 

Hope this helps 👍

Surprisingly half decent read, that.

 

Vardy is currently regressing towards his mean, I guess. Not THE mean. 

 

And likewise 10 favourable decisions out of 10 in the first half of the season doesn't mean 10 bad will follow....rather that the second half is likely to regress to either THE mean or regress to develop A mean for the team involved

 

I think. 

[Raw Dykes]

Still feel as cheated as ever by refs. The big clubs seem to get many more favourable decisions than everyone else.

 

I like the idea of using technology to clear up offsides. There's no doubt that these decisions are way more accurate with VAR, but it takes far too long to work out in its current state. It does suck all the joy out of celebrating a goal. I think it needs binning and looking at again once it's possible to give an on/offside decision in a matter of a few seconds.

 

I'm sure the technology already exists. I'm sure it's possible for a computer to recognise where players and the ball are on the pitch and give offside decisions instantly. I've got no idea why someone is manually drawing lines on a 2d image. Ridiculous, really.

 

For every other decision it's being used for, I don't think it's made much difference at all. Obvious red cards still go unpunished and clear handballs are ignored. Until we get refs who aren't so unashamedly bent, VAR is a total waste of time for everything other than offsides.

 

Bin it. For now, at least.

[Matt_Lcfc]

The whole thing is a complete farce for me, the lack of consistency is enough for me to vote to bin it. Humans making mistakes is pretty inevitable, whilst VAR is supposed to mitigate against mistakes, it has allowed the frauds in Stockley Park to set their own precedent and has meant referees on the pitch have a lack of accountability. I don’t like the guy, however, Souness was right on Super Sunday a couple of weeks ago, when he said people go to the football for enjoyment.

 

Ask yourself, is VAR making the sport more enjoyable? 
 

I don’t think so anyway.

Edited 25 February 2020 by Matt_Lcfc

[Dahnsouff]

Another layer of control some might call it. 

[Super_horns]

 

 

Certainly too subjective and inconsistent !

[Oxfordfox83]

7 hours ago, squarez said:

Or to put it less snidey, over the course of one specifically defined discrete range of games? No.

 

Over the course of a statistically significant number of refereeing decisions? Yes.

Only true if the ref is tossing a coin to decide if he gets the decision right or wrong. Otherwise each ref is regressing towards their bias.

[Scotch]

It's the current rules that muddy VAR up. There is so many different interpretations of the rules that bring inconsistency and until they are sorted, VAR doesn't have a chance. There are 3 issues I would address for next year, which I feel have been the biggest problem with VAR this year. 

 

1. Handball. 

 

We've certainly been on the wrong side of this. The current problem with handball is it is a very subjective rule. Ball to hand, the distance between players when the ball was struck, intentional or not, hand being in a natural position...etc. There is absolutely no chance of referees or video referees making consistent decisions with so many variations....

Thos year, the rules were simplified in a sence where, if the ball hits an attacking hand in the run up to a goal, its chalked off, why stop there? Simplify it even more, if the ball hits a hand, it's a foul regardless of circumstance. Ball to hand? Doesn't matter, foul. Unintentional? Doesn't matter, foul. This is something that VAR can uphold and although it would be harsh, it would be harsh for everyone equally. 

 

2. Offsides

 

You are not going to get away from the fact that some offsides are going to be by very tight margins and seem harsh but right now, it seems even more so by the fact that a perfectly timed run can be ruined by your nipple being offside.

Draw the line from the feet. If your toe nail is offside, you are offside. If your feet are on bit your boaby is off, you're onside. It makes it very clear. 

 

3. Clear and obvious? 

 

All the "clear and obvious" ruling with VAR does is raise questions as to when and where it should be applied. Again, it creates inconsistency. Bin it. If the ref makes an error, VAR corrects it, obvious or not. Again  it makes it fair for all clubs involved. 

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, Foxy_Bear said:

It's the current rules that muddy VAR up. There is so many different interpretations of the rules that bring inconsistency and until they are sorted, VAR doesn't have a chance. There are 3 issues I would address for next year, which I feel have been the biggest problem with VAR this year. 

 

1. Handball. 

 

We've certainly been on the wrong side of this. The current problem with handball is it is a very subjective rule. Ball to hand, the distance between players when the ball was struck, intentional or not, hand being in a natural position...etc. There is absolutely no chance of referees or video referees making consistent decisions with so many variations....

Thos year, the rules were simplified in a sence where, if the ball hits an attacking hand in the run up to a goal, its chalked off, why stop there? Simplify it even more, if the ball hits a hand, it's a foul regardless of circumstance. Ball to hand? Doesn't matter, foul. Unintentional? Doesn't matter, foul. This is something that VAR can uphold and although it would be harsh, it would be harsh for everyone equally. 

 

2. Offsides

 

You are not going to get away from the fact that some offsides are going to be by very tight margins and seem harsh but right now, it seems even more so by the fact that a perfectly timed run can be ruined by your nipple being offside.

Draw the line from the feet. If your toe nail is offside, you are offside. If your feet are on bit your boaby is off, you're onside. It makes it very clear. 

 

3. Clear and obvious? 

 

All the "clear and obvious" ruling with VAR does is raise questions as to when and where it should be applied. Again, it creates inconsistency. Bin it. If the ref makes an error, VAR corrects it, obvious or not. Again  it makes it fair for all clubs involved. 

All good suggestions, but you make it seem like the-powers-that-be would have some interest in eradicating these grey areas.

[Oxfordfox83]

44 minutes ago, Foxy_Bear said:

It's the current rules that muddy VAR up. There is so many different interpretations of the rules that bring inconsistency and until they are sorted, VAR doesn't have a chance. There are 3 issues I would address for next year, which I feel have been the biggest problem with VAR this year. 

 

1. Handball. 

 

We've certainly been on the wrong side of this. The current problem with handball is it is a very subjective rule. Ball to hand, the distance between players when the ball was struck, intentional or not, hand being in a natural position...etc. There is absolutely no chance of referees or video referees making consistent decisions with so many variations....

Thos year, the rules were simplified in a sence where, if the ball hits an attacking hand in the run up to a goal, its chalked off, why stop there? Simplify it even more, if the ball hits a hand, it's a foul regardless of circumstance. Ball to hand? Doesn't matter, foul. Unintentional? Doesn't matter, foul. This is something that VAR can uphold and although it would be harsh, it would be harsh for everyone equally. 

 

2. Offsides

 

You are not going to get away from the fact that some offsides are going to be by very tight margins and seem harsh but right now, it seems even more so by the fact that a perfectly timed run can be ruined by your nipple being offside.

Draw the line from the feet. If your toe nail is offside, you are offside. If your feet are on bit your boaby is off, you're onside. It makes it very clear. 

 

3. Clear and obvious? 

 

All the "clear and obvious" ruling with VAR does is raise questions as to when and where it should be applied. Again, it creates inconsistency. Bin it. If the ref makes an error, VAR corrects it, obvious or not. Again  it makes it fair for all clubs involved. 

- 100% with you on offsides.

- Clear and obvious, for me, ought to be used if the error wouldn’t be ruled 5 different ways by 5 different refs. The principle of it is sound, “I’m only overruling you if I’m sure you got it wrong”, but it’s been used to justify poor decisions by the VAR so often that people have got confused.

- Handball is tricky. I think if you implement the rule you suggest, the reward of a penalty will mean too many people smashing shots at defenders bodies rather than at goal. A bit like strikers going down under the faintest contact rather than trying to score. You have to have the sense of intent (either intentionally touching the ball, or intentionally making yourself bigger) otherwise the game will get more boring and games become penalty-fests. 

The solution to handball is ‘clear and obvious’. The player obviously made himself bigger (both Praet and de Bruyne did) so penalty. The first Wolves goal: no intent, no obvious (to the naked eye) contact, goal stands.

And unlike the ref, VAR speaks aloud the reasons for his decision.

 

Crucially, the on field ref gets no say whatsoever, just gets told to blow his whistle and give the decision. Pitchside monitors can only slow everything down, and don’t add to the intelligence being applied to the disputed call.

[Vlad the Fox]

Just a though, would it make sense to have 3/5 var refs. They look at the incident and majority rules, ie, coots says no handball the other two think definite hand ball and the handball is then given.
 

Then at half time the two can stand by the klix machine drinking their coffee discussing what a clueless twat coots as he drops crumbs all over the equipment from his spready cheese and tomato sauce sandwiches and Pom bears.

[CUJimmy]

13 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

Surprisingly half decent read, that.

 

Vardy is currently regressing towards his mean, I guess. Not THE mean. 

 

And likewise 10 favourable decisions out of 10 in the first half of the season doesn't mean 10 bad will follow....rather that the second half is likely to regress to either THE mean or regress to develop A mean for the team involved

 

I think. 

As a mathematician I do squirm a bit when people refer to the Law of Averages because it doesn’t exist at least not as many seem to understand it.

 

If I toss a coin and get 10 heads in a row that doesn’t make it more likely that the next will be a tail.  If anything it is slightly more likely to be another head because the data suggests that the coin might be biased.  (Not like our friends at Stokley Park of course)

 

Regression to a Mean though is real and very well explained above.

[Nod.E]

As with most things in life, compromise does not work.

Do it properly or not at all. 

Give VAR the full ability and duty to over rule a decision when it's incorrect, and fully regulate the process of selecting those responsible for making VAR decisions. Perhaps make it a panel decision rather than one guy subject to odd opinions and brain farts.

Offside is offside, deal with it. I think people will find that easier to take when other decisions become more black and white and consistent. 

I also think a tennis-like system of giving teams a number of reviews per game would help to improve clarity. It takes out all of the unknowns about whether something is reviewed or not, and when those reviews are triggered, it should be a 100% objective decision made, regardless of the on-pitch decision. None of this 'clear and obvious' rubbish. 

It's all just creating confusion, vagaries and as with all ambiguity, it is a breeding ground for exploitation and bias, conscious or not. 

Edited 26 February 2020 by Nod.E

[Beechey]

On 23/02/2020 at 03:25, Matt said:

I was all for it, I was calling for it for some time, although my idea was it should be treated as an appeal system - like in cricket. 3 appeals each team, only captain can call for them, if it’s correctly overturned you keep the appeal, wrongly appealed you lose it.

 

That seems a better idea than what is currently going on.

 

It would also (imo) make teams use the appeals wisely and cut diving and cheating out the game to an extent.

 

This current system clearly isn’t working.

 

I claimed it’d be a ‘leveller’, cut out the big team bias, I was wrong.

 

Out of interest do other countries have the issues we are having? If not why? And why haven’t we consulted other countries and how they use it?

I agree, and checking things arbitrarily on the whim of whoever is operating VAR is probably the worst implementation they could have gone for. Rather than eliminating the human error aspect of refereeing, it overtly and seemingly purposely leaves it in place, but shifts it to another referee. Staggeringly stupid.

Edited 26 February 2020 by Beechey

[st albans fox]

don’t like the appeal idea - sorry but that means that a clear injustice can remain, even with careful use of the system by the appellant .... 

 

surely the onfield ref (or at worse the 4th official) can have a display on their wrist to make an initial review immediately (could be their own initiative or the VAR prompting) - if they feel it needs a closer look then use the pitch side screen ....

 

the game should be stopped immediately if the on field officials think a disputed call has been made - quick counter attacks on the back of a potential review should be stopped before they gain any traction ...

 

don’t like var but it can be so much better than it is

 

if the technology isn’t ready then don’t have it until it is !!

Edited 26 February 2020 by st albans fox

[sheffield_fox]

I think the parts of the game which are decided automatically by technology, for example, the goal line technology, are working really well. Any decision which has the potential for human error seems to be contentious at the moment. 

 

For offsides, I like the idea of putting sensors in the hems of the all players shirts (arms, waist, neck) to keep track of exactly who is offside at any one time. There would also be sensors in the pads of the ball to determine exactly when it is kicked. As soon as a player, who was offside when the ball was played, touches the ball, the ref's watch buzzes or whatever and he blows up for offside. 

 

It would be instantaneous, automatic and not open to human error... 

[Aus Fox]

The fact that over 300 people have voted in this poll, from a variety of footballing backgrounds and opinions and not a single person has said its improved the game speaks volumes.

We never all agree on here, and let’s face it a forum would be pointless if we all agreed on everything. But for no one to think the game is better is huge.

[oxford blue]

In the Chelsea v B Munich game last night, the ref was advised he needed to check pitchside monitor after Alonso caught Lewandowski with his arm. A quick check with pitchside monitor and Alonso was off. Is this the way forward? The VAR alerts ref of a possible incident that needs checking; ref consults pitchside monitor and makes a quick decision. (if not clear to him, he sticks by original decision.). Offsides could be determined by VAR, but with a greater margin for error than currently (which takes into account the inaccuracies of current system as frames per second aren't quick enough).

 

This could also have the advantage of refs taking responsibility for decisions - they seem too quick to allow these be made for them.  I also think pictures on pitchside monitor are shown to fans as replays are at other sporting events. It seems wrong tv viewers of games have a far better idea of reason for decisions.

[st albans fox]

57 minutes ago, oxford blue said:

In the Chelsea v B Munich game last night, the ref was advised he needed to check pitchside monitor after Alonso caught Lewandowski with his arm. A quick check with pitchside monitor and Alonso was off. Is this the way forward? The VAR alerts ref of a possible incident that needs checking; ref consults pitchside monitor and makes a quick decision. (if not clear to him, he sticks by original decision.). Offsides could be determined by VAR, but with a greater margin for error than currently (which takes into account the inaccuracies of current system as frames per second aren't quick enough).

 

This could also have the advantage of refs taking responsibility for decisions - they seem too quick to allow these be made for them.  I also think pictures on pitchside monitor are shown to fans as replays are at other sporting events. It seems wrong tv viewers of games have a far better idea of reason for decisions.

Assuming you are serious and not being sarcastic, this is how it’s designed to work ......it’s only the premier league that has trashed it ....