VAR? For or against

[AZOffaly]

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.

[Esmarelda]

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?

[thewobbler]

.... because it's in any sport's interests (in terms of marketing, publicity and happy memories) to make attacking play a more attractive proposition.

[imtommygunn]

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).

[TabClear]

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.

[imtommygunn]

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.

[trailer]

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. 

[TabClear]

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.

[Ambrose]

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.

[David McKeown]

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.

[David McKeown]

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.

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.

[RedHand88]

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.

[Tony Baloney]

Totally against it in its current usage.

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.

[Billys Boots]

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. 

[whitey]

The ball ricocheted off the city players arm before it hit the Liverpool players arm

Did that fact play into yesterday's "decision"?