Author Topic: VAR? For or against  (Read 3014 times)

TabClear

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1487
    • View Profile
Re: VAR? For or against
« Reply #90 on: November 12, 2019, 07:39:43 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.

Jell 0 Biafra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 977
    • View Profile
Re: VAR? For or against
« Reply #91 on: November 12, 2019, 07:41:49 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.

J70

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11974
    • View Profile
Re: VAR? For or against
« Reply #92 on: November 12, 2019, 08:35:57 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."

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.

Jell 0 Biafra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 977
    • View Profile
Re: VAR? For or against
« Reply #93 on: November 12, 2019, 09:14:02 PM »
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.

Jell 0 Biafra

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 977
    • View Profile
Re: VAR? For or against
« Reply #94 on: November 12, 2019, 09:39:51 PM »
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