VAR i thought was brought in to prevent obvious fouls not picked up by the Ref. But listening to the commentary last night the foul in the box was slight. Who triggers the use of the VAR? Hell of a finish though.
Quote from: Denn Forever on March 07, 2019, 11:37:07 AM
VAR i thought was brought in to prevent obvious fouls not picked up by the Ref. But listening to the commentary last night the foul in the box was slight. Who triggers the use of the VAR? Hell of a finish though.
Its a tough one. I assume the rule is that it has to be a clear and obvious mistake for the ref's decision to be overturned as in other sports. In American Football/Cricket/Rugby etc it is usually called on for a technical decision (did the ball hit the ground, was the pass forward, did the receiver step out of bounds etc etc) The difficulty in soccer is that while its fine for offside decisions etc, there is much more subjectivity in calls like last night where players intent has to be determined. How many times at corners does a defenders have hold of a players shirt or arms? These are much more clear cut than a handball decision but will never be referred.
VAR isn't working
If you study the decision from last night
The defender was actually trying to pull his arm in towards his body and connected with the ball, if he keeps his arm up then no foul. It's crazy
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on March 07, 2019, 12:30:37 PM
VAR isn't working
If you study the decision from last night
The defender was actually trying to pull his arm in towards his body and connected with the ball, if he keeps his arm up then no foul. It's crazy
I would tend to agree but is it the scope of VAr that needs to change? Handballs and things like trips in the box I think are too subjective. You can change your mind based on the speed you watch it at. There will always be borderline decisions but things like offside, checking whether ball went out of play etc can all be reviewed relatively consistently.
You should add a poll??
I've said many times I'm not a fan other than in black and white decisions such as goals and offsides. Everything else comes down to one man's opinion.
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on March 07, 2019, 12:30:37 PM
VAR isn't working
If you study the decision from last night
The defender was actually trying to pull his arm in towards his body and connected with the ball, if he keeps his arm up then no foul. It's crazy
i think trying to judge if shot was on target should also be brought into the argument
Quote from: Gmac on March 07, 2019, 02:41:34 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on March 07, 2019, 12:30:37 PM
VAR isn't working
If you study the decision from last night
The defender was actually trying to pull his arm in towards his body and connected with the ball, if he keeps his arm up then no foul. It's crazy
i think trying to judge if shot was on target should also be brought into the argument
Does that matter? have seen plenty of penalties given for hand ball from crosses into the box.
Quote from: Cunny Funt on March 07, 2019, 03:31:21 PM
Quote from: Gmac on March 07, 2019, 02:41:34 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on March 07, 2019, 12:30:37 PM
VAR isn't working
If you study the decision from last night
The defender was actually trying to pull his arm in towards his body and connected with the ball, if he keeps his arm up then no foul. It's crazy
i think trying to judge if shot was on target should also be brought into the argument
Does that matter? have seen plenty of penalties given for hand ball from crosses into the box.
You'll see plenty more as / the new ruling discussed last night. Rio Ferdinand made the point of arms being being used to balance yourself. Is it open season for boys just to ping balls off defenders arms... 'nailed on penalty' as described in another thread. Will the game be too stop start? Most games are hard enough to watch these days
Quote from: JoG2 on March 07, 2019, 03:41:47 PM
Quote from: Cunny Funt on March 07, 2019, 03:31:21 PM
Quote from: Gmac on March 07, 2019, 02:41:34 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on March 07, 2019, 12:30:37 PM
VAR isn't working
If you study the decision from last night
The defender was actually trying to pull his arm in towards his body and connected with the ball, if he keeps his arm up then no foul. It's crazy
i think trying to judge if shot was on target should also be brought into the argument
Does that matter? have seen plenty of penalties given for hand ball from crosses into the box.
You'll see plenty more as / the new ruling discussed last night. Rio Ferdinand made the point of arms being being used to balance yourself. Is it open season for boys just to ping balls off defenders arms... 'nailed on penalty' as described in another thread. Will the game be too stop start? Most games are hard enough to watch these days
On a bit of a side note I always wondered about guys that turn side ways/turn their backs in front of a shot. Brave defenders face it front ways with hands behind their backs.
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2019, 04:02:37 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on March 07, 2019, 03:41:47 PM
Quote from: Cunny Funt on March 07, 2019, 03:31:21 PM
Quote from: Gmac on March 07, 2019, 02:41:34 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on March 07, 2019, 12:30:37 PM
VAR isn't working
If you study the decision from last night
The defender was actually trying to pull his arm in towards his body and connected with the ball, if he keeps his arm up then no foul. It's crazy
i think trying to judge if shot was on target should also be brought into the argument
Does that matter? have seen plenty of penalties given for hand ball from crosses into the box.
You'll see plenty more as / the new ruling discussed last night. Rio Ferdinand made the point of arms being being used to balance yourself. Is it open season for boys just to ping balls off defenders arms... 'nailed on penalty' as described in another thread. Will the game be too stop start? Most games are hard enough to watch these days
On a bit of a side note I always wondered about guys that turn side ways/turn their backs in front of a shot. Brave defenders face it front ways with hands behind their backs.
The hands behind the back is a very new thing, especially among the Chelsea defenders. It'll have to be done by all and sundry now. Means your balance isnt what it should be and will be much tougher to react to an attacker turning you on the inside or outside
Quote from: JoG2 on March 07, 2019, 04:05:56 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2019, 04:02:37 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on March 07, 2019, 03:41:47 PM
Quote from: Cunny Funt on March 07, 2019, 03:31:21 PM
Quote from: Gmac on March 07, 2019, 02:41:34 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on March 07, 2019, 12:30:37 PM
VAR isn't working
If you study the decision from last night
The defender was actually trying to pull his arm in towards his body and connected with the ball, if he keeps his arm up then no foul. It's crazy
i think trying to judge if shot was on target should also be brought into the argument
Does that matter? have seen plenty of penalties given for hand ball from crosses into the box.
You'll see plenty more as / the new ruling discussed last night. Rio Ferdinand made the point of arms being being used to balance yourself. Is it open season for boys just to ping balls off defenders arms... 'nailed on penalty' as described in another thread. Will the game be too stop start? Most games are hard enough to watch these days
On a bit of a side note I always wondered about guys that turn side ways/turn their backs in front of a shot. Brave defenders face it front ways with hands behind their backs.
The hands behind the back is a very new thing, especially among the Chelsea defenders. It'll have to be done by all and sundry now. Means your balance isnt what it should be and will be much tougher to react to an attacker turning you on the inside or outside
Italian defenders have been doing that for years. One thing the VAR doesn't stop is the bar stool debates of was or wasn't it a correct decision.
Quote from: Captain Obvious on March 07, 2019, 04:21:01 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on March 07, 2019, 04:05:56 PM
Quote from: GJL on March 07, 2019, 04:02:37 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on March 07, 2019, 03:41:47 PM
Quote from: Cunny Funt on March 07, 2019, 03:31:21 PM
Quote from: Gmac on March 07, 2019, 02:41:34 PM
Quote from: north_antrim_hound on March 07, 2019, 12:30:37 PM
VAR isn't working
If you study the decision from last night
The defender was actually trying to pull his arm in towards his body and connected with the ball, if he keeps his arm up then no foul. It's crazy
i think trying to judge if shot was on target should also be brought into the argument
Does that matter? have seen plenty of penalties given for hand ball from crosses into the box.
You'll see plenty more as / the new ruling discussed last night. Rio Ferdinand made the point of arms being being used to balance yourself. Is it open season for boys just to ping balls off defenders arms... 'nailed on penalty' as described in another thread. Will the game be too stop start? Most games are hard enough to watch these days
On a bit of a side note I always wondered about guys that turn side ways/turn their backs in front of a shot. Brave defenders face it front ways with hands behind their backs.
The hands behind the back is a very new thing, especially among the Chelsea defenders. It'll have to be done by all and sundry now. Means your balance isnt what it should be and will be much tougher to react to an attacker turning you on the inside or outside
Italian defenders have been doing that for years. One thing the VAR doesn't stop is the bar stool debates of was or wasn't it a correct decision.
My point is it hasn't been prevalent up until recently..... obviously
Although I agree with the drawbacks to VAR, surely, ultimately, if a referee gets to have a second, third, fourth look at the incident, then at least we can rest assured that an informed decision has been made.
It seems like VAR is being used for every goal in the Woman's World cup. A bit excessive really.
Quote from: Denn Forever on June 23, 2019, 06:18:10 PM
It seems like VAR is being used for every goal in the Woman's World cup. A bit excessive really.
Completely nauseating
It's about to strike again
VAR over time will remove the spontaneous joy out of a goal being scored. During the champions league I could feel myself resigned to waiting for VAR after every goal and its just not the same when you have to wait for a decision to be made. I think this takes away a large element of why people love football and the game will be poorer for it. In 5 years time, nobody will be celebrating goals.
Agree Benny. It appears from the woman's WC that it is set to become even more invasive.
The results show will start around 6.15pm now on a Saturday
It's gonna cause bedlam at grounds with no screens? Old Trafford and Anfield are 2 that spring to mind straight away but I'm sure there are others in the Premier League.
Quote from: Boycey on June 23, 2019, 09:38:10 PM
It's gonna cause bedlam at grounds with no screens? Old Trafford and Anfield are 2 that spring to mind straight away but I'm sure there are others in the Premier League.
Will it be used only for PL?
What was with the Cameroon players yesterday. It's almost as if they don't understand the offside rule. Shambolic scenes.
VAR is a vile, vile thing. Soccer's flowing nature and low scoring makes it sport's equivalent of chaos theory.
Almost every VAR decision rides against two ultimate issues: 1. how far back in time does this passage of play go back? 2. Technology can not interpret intent.
But it's very existence will see referees learn not to trust their instincts, and to use it as an opportunity to make perfect decisions, even one cannot exist.
Before too long I'd expect a court case against a referee, who would have little no facility to protect himself. And that hopefully will be the end of this nonsense.
Quote from: Boycey on June 23, 2019, 09:38:10 PM
It's gonna cause bedlam at grounds with no screens? Old Trafford and Anfield are 2 that spring to mind straight away but I'm sure there are others in the Premier League.
That's the only two believe it or not. Surprising isn't it?
Quote from: thewobbler on June 24, 2019, 08:48:08 AM
VAR is a vile, vile thing. Soccer's flowing nature and low scoring makes it sport's equivalent of chaos theory.
Almost every VAR decision rides against two ultimate issues: 1. how far back in time does this passage of play go back? 2. Technology can not interpret intent.
But it's very existence will see referees learn not to trust their instincts, and to use it as an opportunity to make perfect decisions, even one cannot exist.
Before too long I'd expect a court case against a referee, who would have little no facility to protect himself. And that hopefully will be the end of this nonsense.
Technology does'nt have to interpret intent. Its still a human looking at it. The notion of a case against a ref is fanciful, but if it were a likely outcome, it would have been a lot more likely (and justified) prior to VAR.
There are clearly teething problems with VAR, that's not surprising. But it and how it is used will evolve, and imo it remains, as a tool to ensure big decisions are correct, a welcome advent.
Quote from: haranguerer on June 24, 2019, 09:00:11 AM
Quote from: thewobbler on June 24, 2019, 08:48:08 AM
VAR is a vile, vile thing. Soccer's flowing nature and low scoring makes it sport's equivalent of chaos theory.
Almost every VAR decision rides against two ultimate issues: 1. how far back in time does this passage of play go back? 2. Technology can not interpret intent.
But it's very existence will see referees learn not to trust their instincts, and to use it as an opportunity to make perfect decisions, even one cannot exist.
Before too long I'd expect a court case against a referee, who would have little no facility to protect himself. And that hopefully will be the end of this nonsense.
Technology does'nt have to interpret intent. Its still a human looking at it. The notion of a case against a ref is fanciful, but if it were a likely outcome, it would have been a lot more likely (and justified) prior to VAR.
There are clearly teething problems with VAR, that's not surprising. But it and how it is used will evolve, and imo it remains, as a tool to ensure big decisions are correct, a welcome advent.
How would a case against a ref have been more likely before VAR?
Previously a referee had a split second choice to make based on the evidence from his vantage point. Nobody could expect perfection.
Now, they have access to dozens of angles and slow-mo. But for a decent sized percentage of inspections, their final decision will be solely based on instinct - ie the decision could logically go in either direction, but the ref's intuition has the final call. As the majority of these decisions will lead to goals being awarded or disallowed, it will ultimately be their instinct that decides the destination of trophies.
That's a recipe for litigation.
I've long been against VAR for a number of reasons.
1. It creates a hierarchy of rules. The decision to award a throw in that leads to the ball being thrown into the box which leads to the handball has just as much impact as the decision to award the handball but one is subject to VAR the other is not.
2. The injustice of non reviewable wrong decisions is increased.
3. It slows down the game dramatically.
4. I've seen a few but only a few images of how offside lines need to be adjusted to take account of the angle the camera is at and how lenses work. I assume FIFA have access to adjusted images but I'd question accuracy of non fixed cameras in this regard. Chelsea v Spurs in the Carabao Cup was a great example of this. Chelsea's non calibrated camera showed Kane to be well offside. Sky's calibrated camera showed he was on.
5. It doesn't seem to have improved decision making or lead to greater consistency. Take Spurs v Man City in CL. Spurs scores but the VAR official thought it was handball who referred it to the on pitch ref who disagreed. If those officials were reversed the goal wouldn't have stood. VAR is being used too widely and is only shifting the point at which people argue with officials decisions.
6. It's used for subjective decisions including offside.
In a parallel universe without VAR Ole Gunnar has gone back to Molde and City are European Champions...
Quote from: Boycey on June 24, 2019, 09:32:56 AM
In a parallel universe without VAR Ole Gunnar has gone back to Molde and City are European Champions...
Very interesting point!
Quote from: Hound on June 24, 2019, 12:45:16 PM
Quote from: Boycey on June 24, 2019, 09:32:56 AM
In a parallel universe without VAR Ole Gunnar has gone back to Molde and City are European Champions...
Very interesting point!
And goalline technology has not been implemented and Liverpool are Premier League champions. ;)
Quote from: David McKeown on June 24, 2019, 09:13:27 AM
I've long been against VAR for a number of reasons.
1. It creates a hierarchy of rules. The decision to award a throw in that leads to the ball being thrown into the box which leads to the handball has just as much impact as the decision to award the handball but one is subject to VAR the other is not.
2. The injustice of non reviewable wrong decisions is increased.
3. It slows down the game dramatically.
4. I've seen a few but only a few images of how offside lines need to be adjusted to take account of the angle the camera is at and how lenses work. I assume FIFA have access to adjusted images but I'd question accuracy of non fixed cameras in this regard. Chelsea v Spurs in the Carabao Cup was a great example of this. Chelsea's non calibrated camera showed Kane to be well offside. Sky's calibrated camera showed he was on.
5. It doesn't seem to have improved decision making or lead to greater consistency. Take Spurs v Man City in CL. Spurs scores but the VAR official thought it was handball who referred it to the on pitch ref who disagreed. If those officials were reversed the goal wouldn't have stood. VAR is being used too widely and is only shifting the point at which people argue with officials decisions.
6. It's used for subjective decisions including offside.
I have to say that I was originally a fan of VAR coming in on the basis that technology shoudl be used to get the "right" decision whereever possible. However, in practice I would agree with a lot of these points. In my mind VAR only works in sports where there are a) A lot of breaks in play (Cricket/American Football/Tennis) and b) Checks are mainly used for a matter of fact. (Did a ball hit the line?, Was receiver's foot in bounds?, Did ball carry to fielder? etc). As soon as you start bringing in any area of subjectivity or if you have to review decisions well after the play has moved on its a problem.
In soccer Goalline technology has worked well (despite my earlier comment :P) as it doesnt interfere in the game and just confirms a matter of fact. I would be all for using it for offside in terms of player location (factual) but not for making the call if the forward is interfering with play (subjective). HOwever, as DMK says, at that point you are creating a hierarchy of rules which causes even greater confusion.
One thing that makes VAR look worse than it is, is the way it's used to support the controversial new interpretation of what is a hand ball penalty. None no more so than last night's penaly awarded to the Netherlands.The Japan player was hit on the arm at very close range, even in that millisecond of time she had drawn her arm by her side to avoid a possible ball to arm. Nevertheless the penalty was awarded and she was yellow carded to boot. What next, armless players because refs can't be trusted to arbitrate on the spot for better or for worse?
Quote from: Main Street on June 26, 2019, 08:35:11 AM
One thing that makes VAR look worse than it is, is the way it's used to support the controversial new interpretation of what is a hand ball penalty. None no more so than last night's penaly awarded to the Netherlands.The Japan player was hit on the arm at very close range, even in that millisecond of time she had drawn her arm by her side to avoid a possible ball to arm. Nevertheless the penalty was awarded and she was yellow carded to boot. What next, armless players because refs can't be trusted to arbitrate on the spot for better or for worse?
Well it's the rule's fault rather than the ref's.
Although last night had me in two minds. It certainly wasn't on purpose and her hand was by her side. But I think there was every chance that would have been a goal had it not hit the Japan defender on the arm, so I don't think a penalty was unjust in that circumstance. However, I wouldn't give a yellow card for it.
Quote from: Hound on June 26, 2019, 12:02:34 PM
Quote from: Main Street on June 26, 2019, 08:35:11 AM
One thing that makes VAR look worse than it is, is the way it's used to support the controversial new interpretation of what is a hand ball penalty. None no more so than last night's penaly awarded to the Netherlands.The Japan player was hit on the arm at very close range, even in that millisecond of time she had drawn her arm by her side to avoid a possible ball to arm. Nevertheless the penalty was awarded and she was yellow carded to boot. What next, armless players because refs can't be trusted to arbitrate on the spot for better or for worse?
Well it's the rule's fault rather than the ref's.
Although last night had me in two minds. It certainly wasn't on purpose and her hand was by her side. But I think there was every chance that would have been a goal had it not hit the Japan defender on the arm, so I don't think a penalty was unjust in that circumstance. However, I wouldn't give a yellow card for it.
Of course it's the rule and not the refs.
That was a stonewall non penalty under the old rule, she had positioned her arm into the most natural humanly possible position, her arm was stuck to her body, impressive considering the ball was blasted at her from a meter out.
Strange the ref did not go to VAR for the Dutch handball just before blowing the final whistle, and that Dutch hand was held away from the body, though that's not a requirement these days.
Before the season started i was looking forward to this being implemented in the Premier League but each weekend it has been made clear that it is a total farce. The individuals in control of it do not have the courage to make the correct decisions.
That was an absolute shocker for the villa equaliser at Selhurst Park. A poor refereeing decision is one thing but it to be compounded by the lack of intervention from VAR makes it worse.
How many clear penalties have they not given already? They cant even give a red card for a tackle like Tielemans at the weekend which was a leg breaker.
So far the only thing it has done is rule out a goal for an armpit being offside and another goal for a handball against City.
If it isnt going to be used to overturn clear errors then get rid of it completely.
Sheffield Und. must love it. One of their goals disallowed because player on the right wing had his foot on the VAR offside line. Note: players must not wear brightly coloured boots. Decision times taking longer.
I hate it. The problem in football wasn't borderline offsides or dodgy handball penalties, as most managers would have agreed they tend to even themselves out over a season, the main problem was cheating with players diving in the penalty box and in my opinion that's all VAR should be used for. There was 6 minutes added time in the Spurs match yesterday caused by prolonged VAR deliberations
Quote from: Denn Forever on November 10, 2019, 11:01:39 AM
Sheffield Und. must love it. One of their goals disallowed because player on the right wing had his foot on the VAR offside line. Note: players must not wear brightly coloured boots. Decision times taking longer.
looked like defender in middle shoulder was keeping him on side does var only use boots for its lines ?
Quote from: Gmac on November 10, 2019, 03:50:26 PM
Quote from: Denn Forever on November 10, 2019, 11:01:39 AM
Sheffield Und. must love it. One of their goals disallowed because player on the right wing had his foot on the VAR offside line. Note: players must not wear brightly coloured boots. Decision times taking longer.
looked like defender in middle shoulder was keeping him on side does var only use boots for its lines ?
They were using armpits last week. ::)
Should have been called back for a penalty to City.
Thought Salah was just offside for the 2nd goal.
Quote from: clarshack on November 10, 2019, 04:41:29 PM
Should have been called back for a penalty to City.
That was just after Silva hand passed the ball across the large parallelogram.
Next goal is vital.
Liverpool get away with another handball in the penalty area.
Give them the trophy now.
Quote from: clarshack on November 10, 2019, 06:15:32 PM
Liverpool get away with another handball in the penalty area.
Give them the trophy now.
Never a penalty in a million years. You can't even argue to unnatural position angle with that one.
First half one different.
Quote from: clarshack on November 10, 2019, 06:15:32 PM
Liverpool get away with another handball in the penalty area.
Give them the trophy now.
Salty ;D
If you think that was a peno then you would also have to think the first wasn't as Silva handled the ball first, and the Silva handball was as much as a handball as that second incident.
VAR is a mess.
Football is a game in which the rules are relative to context. Blasting the ball of a man's hand from point blank range is not the same thing as someone stretching their arms when a corner arrives in. Even if it happens in the exact same spot. Trailing the leg of someone who has sent you to the shop is not the same thing as tripping up someone who is charging out of defence, even if it happens in the exact same place. Exaggerating the effects of a push is not the same as pretending that contact happened.
Var trues to remove context and make it all about fact.
Which would be tough work in an honest sport. In a sport where manufacturing new ways to cheat is a badge of honour, and generally approved of by fans, pundits and teammates, it simply has no chance.
I dont understand the handball law anymore.
What is the natural silhouette? How wide do arms have to be to extend that?
If City should have had a penalty then does that mean you have to retrospectively punish the Silva handball because it then resulted in a clear chance or goal as per the new rules?
I have said for years VAR would be a disaster, I have seen nothing to change my mind on that.
I'll be surprised if VAR is in place in the PL next season, as said above its a mess and someone at the top should have the sense to get rid of it already.
It's not VAR - it's the handball rule.
If a team studies and understands VAR then they'll make the most out of it.
In a real game the call for a penalty would have been waved away like it was, no issues. But because it's available then it's the interpretation of the rules that's actually causing it to be so controversial, and GAA heads are looking to have two referees on the pitch at the same time?!!
Take the clampits away from the VAR station and allow the ref to analyse the decision himself with a slow mo of the incident, he either sticks with original or brings it back. It's his call
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 10, 2019, 07:04:07 PM
If a team studies and understands VAR then they'll make the most out of it.
In a real game the call for a penalty would have been waved away like it was, no issues. But because it's available then it's the interpretation of the rules that's actually causing it to be so controversial, and GAA heads are looking to have two referees on the pitch at the same time?!!
Take the clampits away from the VAR station and allow the ref to analyse the decision himself with a slow mo of the incident, he either sticks with original or brings it back. It's his call
Eh?
Quote from: Boycey on November 10, 2019, 09:26:37 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 10, 2019, 07:04:07 PM
If a team studies and understands VAR then they'll make the most out of it.
In a real game the call for a penalty would have been waved away like it was, no issues. But because it's available then it's the interpretation of the rules that's actually causing it to be so controversial, and GAA heads are looking to have two referees on the pitch at the same time?!!
Take the clampits away from the VAR station and allow the ref to analyse the decision himself with a slow mo of the incident, he either sticks with original or brings it back. It's his call
Eh?
Some of the penalties given lately seem engineered, you can only do that if you study the new regulations, it's no different to new rules in GAA and teams take advantage by changing their game play to get the most out of it!
I doubt var has anything to do with it. Penalties have been engineered for a long time.
You couldn't predict anything var would or wouldn't give the way it is currently being applied.
That McGoldrick goal being disallowed yesterday was a joke.
Quote from: imtommygunn on November 10, 2019, 09:39:59 PM
I doubt var has anything to do with it. Penalties have been engineered for a long time.
You couldn't predict anything var would or wouldn't give the way it is currently being applied.
That McGoldrick goal being disallowed yesterday was a joke.
But he was offside? Marginally yes but as far as offside goes its irrelevant if its 1cm or 2 yards. There is no subjectivity in that call unless you are arguing its in how the "lines" are drawn?
The line is drawn as soon as contact is made by the boot to ball, at 50 frames per second when the line was drawn the sheff utd player was 2mm offside but that does not constitute a reason to reverse an officials decision never mind using 5 minutes to scrutinise. I think the MLS VAR procedure works much better, the video ref has a quick review of an incident to look for an obvious error by the officials, meanwhile for the most part, the game proceeds.
Quote from: Main Street on November 11, 2019, 07:55:42 AM
The line is drawn as soon as contact is made by the boot to ball, at 50 frames per second when the line was drawn the sheff utd player was 2mm offside but that does not constitute a reason to reverse an officials decision never mind using 5 minutes to scrutinise. I think the MLS VAR procedure works much better, the video ref has a quick review of an incident to look for an obvious error by the officials, meanwhile for the most part, the game proceeds.
Whats the margin of error then? 5mm? 10mm? You have said it yourself, he was offside. Clear and Obvious error does not apply to offside decisions, its a matter of fact.
Quote from: TabClear on November 11, 2019, 08:00:49 AM
Quote from: Main Street on November 11, 2019, 07:55:42 AM
The line is drawn as soon as contact is made by the boot to ball, at 50 frames per second when the line was drawn the sheff utd player was 2mm offside but that does not constitute a reason to reverse an officials decision never mind using 5 minutes to scrutinise. I think the MLS VAR procedure works much better, the video ref has a quick review of an incident to look for an obvious error by the officials, meanwhile for the most part, the game proceeds.
Whats the margin of error then? 5mm? 10mm? You have said it yourself, he was offside. Clear and Obvious error does not apply to offside decisions, its a matter of fact.
The clear and obvious error applies to the decision the officials made before the VAR intervention. Personally I believe they should have introduced VAR intervention gradually, rather than landing like a full blown Spanish Inquisition.
Quote from: Main Street on November 11, 2019, 08:09:32 AM
Quote from: TabClear on November 11, 2019, 08:00:49 AM
Quote from: Main Street on November 11, 2019, 07:55:42 AM
The line is drawn as soon as contact is made by the boot to ball, at 50 frames per second when the line was drawn the sheff utd player was 2mm offside but that does not constitute a reason to reverse an officials decision never mind using 5 minutes to scrutinise. I think the MLS VAR procedure works much better, the video ref has a quick review of an incident to look for an obvious error by the officials, meanwhile for the most part, the game proceeds.
Whats the margin of error then? 5mm? 10mm? You have said it yourself, he was offside. Clear and Obvious error does not apply to offside decisions, its a matter of fact.
The clear and obvious error applies to the decision the officials made before the VAR intervention. Personally I believe they should have introduced VAR intervention gradually, rather than landing like a full blown Spanish Inquisition.
But thats my point. The premier league guidance states that "
VAR can be used to overturn a subjective decision if a "clear and obvious error" has been identified. "
"Factual decisions such as whether a player is onside or offside, or inside or outside the penalty area, will not be subject to the clear and obvious test." "
Factual offside decisions will be based on the evidence provided by fully calibrated offside lines."
Quote from: TabClear on November 11, 2019, 08:20:02 AM
Quote from: Main Street on November 11, 2019, 08:09:32 AM
Quote from: TabClear on November 11, 2019, 08:00:49 AM
Quote from: Main Street on November 11, 2019, 07:55:42 AM
The line is drawn as soon as contact is made by the boot to ball, at 50 frames per second when the line was drawn the sheff utd player was 2mm offside but that does not constitute a reason to reverse an officials decision never mind using 5 minutes to scrutinise. I think the MLS VAR procedure works much better, the video ref has a quick review of an incident to look for an obvious error by the officials, meanwhile for the most part, the game proceeds.
Whats the margin of error then? 5mm? 10mm? You have said it yourself, he was offside. Clear and Obvious error does not apply to offside decisions, its a matter of fact.
The clear and obvious error applies to the decision the officials made before the VAR intervention. Personally I believe they should have introduced VAR intervention gradually, rather than landing like a full blown Spanish Inquisition.
But thats my point. The premier league guidance states that "VAR can be used to overturn a subjective decision if a "clear and obvious error" has been identified. "
"Factual decisions such as whether a player is onside or offside, or inside or outside the penalty area, will not be subject to the clear and obvious test."
"Factual offside decisions will be based on the evidence provided by fully calibrated offside lines."
This is where I have a problem with VAR being used for offsides as what you have quoted doesn't tie up with what constitutes an offside. There's two parts to an offside. 1. Where you in an offside position? 2. Did you interfere with play?
VAR looks only at 1 there so even within one rule it's created a hierarchy. Did this not cause an issue recently with a City game where I think Sterling was offside but as he hadn't touched the ball VAR couldn't comment on whether he had interfered? If that's right surely VAR doesn't actually improve decision making it just leads to greater injustice.
In addition I would like to know do we see these fully calibrated lines? Do the lines take into account the height off the ground of the players body parts etc? As we know from how camera's work as we usually aren't looking at an exactly square on pictures our eyes will be easily deceived if for example we try to compare someone's foot at the far side to someone else's shoulder on the near side.
Why is it not like Rugby, where for the most part the referee asks if he wants something reviewed?
On the extremely tight calls, what is the published margin of error? I'm a bit suspicious when you are literally talking about 3 or 4 centimetres. I hold the same suspicion for hawkeye in the GAA. I just watched Brian Hogan's catch over the crossbar in the All Ireland final again, and it is no way over the crossbar. I suspect the margin of error is at least a couple of centimetres, and if you are in that +/- you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker.
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 11, 2019, 09:09:43 AM
On the extremely tight calls, what is the published margin of error? I'm a bit suspicious when you are literally talking about 3 or 4 centimetres. I hold the same suspicion for hawkeye in the GAA. I just watched Brian Hogan's catch over the crossbar in the All Ireland final again, and it is no way over the crossbar. I suspect the margin of error is at least a couple of centimetres, and if you are in that +/- you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker.
Why?
.... because it's in any sport's interests (in terms of marketing, publicity and happy memories) to make attacking play a more attractive proposition.
Exactly. VAR seems to have removed that advantage entirely.
Is it not stated in rules anyway that the attacker should get the benefit of the doubt?
Definitely Firmino's goal and McGoldrick's goal would have stood with advantage to attacking player. (Not to mention McGoldrick's goal was 100% onside while Firmino's had a little bit of grey but not much).
Quote from: imtommygunn on November 11, 2019, 09:39:52 AM
Exactly. VAR seems to have removed that advantage entirely.
Is it not stated in rules anyway that the attacker should get the benefit of the doubt?
Definitely Firmino's goal and McGoldrick's goal would have stood with advantage to attacking player. (Not to mention McGoldrick's goal was 100% onside while Firmino's had a little bit of grey but not much).
It clearly was nt 100% onside hence the debate. The VAR pictures would indicate he was offside.
I actually agree with you Tommy on having a tolerance level and giving the benefit to the attacker. But setting that margin depends on the League agreeing what the error margin is on those lines and communicating it. If they have determined that those lines can be drawn with 100% accuracy then ever decision should be solely based on these lines.
On David's point earlier on the two aspects of VAR, I am not sure if VAR can determine on the interfering with play call. Possibly its covered under the "clear and obvious error" provision as it is subjective. It would actually help if the refs were miked up like in Rugby so the crowd know what is being checked. This could have made a big difference yesterday e.g. "I saw ball hit No 66 hand but i judged it was not deliberate" compared to "Could you check if the ball hit the arm". The first scenario is unlikely to be overturned while the second would in all likelihood have been a penalty awarded.
The Spurs defender had part of his body in front of the sheffield united winger's foot. In a still picture that can be seen and whoever was analysing it had time to digest that rather than just real time.
I had thought it was supposed to be in the rules about giving the attacker the benefit of the doubt.
They should bin it for these close calls and just go with on field decision. Salah clearly off side for his goal yesterday, not to mention the blatant handball by TAA. It's hard to believe but VAR has actually caused more controversy.
Quote from: trailer on November 11, 2019, 11:55:55 AM
They should bin it for these close calls and just go with on field decision. Salah clearly off side for his goal yesterday, not to mention the blatant handball by TAA. It's hard to believe but VAR has actually caused more controversy.
Nobody is disputing the Salah call. It was tight but the onfield decision was right and VAR confirmed it.
Quote from: TabClear on November 11, 2019, 12:00:29 PM
Quote from: trailer on November 11, 2019, 11:55:55 AM
They should bin it for these close calls and just go with on field decision. Salah clearly off side for his goal yesterday, not to mention the blatant handball by TAA. It's hard to believe but VAR has actually caused more controversy.
Nobody is disputing the Salah call. It was tight but the onfield decision was right and VAR confirmed it.
(https://i.redd.it/9z9jfp5h7wx31.png)
Quote from: TabClear on November 11, 2019, 10:16:24 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on November 11, 2019, 09:39:52 AM
Exactly. VAR seems to have removed that advantage entirely.
Is it not stated in rules anyway that the attacker should get the benefit of the doubt?
Definitely Firmino's goal and McGoldrick's goal would have stood with advantage to attacking player. (Not to mention McGoldrick's goal was 100% onside while Firmino's had a little bit of grey but not much).
It clearly was nt 100% onside hence the debate. The VAR pictures would indicate he was offside.
I actually agree with you Tommy on having a tolerance level and giving the benefit to the attacker. But setting that margin depends on the League agreeing what the error margin is on those lines and communicating it. If they have determined that those lines can be drawn with 100% accuracy then ever decision should be solely based on these lines.
On David's point earlier on the two aspects of VAR, I am not sure if VAR can determine on the interfering with play call. Possibly its covered under the "clear and obvious error" provision as it is subjective. It would actually help if the refs were miked up like in Rugby so the crowd know what is being checked. This could have made a big difference yesterday e.g. "I saw ball hit No 66 hand but i judged it was not deliberate" compared to "Could you check if the ball hit the arm". The first scenario is unlikely to be overturned while the second would in all likelihood have been a penalty awarded.
I think you've hit another flaw in the way VAR is currently used. Take the Sterling 'push' as (poor) example. The Premier League do not want the VAR official refereeing the game hence the clear and obvious rule. The difficulty though comes in fouls like that. Did the referee see it and adjudge it not a foul or did he simply not see it. Does VAR ask the ref why he didn't award a penalty? If he saw it and didn't award a foul then VAR shouldn't get involved if he didn't see it then VAR has to make the call was it a penalty or not. The situation gets worse if that question isn't asked. Then VAR has to decide has the ref made a wrong call here. If he did why did he make it.
The net consequence of it all is that in the majority of scenarios VAR is actually rerefereeing the game (which was supposed to be avoided) but is doing so with one hand tied behind its back.
Quote from: Ambrose on November 11, 2019, 12:07:35 PM
Quote from: TabClear on November 11, 2019, 12:00:29 PM
Quote from: trailer on November 11, 2019, 11:55:55 AM
They should bin it for these close calls and just go with on field decision. Salah clearly off side for his goal yesterday, not to mention the blatant handball by TAA. It's hard to believe but VAR has actually caused more controversy.
Nobody is disputing the Salah call. It was tight but the onfield decision was right and VAR confirmed it.
(https://i.redd.it/9z9jfp5h7wx31.png)
Is that blue line adjusted for the fact the camera is not square on. I mean it looks like Salah is closer to the line on the grass than the City defender. Again though that goes back to what I was saying earlier.
Quote from: trailer on November 11, 2019, 11:55:55 AM
They should bin it for these close calls and just go with on field decision. Salah clearly off side for his goal yesterday, not to mention the blatant handball by TAA. It's hard to believe but VAR has actually caused more controversy.
:o :o :o
Totally against it in its current usage.
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 11, 2019, 09:09:43 AM
On the extremely tight calls, what is the published margin of error? I'm a bit suspicious when you are literally talking about 3 or 4 centimetres. I hold the same suspicion for hawkeye in the GAA. I just watched Brian Hogan's catch over the crossbar in the All Ireland final again, and it is no way over the crossbar. I suspect the margin of error is at least a couple of centimetres, and if you are in that +/- you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker.
I read a detailed thread on Twitter by someone who knows what they are talking about and the crux of it is that the cameras run 50 fps which means that the margin for error can be up to
~38cm for a player moving at full tilt. It's simply not accurate enough to make calls based on a few cm.
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 11, 2019, 09:09:43 AM
On the extremely tight calls, what is the published margin of error? I'm a bit suspicious when you are literally talking about 3 or 4 centimetres. I hold the same suspicion for hawkeye in the GAA. I just watched Brian Hogan's catch over the crossbar in the All Ireland final again, and it is no way over the crossbar. I suspect the margin of error is at least a couple of centimetres, and if you are in that +/- you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker.
Jonathan Wilson (Guardian and etc.) has been banging on about this for a while, with justification. If the frame rate is 50/s, then they are working in 'steps' of 0.02 s. If an attacker is running at a speed of 20 km/hr (which is NOT full-on sprinting pace), then they are travelling 11cm in 0.02 s - that is not the limit of detection they are allowing themselves in VAR, which is a massive scientific no-no.
The ball ricocheted off the city players arm before it hit the Liverpool players arm
Did that fact play into yesterday's "decision"?
Quote from: TabClear on November 11, 2019, 08:20:02 AM
Quote from: Main Street on November 11, 2019, 08:09:32 AM
Quote from: TabClear on November 11, 2019, 08:00:49 AM
Quote from: Main Street on November 11, 2019, 07:55:42 AM
The line is drawn as soon as contact is made by the boot to ball, at 50 frames per second when the line was drawn the sheff utd player was 2mm offside but that does not constitute a reason to reverse an officials decision never mind using 5 minutes to scrutinise. I think the MLS VAR procedure works much better, the video ref has a quick review of an incident to look for an obvious error by the officials, meanwhile for the most part, the game proceeds.
Whats the margin of error then? 5mm? 10mm? You have said it yourself, he was offside. Clear and Obvious error does not apply to offside decisions, its a matter of fact.
The clear and obvious error applies to the decision the officials made before the VAR intervention. Personally I believe they should have introduced VAR intervention gradually, rather than landing like a full blown Spanish Inquisition.
But thats my point. The premier league guidance states that "VAR can be used to overturn a subjective decision if a "clear and obvious error" has been identified. "
"Factual decisions such as whether a player is onside or offside, or inside or outside the penalty area, will not be subject to the clear and obvious test."
"Factual offside decisions will be based on the evidence provided by fully calibrated offside lines."
That's fair enough but I am referring specifically to the VAR decision which took 4 minutes to split the hair between on and offside. If the ref's on pitch decision cannot be decided upon by VAR within 30 seconds - max one minute for the close call, then the present technology is not efficient or accurate enough to overule a close call by the ref.
My point is that the MLS' current usage of VAR works much better for close calls. That role of VAR in the MLS can change with experience over time and improvements in video technology. ATM the way VAR has been implemented as the pedandic overlord in the EPL operating at snail pace, has succeeded in peeing off just about everybody.
To me it's just amazing that they're made the game much worse by introducing something that should have made it much better. How do you do that? Understandable if you're the first sport in the world to do so but not the case here.
I think Gary Neville got it spot on when he said sometimes there's an arrogance in England that they think they can do it better than anyone else. Instead of reviewing usage in other countries and competitions and coming up with the best practice, they decided to implement their own bespoke approach.
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 12, 2019, 10:50:06 AM
I think Gary Neville got it spot on when he said sometimes there's an arrogance in England that they think they can do it better than anyone else. Instead of reviewing usage in other countries and competitions and coming up with the best practice, they decided to implement their own bespoke approach.
Whats interesting to me is the difference between the way VAR is used for offside and the way Rugby use the TMO for something like judging if a pass was forward or not.
There is none of this craic of drawing lines to judge it to the exact millimetre.
It should be just , on review does that look like an obvious error, yes/no.
The way the refs are mic'd up and in communication with the TMO, and the fact the incident is replayed on the big screen would also vastly improve the VAR process
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on November 12, 2019, 02:14:34 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 12, 2019, 10:50:06 AM
I think Gary Neville got it spot on when he said sometimes there's an arrogance in England that they think they can do it better than anyone else. Instead of reviewing usage in other countries and competitions and coming up with the best practice, they decided to implement their own bespoke approach.
Whats interesting to me is the difference between the way VAR is used for offside and the way Rugby use the TMO for something like judging if a pass was forward or not.
There is none of this craic of drawing lines to judge it to the exact millimetre.
It should be just , on review does that look like an obvious error, yes/no.
The way the refs are mic'd up and in communication with the TMO, and the fact the incident is replayed on the big screen would also vastly improve the VAR process
Rugby isn't as cut and dried though with momentum the pass can go forward anyway even if thrown backwards I think they have to look at the passers hands to determine if they threw the ball backwards. In that case lines aren't much use.
They could possibly use lines to judge an offside for a kick I suppose.
Overall I think VAR will be of benefit but they need to rethink the clear and obvious thing or have a buffer zone for offside if it's taking 3 odd minutes to decide if someone's offside it can't be clear and obvious.
Has it been clarified yet whether or not Bernardo Silva's handball leading to a penalty was or was not a factor?
Because it is going to happen again.
I read somewhere that the decision was that the liverpool handball didn't meet the definition of deliberate. If that's true, then you'd have to wonder about a number of the handball decisions made already this year.
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on November 12, 2019, 02:52:22 PM
I read somewhere that the decision was that the liverpool handball didn't meet the definition of deliberate. If that's true, then you'd have to wonder about a number of the handball decisions made already this year.
I'm going to sound a bit coarse here but one of the key problems with VAR is that we all read opinion pieces on the internet these days and confuse them with official statements.
And another problem is that we don't want to look at VAR cases on their merits individually, we want to look at them as leaderboards where one team is gaining a disproportionate advantage. So even a clear cut call is evaluated against historical "data".
VAR is still shit by the way.
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on November 12, 2019, 02:52:22 PM
I read somewhere that the decision was that the liverpool handball didn't meet the definition of deliberate. If that's true, then you'd have to wonder about a number of the handball decisions made already this year.
Same shite was spouted in the incident at the end of the Arsenal v Villa game. Arsenal defender clearly moves his arm towards the ball, VAR checked it and no pen given. they talked about distance between shot and defender and all that...
The main thing I think VAR has done is remove any set of ballix the refs may have had. They now feel it best to not make a decision and let it be checked in a studio. The ones in the studio don't want to overrule their mate on the pitch. Catch 22
Quote from: screenexile on November 12, 2019, 02:33:22 PM
Quote from: blewuporstuffed on November 12, 2019, 02:14:34 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on November 12, 2019, 10:50:06 AM
I think Gary Neville got it spot on when he said sometimes there's an arrogance in England that they think they can do it better than anyone else. Instead of reviewing usage in other countries and competitions and coming up with the best practice, they decided to implement their own bespoke approach.
Whats interesting to me is the difference between the way VAR is used for offside and the way Rugby use the TMO for something like judging if a pass was forward or not.
There is none of this craic of drawing lines to judge it to the exact millimetre.
It should be just , on review does that look like an obvious error, yes/no.
The way the refs are mic'd up and in communication with the TMO, and the fact the incident is replayed on the big screen would also vastly improve the VAR process
Rugby isn't as cut and dried though with momentum the pass can go forward anyway even if thrown backwards I think they have to look at the passers hands to determine if they threw the ball backwards. In that case lines aren't much use.
They could possibly use lines to judge an offside for a kick I suppose.
Overall I think VAR will be of benefit but they need to rethink the clear and obvious thing or have a buffer zone for offside if it's taking 3 odd minutes to decide if someone's offside it can't be clear and obvious.
The guidance specifically excludes clear and obvious from the offside interpretation. The message seems to be "draw the lines and then the system decides if the player is offside or not". In principle that is fair enough but its seems to be the drawing of the lines that is the problem!
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on November 12, 2019, 02:52:22 PM
I read somewhere that the decision was that the liverpool handball didn't meet the definition of deliberate. If that's true, then you'd have to wonder about a number of the handball decisions made already this year.
That was basically what the official line was. Which, as you say, makes a mockery of some of the other decisions you see given. To me, what TAA did should not be a foul (his arms were moving because his body was moving and the ball richocheted at him very quickly), but under the current ridiculous handball rules and its overall application, it would appear that is was and should have been given, assuming the Silva handball was irrelevant.
But what about the Silva handball?
Quote from: J70 on November 12, 2019, 04:58:33 PM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on November 12, 2019, 02:52:22 PM
I read somewhere that the decision was that the liverpool handball didn't meet the definition of deliberate. If that's true, then you'd have to wonder about a number of the handball decisions made already this year.
That was basically what the official line was. Which, as you say, makes a mockery of some of the other decisions you see given. To me, what TAA did should not be a foul (his arms were moving because his body was moving and the ball richocheted at him very quickly), but under the current ridiculous handball rules and its overall application, it would appear that is was and should have been given, assuming the Silva handball was irrelevant.
But what about the Silva handball?
I think it is irrelevant because that new rule (any contact with the attackers arm deemed a foul) only applies if it creates a goal scoring opportunity. Silva definitely was not a handball in the "normal" interpretation of the rule as there was no way it was deliberate.
To be fair to the officials on Sunday, it really was the perfect storm!
Quote from: thewobbler on November 12, 2019, 03:05:15 PM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on November 12, 2019, 02:52:22 PM
I read somewhere that the decision was that the liverpool handball didn't meet the definition of deliberate. If that's true, then you'd have to wonder about a number of the handball decisions made already this year.
I'm going to sound a bit coarse here but one of the key problems with VAR is that we all read opinion pieces on the internet these days and confuse them with official statements.
And another problem is that we don't want to look at VAR cases on their merits individually, we want to look at them as leaderboards where one team is gaining a disproportionate advantage. So even a clear cut call is evaluated against historical "data".
VAR is still shit by the way.
No confusion here. It's a Premier League statement. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/man-city-liverpool-handball-penalty-17233953 (https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/man-city-liverpool-handball-penalty-17233953)
"The Premier League have explained that a penalty was not awarded as Alexander-Arnold's arm was not in an unnatural position. PGMOL added that there was not enough reaction time for the defender to move his arm out the way."
Quote from: TabClear on November 12, 2019, 05:04:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on November 12, 2019, 04:58:33 PM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on November 12, 2019, 02:52:22 PM
I read somewhere that the decision was that the liverpool handball didn't meet the definition of deliberate. If that's true, then you'd have to wonder about a number of the handball decisions made already this year.
That was basically what the official line was. Which, as you say, makes a mockery of some of the other decisions you see given. To me, what TAA did should not be a foul (his arms were moving because his body was moving and the ball richocheted at him very quickly), but under the current ridiculous handball rules and its overall application, it would appear that is was and should have been given, assuming the Silva handball was irrelevant.
But what about the Silva handball?
I think it is irrelevant because that new rule (any contact with the attackers arm deemed a foul) only applies if it creates a goal scoring opportunity. Silva definitely was not a handball in the "normal" interpretation of the rule as there was no way it was deliberate.
To be fair to the officials on Sunday, it really was the perfect storm!
But surely a penalty is the ultimate goal-scoring opportunity?
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on November 12, 2019, 02:52:22 PM
I read somewhere that the decision was that the liverpool handball didn't meet the definition of deliberate. If that's true, then you'd have to wonder about a number of the handball decisions made already this year.
This is what I mean about the new rules. Did the handball not result in a goal? If it did is whether or not it's intentional not a moot point?
Quote from: J70 on November 12, 2019, 06:24:59 PM
Quote from: TabClear on November 12, 2019, 05:04:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on November 12, 2019, 04:58:33 PM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on November 12, 2019, 02:52:22 PM
I read somewhere that the decision was that the liverpool handball didn't meet the definition of deliberate. If that's true, then you'd have to wonder about a number of the handball decisions made already this year.
That was basically what the official line was. Which, as you say, makes a mockery of some of the other decisions you see given. To me, what TAA did should not be a foul (his arms were moving because his body was moving and the ball richocheted at him very quickly), but under the current ridiculous handball rules and its overall application, it would appear that is was and should have been given, assuming the Silva handball was irrelevant.
But what about the Silva handball?
I think it is irrelevant because that new rule (any contact with the attackers arm deemed a foul) only applies if it creates a goal scoring opportunity. Silva definitely was not a handball in the "normal" interpretation of the rule as there was no way it was deliberate.
To be fair to the officials on Sunday, it really was the perfect storm!
But surely a penalty is the ultimate goal-scoring opportunity?
True, but if they took that approach would they have been obliged to award the free kick to Liverpool in the area, thereby chalking off Fab's goal? ;) As I said, the worst possible scenario for the officials in the biggest game of the season.
In any case I think the PMGOL has specifically said that the Silva handball was irrelevant but I cant find where I read that.
Quote from: David McKeown on November 12, 2019, 07:28:48 PM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on November 12, 2019, 02:52:22 PM
I read somewhere that the decision was that the liverpool handball didn't meet the definition of deliberate. If that's true, then you'd have to wonder about a number of the handball decisions made already this year.
This is what I mean about the new rules. Did the handball not result in a goal? If it did is whether or not it's intentional not a moot point?
Seemingly not.
Though I thought the point of the changes to the handball rule was supposed to circumvent the issue of what was deliberate/intended.
VAR is a mess, but the handball rule is responsible for a significant amount of the mess with penalty/non penalty decisions.
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on November 12, 2019, 05:15:56 PM
Quote from: thewobbler on November 12, 2019, 03:05:15 PM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on November 12, 2019, 02:52:22 PM
I read somewhere that the decision was that the liverpool handball didn't meet the definition of deliberate. If that's true, then you'd have to wonder about a number of the handball decisions made already this year.
I'm going to sound a bit coarse here but one of the key problems with VAR is that we all read opinion pieces on the internet these days and confuse them with official statements.
And another problem is that we don't want to look at VAR cases on their merits individually, we want to look at them as leaderboards where one team is gaining a disproportionate advantage. So even a clear cut call is evaluated against historical "data".
VAR is still shit by the way.
No confusion here. It's a Premier League statement. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/man-city-liverpool-handball-penalty-17233953 (https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/man-city-liverpool-handball-penalty-17233953)
"The Premier League have explained that a penalty was not awarded as Alexander-Arnold's arm was not in an unnatural position. PGMOL added that there was not enough reaction time for the defender to move his arm out the way."
They really need to define/explain the "unnatural position" thing a bit more clearly then.
Because its all over the place right now.
Even the referees themselves can't agree, after the fact.
My preference would be to go back to: if the ref thinks it was deliberate, then it's a penalty.
The attempt to take the subjectivity out of such decisions has resulted in this mess of 'unnatural position' 'silhouettes' distance ball traveled, etc.. And, of course, each of these introduces its own element of subjectivity.
But that's not going to happen, so yeah, some clarifications--and consistency--would help.
Athletic Magazine on why the lines we see for the offside decisions on VAR are not what the decision is based on. Images not included, but you've seen them already most likely.
Why the VAR images you're seeing are not what's really happening
By Jordan Campbell Nov 10, 2019
It's the image you will have been retweeting, debating, analysing and, if you're a fan of Sheffield United, probably hating all weekend.
David McGoldrick's 'goal' against Spurs was ruled out for offside, but what happens when the definitive replay — supposed to prove beyond doubt that VAR had got it right — actually shows the opposite? There's not a lot fans can do apart from argue the facts available to them.
The red line (above) that appeared on the frozen image is intended to denote John Lundstram's foot, the most advanced part of his body, while the blue line represents the left knee of Eric Dier, the deepest defender. These two coloured lines are therefore supposed to show that Lundstram was judged to be marginally offside; however, Dier's head was literally sticking through the red line, suggesting that the VAR officials had got it wrong by pinpointing his knee rather than his head as the relevant body part.
This was not the case, though. It was down to the camera angle used giving a false perspective. The camera in the image above is not in line with Dier and Lundstram, so the view is not accurate. If looked at straight on, it would have been clear that Lundstram was ahead of Dier. (Whether we think this is all too marginal to be changing Premier League football matches is a different part of the ongoing conversation.)
As the image below shows, Dier's knee was in fact in front of his head.
VAR's introduction to the Premier League has been problematic and some of its interpretations have been muddled due to a lack of knowledge of its remit and process. The merits of spending three minutes and 47 seconds micro-analysing the foot placement of a player making not even the initial cross leading to a goal is clearly worth debating, but this article is not an attempt to defend the pedantic nature of the decision. It is intended to explain why the confusing image appeared on your TV as it did.
In the image broadcast to the world, it looks like red line goes through Dier, but it's worth reiterating that the VAR officials are using an HD screen and the line they use is one pixel thick. When they click 'confirm' — once they have settled on exactly where both points should be aligned for the attacker and the defender — the thicker blue and red lines appear for the world to see. They're thicker because it's easier for viewers to see, but they don't give the 3D view of the incident, which is naturally clearer.
Camera operators are dispatched to every stadium to 'map' the dimensions of the pitch from a multitude of angles, thus generating a model for each pitch, which is then loaded into the VAR monitor on match day. The Premier League decided that all broadcast cameras in the stadium will be available to VAR officials, meaning that the crosshair technology — the grid-like graph which is maneuvered to show the offside line and the furthest forward point of the attacker and defender — is capable of guaranteeing the precise location even if there is no parallel camera angle available.
That is due to the dotted line drawn down from the body, for example the one used on Dier's knee, being at a right angle and the technology taking into account the angle of the camera. If the crosshairs move on one camera, they automatically recalculate on all others.
All of this intricate repositioning is available to watch as it unfolds, and it is the crux of the confusion. While the Premier League are comfortable that they eventually made the right decision, their commitment to VAR being transparent and attractive to TV is instead creating a rod for their own back.
They are one of a select few competitions using VAR that chooses to show broadcasters the process of how they come to decisions, and they are the only major league to show a definitive replay after a decision has been overturned. The problem with 'selling' the decision inevitably comes when the image seems to contradict its verdict, just as it did with Dier.
It is understood that the Premier League have no plans to change the use of the red and blue lines. Perhaps being able to listen to the officials at the VAR Hub in Stockley Park would help fans understand the reasoning behind a decision, but they are limited by IFAB protocol which states that video cannot be shown on the big screen before a decision is made and no audio can be played either.
Whether this will be VAR's one and only season in English football remains to be seen. It is a leap the Premier League are committed to, but whether these are teething issues rather than fundamental flaws is something that only time, and the organisation's ability to adapt, can tell
VAR works better for some teams
Working well for Liverpool at the moment
Free in for a push, free out for another push. Don't see the issue.
The ex professional players and commentators have been shaking their heads at that one
Quote from: Ambrose on November 23, 2019, 03:52:42 PM
Free in for a push, free out for another push. Don't see the issue.
Never said there was an issue
Quote from: Dougal Maguire on November 23, 2019, 04:27:25 PM
Quote from: Ambrose on November 23, 2019, 03:52:42 PM
Free in for a push, free out for another push. Don't see the issue.
Never said there was an issue
I was replying to Gerry Fitt, not you Dougie.
Quote from: Ambrose on November 23, 2019, 04:30:03 PM
Quote from: Dougal Maguire on November 23, 2019, 04:27:25 PM
Quote from: Ambrose on November 23, 2019, 03:52:42 PM
Free in for a push, free out for another push. Don't see the issue.
Never said there was an issue
I was replying to Gerry Fitt, not you Dougie.
Clear that up by quoting the post you were replying to, it's finally VAR FC year!
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EKEbNUfWwAAXdgW?format=jpg&name=medium)
:P :P :P :P :P :P
;D
Regardless of ur team affiliations it's now clear that VAR as it's being used in the Premier League is farcical.. Three or four more examples today!!
A lot of VAR decisions we see a still frame of someone being on or offside by millimeters but I'm not convinced it consistent. If they took the still 1 frame before or 1 frame after a lot of times we would still see the ball touching the person passing the balls foot. If a premier league footballer can run nearly 10 meters in a second and if a still frame is say every 100th of a second the difference between choosing 1 still and the next both the defender and attacker could have moved be as much as 10 centimetres in different directions. Definitely enough for the person in the VAR room to have different outcomes and the still frame they choose show their decision to be correct.
The Sterling one was madness. Luckily for City it didn't matter.
Quote from: J70 on November 23, 2019, 08:36:13 PM
The Sterling one was madness. Luckily for City it didn't matter.
It did for a friend of mine. His £200 bet for Sterling to score (he does this bet every time Sterling plays) went down the Swanee.
Quote from: ziggy90 on November 24, 2019, 07:27:51 AM
Quote from: J70 on November 23, 2019, 08:36:13 PM
The Sterling one was madness. Luckily for City it didn't matter.
It did for a friend of mine. His £200 bet for Sterling to score (he does this bet every time Sterling plays) went down the Swanee.
So he bets a grand or more a month. He needs professional help.
Quote from: RedHand88 on November 24, 2019, 12:49:21 PM
Quote from: ziggy90 on November 24, 2019, 07:27:51 AM
Quote from: J70 on November 23, 2019, 08:36:13 PM
The Sterling one was madness. Luckily for City it didn't matter.
It did for a friend of mine. His £200 bet for Sterling to score (he does this bet every time Sterling plays) went down the Swanee.
So he bets a grand or more a month. He needs professional help.
And he's probably a smuggler! ;D
VAR got it right today but such is the confusion it wouldn't have surprised me to see it disallowed
Quote from: RedHand88 on November 24, 2019, 12:49:21 PM
Quote from: ziggy90 on November 24, 2019, 07:27:51 AM
Quote from: J70 on November 23, 2019, 08:36:13 PM
The Sterling one was madness. Luckily for City it didn't matter.
It did for a friend of mine. His £200 bet for Sterling to score (he does this bet every time Sterling plays) went down the Swanee.
So he bets a grand or more a month. He needs professional help.
I'd say he bets a lot more than that, the above is only what I know of. The same man is also very hardworking and also very shrewd.
Worked well in the Euros but back to sillyness again. e.g. the Newcastle goal disallowed for off side back the field.
I think it lost all credibility when they announced they were making it less accurate in order that it would sometimes deliberately make incorrect decisions go over rule assistants and favour attacking teams.
Quote from: David McKeown on August 23, 2021, 04:33:04 PM
I think it lost all credibility when they announced they were making it less accurate in order that it would sometimes deliberately make incorrect decisions go over rule assistants and favour attacking teams.
It's that type of legalistic view that implementers of VAR in England hold that shows a misunderstanding of both the game and the technology, that has pretty much ruined what should be something that made the game much better.
Firstly VAR is not 100% accurate. The timing of the freeze frame and the drawing of the lines can lead to small degree of error.
Secondly, and most importantly the rule is that if you are ahead of the defender you have an advantage and are offside. If you are level with the defender you are onside and do not have an illegal advantage.
The VAR implementers have removed ' level' from the equation. They seem to believe that somebody has to be in front, as if they were judging a 100m final at the Olympics! It's nonsense in my view. A toe being millimeter ahead is not an advantage, when players are in line with each other. All you need to do is look at rugby who use the technology to improve the game, but keep the spirit of the rules intact. Have a look on the screen, level is level is onside. Ahead of the defender is offside.
I thought they have fixed this in England when I heard about the Fernandes goal in week 1, but looking at Match of the Day on Saturday, there were two clear incidents of players being level but being called offside by VAR, including the Newcastle one reference above.
Quote from: Hound on August 24, 2021, 09:03:02 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on August 23, 2021, 04:33:04 PM
I think it lost all credibility when they announced they were making it less accurate in order that it would sometimes deliberately make incorrect decisions go over rule assistants and favour attacking teams.
It's that type of legalistic view that implementers of VAR in England hold that shows a misunderstanding of both the game and the technology, that has pretty much ruined what should be something that made the game much better.
Firstly VAR is not 100% accurate. The timing of the freeze frame and the drawing of the lines can lead to small degree of error.
Secondly, and most importantly the rule is that if you are ahead of the defender you have an advantage and are offside. If you are level with the defender you are onside and do not have an illegal advantage.
The VAR implementers have removed ' level' from the equation. They seem to believe that somebody has to be in front, as if they were judging a 100m final at the Olympics! It's nonsense in my view. A toe being millimeter ahead is not an advantage, when players are in line with each other. All you need to do is look at rugby who use the technology to improve the game, but keep the spirit of the rules intact. Have a look on the screen, level is level is onside. Ahead of the defender is offside.
I thought they have fixed this in England when I heard about the Fernandes goal in week 1, but looking at Match of the Day on Saturday, there were two clear incidents of players being level but being called offside by VAR, including the Newcastle one reference above.
I have two issues with that. Firstly there's no requirement that you have to gain an advantage for it to be offside because what constitutes an advantage is so hard to define. For example you can be closer to the opponents goal line but further from their goal than a defender for example you receive the ball in a wide position. Is that an advantage? What about if you are coming back from an offside position into three or four defenders. Is that an advantage? Similarly that toe may be more of an advantage if it's that few inches which makes the difference between getting the touch and not getting it.
With rules in sport like that one you want to eliminate subjectivity and grey areas as far as possible not introduce more. Otherwise you create (and this is my major problem with VAR) a hierarchy of rules. Whether a foul was inside or outside the box has just as much impact on a game as whether a ball was a corner or a goal kick. Albeit our perception of it's importance may not be the same. When one of those is reviewed even though it's subjective and the objective one is not I feel it leads to even greater injustice on incorrect decisions. Injustice on incorrect decisions being the whole thing it was designed to eliminate.
I've long opposed VAR and I have seen nothing since it's introduction to suggest it's good for the game. The fact the premier league went as far as to say that using this years rules there would have been 20+ more goals allowed last year (wrongly) just to me at least shows how utterly pointless it is.
Quote from: David McKeown on August 24, 2021, 06:22:33 PM
Quote from: Hound on August 24, 2021, 09:03:02 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on August 23, 2021, 04:33:04 PM
I think it lost all credibility when they announced they were making it less accurate in order that it would sometimes deliberately make incorrect decisions go over rule assistants and favour attacking teams.
It's that type of legalistic view that implementers of VAR in England hold that shows a misunderstanding of both the game and the technology, that has pretty much ruined what should be something that made the game much better.
Firstly VAR is not 100% accurate. The timing of the freeze frame and the drawing of the lines can lead to small degree of error.
Secondly, and most importantly the rule is that if you are ahead of the defender you have an advantage and are offside. If you are level with the defender you are onside and do not have an illegal advantage.
The VAR implementers have removed ' level' from the equation. They seem to believe that somebody has to be in front, as if they were judging a 100m final at the Olympics! It's nonsense in my view. A toe being millimeter ahead is not an advantage, when players are in line with each other. All you need to do is look at rugby who use the technology to improve the game, but keep the spirit of the rules intact. Have a look on the screen, level is level is onside. Ahead of the defender is offside.
I thought they have fixed this in England when I heard about the Fernandes goal in week 1, but looking at Match of the Day on Saturday, there were two clear incidents of players being level but being called offside by VAR, including the Newcastle one reference above.
I have two issues with that. Firstly there's no requirement that you have to gain an advantage for it to be offside because what constitutes an advantage is so hard to define. For example you can be closer to the opponents goal line but further from their goal than a defender for example you receive the ball in a wide position. Is that an advantage? What about if you are coming back from an offside position into three or four defenders. Is that an advantage? Similarly that toe may be more of an advantage if it's that few inches which makes the difference between getting the touch and not getting it.
With rules in sport like that one you want to eliminate subjectivity and grey areas as far as possible not introduce more. Otherwise you create (and this is my major problem with VAR) a hierarchy of rules. Whether a foul was inside or outside the box has just as much impact on a game as whether a ball was a corner or a goal kick. Albeit our perception of it's importance may not be the same. When one of those is reviewed even though it's subjective and the objective one is not I feel it leads to even greater injustice on incorrect decisions. Injustice on incorrect decisions being the whole thing it was designed to eliminate.
I've long opposed VAR and I have seen nothing since it's introduction to suggest it's good for the game. The fact the premier league went as far as to say that using this years rules there would have been 20+ more goals allowed last year (wrongly) just to me at least shows how utterly pointless it is.
I bet you're fun at parties.
I'm well aware I'm not
Quote from: Cobra on August 25, 2021, 10:02:08 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on August 24, 2021, 06:22:33 PM
Quote from: Hound on August 24, 2021, 09:03:02 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on August 23, 2021, 04:33:04 PM
I think it lost all credibility when they announced they were making it less accurate in order that it would sometimes deliberately make incorrect decisions go over rule assistants and favour attacking teams.
It's that type of legalistic view that implementers of VAR in England hold that shows a misunderstanding of both the game and the technology, that has pretty much ruined what should be something that made the game much better.
Firstly VAR is not 100% accurate. The timing of the freeze frame and the drawing of the lines can lead to small degree of error.
Secondly, and most importantly the rule is that if you are ahead of the defender you have an advantage and are offside. If you are level with the defender you are onside and do not have an illegal advantage.
The VAR implementers have removed ' level' from the equation. They seem to believe that somebody has to be in front, as if they were judging a 100m final at the Olympics! It's nonsense in my view. A toe being millimeter ahead is not an advantage, when players are in line with each other. All you need to do is look at rugby who use the technology to improve the game, but keep the spirit of the rules intact. Have a look on the screen, level is level is onside. Ahead of the defender is offside.
I thought they have fixed this in England when I heard about the Fernandes goal in week 1, but looking at Match of the Day on Saturday, there were two clear incidents of players being level but being called offside by VAR, including the Newcastle one reference above.
I have two issues with that. Firstly there's no requirement that you have to gain an advantage for it to be offside because what constitutes an advantage is so hard to define. For example you can be closer to the opponents goal line but further from their goal than a defender for example you receive the ball in a wide position. Is that an advantage? What about if you are coming back from an offside position into three or four defenders. Is that an advantage? Similarly that toe may be more of an advantage if it's that few inches which makes the difference between getting the touch and not getting it.
With rules in sport like that one you want to eliminate subjectivity and grey areas as far as possible not introduce more. Otherwise you create (and this is my major problem with VAR) a hierarchy of rules. Whether a foul was inside or outside the box has just as much impact on a game as whether a ball was a corner or a goal kick. Albeit our perception of it's importance may not be the same. When one of those is reviewed even though it's subjective and the objective one is not I feel it leads to even greater injustice on incorrect decisions. Injustice on incorrect decisions being the whole thing it was designed to eliminate.
I've long opposed VAR and I have seen nothing since it's introduction to suggest it's good for the game. The fact the premier league went as far as to say that using this years rules there would have been 20+ more goals allowed last year (wrongly) just to me at least shows how utterly pointless it is.
I bet you're fun at parties.
Invariably, this type of statement is uttered by someone who thinks they are a great laugh but whom everyone else considers to be a complete dose of dung.
The "ah fcuk, here comes this slabber" sort.
Quote from: Franko on August 26, 2021, 08:55:37 AM
Quote from: Cobra on August 25, 2021, 10:02:08 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on August 24, 2021, 06:22:33 PM
Quote from: Hound on August 24, 2021, 09:03:02 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on August 23, 2021, 04:33:04 PM
I think it lost all credibility when they announced they were making it less accurate in order that it would sometimes deliberately make incorrect decisions go over rule assistants and favour attacking teams.
It's that type of legalistic view that implementers of VAR in England hold that shows a misunderstanding of both the game and the technology, that has pretty much ruined what should be something that made the game much better.
Firstly VAR is not 100% accurate. The timing of the freeze frame and the drawing of the lines can lead to small degree of error.
Secondly, and most importantly the rule is that if you are ahead of the defender you have an advantage and are offside. If you are level with the defender you are onside and do not have an illegal advantage.
The VAR implementers have removed ' level' from the equation. They seem to believe that somebody has to be in front, as if they were judging a 100m final at the Olympics! It's nonsense in my view. A toe being millimeter ahead is not an advantage, when players are in line with each other. All you need to do is look at rugby who use the technology to improve the game, but keep the spirit of the rules intact. Have a look on the screen, level is level is onside. Ahead of the defender is offside.
I thought they have fixed this in England when I heard about the Fernandes goal in week 1, but looking at Match of the Day on Saturday, there were two clear incidents of players being level but being called offside by VAR, including the Newcastle one reference above.
I have two issues with that. Firstly there's no requirement that you have to gain an advantage for it to be offside because what constitutes an advantage is so hard to define. For example you can be closer to the opponents goal line but further from their goal than a defender for example you receive the ball in a wide position. Is that an advantage? What about if you are coming back from an offside position into three or four defenders. Is that an advantage? Similarly that toe may be more of an advantage if it's that few inches which makes the difference between getting the touch and not getting it.
With rules in sport like that one you want to eliminate subjectivity and grey areas as far as possible not introduce more. Otherwise you create (and this is my major problem with VAR) a hierarchy of rules. Whether a foul was inside or outside the box has just as much impact on a game as whether a ball was a corner or a goal kick. Albeit our perception of it's importance may not be the same. When one of those is reviewed even though it's subjective and the objective one is not I feel it leads to even greater injustice on incorrect decisions. Injustice on incorrect decisions being the whole thing it was designed to eliminate.
I've long opposed VAR and I have seen nothing since it's introduction to suggest it's good for the game. The fact the premier league went as far as to say that using this years rules there would have been 20+ more goals allowed last year (wrongly) just to me at least shows how utterly pointless it is.
I bet you're fun at parties.
Invariably, this type of statement is uttered by someone who thinks they are a great laugh but whom everyone else considers to be a complete dose of dung.
The "ah fcuk, here comes this slabber" sort.
David, please come and collect your Da....
I'm sure that sounded funny in your head.