VAR? For or against

Started by Denn Forever, March 07, 2019, 11:37:07 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Main Street

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.

magpie seanie

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.

AZOffaly

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.

blewuporstuffed

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
I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either

screenexile

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.

J70

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.

Jell 0 Biafra

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.

thewobbler

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.

lurganblue

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

TabClear

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!

J70

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?

TabClear

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!

Jell 0 Biafra

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

"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."


J70

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?

David McKeown

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?
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner