VAR - A Suggestion

Otto42 said:
I dont see why you cant let the linesman make the decision and then check if a goal results. If it is a clear howler overturn or otherwise go with 'linesman's call' similar to cricket.

Therefore, the protocol being all marginal decisions are with the onfield official. This allows for there being a margin of error with the technology, depending on where tv frames are frozen and lines drawn.
Click to expand...

How do you determine a clear howler though? Won't it just result in the same arguments between what is a clear howler and what isn't? You're still using the same marginal differences no matter where you move the goalposts.
 
davepoland said:
If VAR is used "it should be clear and obvious", if they can't decide in say 30 seconds it's not "clear and obvious".
Click to expand...

I was just about to post the exact same point. VAR uis supposed to be used to overturn clear and obvious mistakes. All decisions should be time limited, even 15 seconds should be enough. If you need to search for the mistake then it is not clear and obvious.
 
The logic behind VAR is brilliant. It's the idiots behind the monitors using it that are the clowns.

A decision shouldn't take any longer than 30 seconds. If it does, then the decision should be left to the on field referee.

Some of the decisions (and lack of decisions) this season with VAR have been ridiculous and embarrassing.

If the decisions are not improved drastically, then just bin it.

It's simple. Use it properly or don't use it at all.
 
VAR is changing the way in which the game is enjoyed.

Ball is smashed into the net, GGGGOOOOOOOAAAAaaaaaallll... (or is it?)

Wait a bit

Wait a bit more

And a bit longer...

2 minutes later... OK you can celebrate now/no that wasn't a goal (delete as appropriate) The poor batsards at the Wolves match must have had to go home and find out why their goal was disallowed!

I mean it's just shight. The pedants who think that getting a decision "right" (whatever that means) is the most important issue confronting the game are talking from an inappropriate orifice. FFS it is rank awful. It is killing football as a spectacle. It is making the elite game fundamentally different from the grass roots game.

Chappy112 earlier asked "How do you determine a clear howler though?" And I think that is a good point. No-one on the pitch was appealing for anything. If you really want to right clear wrongs then there has to be a "challenge" procedure where the team captain or perhaps manager/coach can challenge a decision. In this case I suspect that no challenge would have been made. Additionally, information needs to be given to the poor punters in the crowd, they should be shown the replay on a big screen and/or hear the decision of the referee which should be (in this case) something like "Offside number 8, in an offside position as the pass was played".

The current implementation is simply not fit for purpose.
 
Chappy112 said:
So again, how do you define it? Either way you’re still going to have toenail sized decisions.
Click to expand...

As I have said before (read the thread) you define it in the same way as fouls and handballs are decided ie you leave it to the referee to make a judgment on how bad the infringement is and whether or not it's worthy of blowing the whistle for

Not all fouls are black and white - referee decides and can use VAR to help come to a decision

Not all handballs are black and white - referee decides and can use VAR to help come to a decision

A toenail from a player that's 10 yards from the action is not black and white, IMO it's pathetic and pedantic - but referee decides and can use VAR to help come to a decision
 
Marvanelli said:
A toe nail or 3 foot.

Offside if offside. It's black & white.
Click to expand...

This is just...wrong. First, it's however it's defined at the time, and the rulemakers can adjust it if they want. Second, this half an inch stuff is (a) not possible to define on the telly, and (b) undesirable in the context of a fast moving sport.

Here's a thought - if you have to use video replays (and you don't), why not just play them at full speed? That'll sort out "clear and obvious".
 
Buddy said:
This is just...wrong. First, it's however it's defined at the time, and the rulemakers can adjust it if they want. Second, this half an inch stuff is (a) not possible to define on the telly, and (b) undesirable in the context of a fast moving sport.

Here's a thought - if you have to use video replays (and you don't), why not just play them at full speed? That'll sort out "clear and obvious".
Click to expand...

This. Otherwise, 'umpires' call.
 
boromike85 said:
Of all the things wrong with VAR offside isn't one of them. It's a black and white decision. You are either onside or offside. There is no "not offside enough to make a difference". If it was the linesman making the same decision then there would be no complaints.

Wherever you decide is the new tolerance level will still have marginal calls.

I don't like the time it takes to do things but there is absolutely nothing wrong with a correct decision being made just because it was marginal.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it isn't. The camera doesn't run at enough frames per second to determine the exact point in which the ball was kicked and the player is offside/onside. There is enough of a margin to render the "lines" approximate. This should all be a moot point to a degree anyway because these marginal call's are not the reason why the offside rule was brought in.
 
Humpty said:
Unfortunately it isn't. The camera doesn't run at enough frames per second to determine the exact point in which the ball was kicked and the player is offside/onside. There is enough of a margin to render the "lines" approximate. This should all be a moot point to a degree anyway because these marginal call's are not the reason why the offside rule was brought in.
Click to expand...

That's not true. That was a rumour based on bad maths by a reporter early in the season. The cameras are more than good enough. Either way, as long as the process is consistent then it doesn't matter.
 
red_harrington said:
As I have said before (read the thread) you define it in the same way as fouls and handballs are decided ie you leave it to the referee to make a judgment on how bad the infringement is and whether or not it's worthy of blowing the whistle for

Not all fouls are black and white - referee decides and can use VAR to help come to a decision

Not all handballs are black and white - referee decides and can use VAR to help come to a decision

A toenail from a player that's 10 yards from the action is not black and white, IMO it's pathetic and pedantic - but referee decides and can use VAR to help come to a decision
Click to expand...

You're still not really answering the question, your way just leaves even more grey area for fans to argue about because they'll be saying "well this was given offside last week and deemed to be a bad infringement but this one wasn't". At least at the moment we can see exactly what the process is with the offside.
 
boromike85 said:
That's not true. That was a rumour based on bad maths by a reporter early in the season. The cameras are more than good enough. Either way, as long as the process is consistent then it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Have you got a link to anything supporting that?
 
Premier League Offside Guide

This shows that the cameras used are operating at 50 frames per second. There is obviously a margin of error but it is not what was stated in the reports, from the Daily Mail of course, which used maths to prove how there is up to a 38.8cm margin of error by using the fastest speed recorded in the PL and assuming both the attacker and defender were running that speed in opposite directions and the difference between the 2 frames was the maximum error.

I might have been a bit over zealous in saying it wasn't true. It is true, if we are being black and white, but sensationalist. There is a margin for error but it is small and the method to identify it is consistent. Consistency is the main issue and the technology allows decisions made to be far more consistent than a linesman can make them. There is also a margin of error with goal line technology but we seem happy enough to accept that.

Technology will also improve. We will soon be using cameras with more fps, we will have AI deciding when contact was made, where players are and whether or not they are offside and it will be instant. There is no need to deny progress just because it gives us margin calls.

I do agree by the way with the spirit of the game being questioned when it is said that the offside rule isn't there for that purpose but that is a problem with the rules, not VAR.
 
Why don't they just bring back the 'daylight' offside rule?

Yes it will favour attackers and result in more goals, less VAR decisions, but isn't that a good thing?
 
Daylight was never a rule and it gives far too much advantage to the attacker. This would probably lead to defenders being forced to play really deep which would result in fewer goals.

The "problem" would still be the same anyway, there will be marginal calls.
 
boromike85 said:
Daylight was never a rule and it gives far too much advantage to the attacker. This would probably lead to defenders being forced to play really deep which would result in fewer goals.

The "problem" would still be the same anyway, there will be marginal calls.
Click to expand...
If it was never a rule, we don't know do we? It would result in less VAR calls I think, although yes there could still be marginal calls.

TBH anything's better than the sh1t show we have now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top