Archiestephens_elbow
Well-known member
That is the truest thing you will read on the Internet today
VAR.... AGAIN!!
- Thread starter Michael_Vronsky
- Start date
That is the truest thing you will read on the Internet today
Marvanelli
Well-known member
That was a penalty for me.
And we all know if it was Rashford/Martial/Fernandes etc in the other box, Man Utd would've been given it.
They used to say Man Utd and Fergie 'bought' referees with 'Fergie Time'....well it looks like nothing has changed when it comes to VAR.
The penalty at Villa Park last week was an embarrassment and last night Palace should've had a penalty.
The offside was close but in the end, the right decision was made.
VAR was supposed to get all these blatant and obvious decisions that referee's have missed or made a mistake, correct. Instead it's causing more problems.
And we all know if it was Rashford/Martial/Fernandes etc in the other box, Man Utd would've been given it.
They used to say Man Utd and Fergie 'bought' referees with 'Fergie Time'....well it looks like nothing has changed when it comes to VAR.
The penalty at Villa Park last week was an embarrassment and last night Palace should've had a penalty.
The offside was close but in the end, the right decision was made.
VAR was supposed to get all these blatant and obvious decisions that referee's have missed or made a mistake, correct. Instead it's causing more problems.
Erimus74
Well-known member
boromike85
Well-known member
VAR isn't the problem. VAR is a process that referees can use to make a decision. The problem, as it has always been, is the standard of refereeing is shockingly poor. Pre-VAR you could give them the benefit of the doubt because they had to make a split-second decision. With VAR it is just evident that they are incompetent. We really need to do something about the quality of refereeing in this country. VAR helps them get more decisions right than they used to but it will never be perfect because it still relies on someone making a decision.
As said above though. VAR has limitations. It can only overturn an on field decision if it is clear and obvious. That was probably a penalty last night but it wasn't clearly a wrong a decision so it can't be overturned. Last weeks was probably not a penalty but the on field decision was penalty and it wasn't clearly a wrong decision so again couldn't be overturned. The on field referee was probably wrong on both occasions. Getting rid of VAR wouldn't have made the decision different.
Marvanelli
Well-known member
' Last weeks was probably not a penalty but the on field decision was penalty and it wasn't clearly a wrong decision so again couldn't be overturned. '
Are you referring to Utd's penalty at Villa Park?
Because VAR came out after the game and even admitted they made a mistake and should've overturned the decision.
It was never a penalty in the whole time football has been played. Fernandes stood on the defender and it should've been a freekick to Villa if anything.
Agree VAR isn't the problem. The amount of idiots behind the screens making these calls are the problem.
Are you referring to Utd's penalty at Villa Park?
Because VAR came out after the game and even admitted they made a mistake and should've overturned the decision.
It was never a penalty in the whole time football has been played. Fernandes stood on the defender and it should've been a freekick to Villa if anything.
Agree VAR isn't the problem. The amount of idiots behind the screens making these calls are the problem.
Erimus74
Well-known member
Maybe I jumped the gun in saying VAR is the problem, but for me they should have used it when calling out blatent cheating it's been debated long & hard for a number of years now
Going on referring & you are correct the standard seems to be getting worse, a few years back they decided to go professional, it didn't make the slightest difference with decision making, maybe fitness wise, but nothing else, IMHO, referees will be always be swayed by the presence of the crowds
newusername
Well-known member
Saha is doing stepovers, there is a touch on the ball knocking it forward, & then their legs make contact bringing them both down.
I think the only person that can knock it forward is the defender.
So for me it was a tackle.
boromike85
Well-known member
That is definitely what happened but the question is did the defender touch the ball first or the man. It's inconclusive hence the on field decision standing.
newusername
Well-known member
In the NFL once it goes to video replay there are three outcomes:
If the video evidence confirms they got it right: The referee announces “After further review, the ruling on the field is confirmed.”
If the video shows they got it wrong: The referee announces “After further review, the ruling is reversed. [followed by a brief description of what happened].”
If there is no conclusive evidence to support or reverse the on-field ruling: The referee announces “After further review, the ruling on the field stands"
Basically supports rather than undermines the officials & (hopefully) prevents clear miscarriages of justice.
boromike85
Well-known member
And that's how it should be with VAR. The lack of transparency via the announcement is what we are missing. That's also how it works with other sports like Cricket and Rugby as well.
The theory of VAR works. The communication and the additional rules like handballs for attackers is where it doesn't work. Despite what others say there is nothing wrong with the way they do offsides either but even that could be improved by just using a higher framerate video feed. What matters is consistency and they at least apply that rule consistently. It won't be long before that is done by AI which will speed up the decision and increase the accuracy.
Archiestephens_elbow
Well-known member
Yes, cricket rugby etc have it sorted why not football??
Because every decision goes to the big boys
Michael_Vronsky
Well-known member
The margin of error encompasses two things only. One, if you're a 'big' club. Two, if you're a 'small' club.
Scrote
Well-known member
Other sports have had problems too and they've addressed them.
e.g. Umpires call in cricket is based on a margin of error with the ball hitting the stumps.
e.g Forward Pass in rugby is now based on the hand direction at release not the direction the ball travels.
Football needs to decide which rules (or laws for the pedants) it wants enforcing and then needs to work the technology around those or amend them to fit the technology.
At the moment we have the rules being enforced by technology but written for people.
Until they can guarantee millisecond accuracy they need to have a margin of error for offside.
Until they can call every foul instantly, they need a defined cut-off point for transgressions which could disallow a goal. Football doesn't have natural stops close enough together to do what rugby & cricket do.
Also, they need to sort out the game-time issue.
e.g. Umpires call in cricket is based on a margin of error with the ball hitting the stumps.
e.g Forward Pass in rugby is now based on the hand direction at release not the direction the ball travels.
Football needs to decide which rules (or laws for the pedants) it wants enforcing and then needs to work the technology around those or amend them to fit the technology.
At the moment we have the rules being enforced by technology but written for people.
Until they can guarantee millisecond accuracy they need to have a margin of error for offside.
Until they can call every foul instantly, they need a defined cut-off point for transgressions which could disallow a goal. Football doesn't have natural stops close enough together to do what rugby & cricket do.
Also, they need to sort out the game-time issue.
boromike85
Well-known member
They do have a margin for error but margins for error work both ways. They pick a particular frame using a 60fps video feed. That could cause the player to be more onside or offside. They don't need to add another margin for error because then they are deliberately saying "this is offside but we're going to give it as onside because it is close". If you add further error then you still get players that are offside by 1mm because all you have done is moved the line to an artificial point. E.g. If you made it 1m margin for error then anyone that is 1.001m offside would have been onside if they were only 1m off.
What you are asking for is attackers to be allowed to be offside. An actual improvement, to reduce the chance of errors, would be to use a higher frame rate video of 120 or 240fps. 120 would be better than the millisecond accuracy you have asked for at 0.83ms per frame. The current rate is 1.67ms per frame.
Scrote
Well-known member
No, you're wrong on how it would need to work. I explained it in my earlier post with terrible diagrams.
If the margin is 1m then you would clearly be offside for any normal observation. Therefore, if you were beyond the margin by 1mm you would be 1.001m offside which would be very clear, There wouldn't be any argument about frames or moments as the offside would be obvious and you wouldn't lose anything in that extra mm.
As it stands now, you might be objectively onside by 1mm but get ruled offside because of frame-rates etc. Without a margin of error if the frame shows you 1mm offside then you're offside.
With a margin of error you create a Schrodingers Cat version of offside that is on & off until the decision is made. You may be objectively offside but within the margin of error so be given the benefit of the doubt. Once you're outside the margin of error then you'd be offside by a large enough margin that no-one would be arguing the toss.
I accept that people will query the margin size itself but as long as it's consistent it won't matter. It's like the "half-a-ball width" in cricket. Why not three-quarters? It doesn't matter as long as all measurements are the same.
boromike85
Well-known member
If you accept this then why not just accept the current situation? That is exactly what we have. We already have a consistent approach.
Scrote
Well-known member
Firstly, the above quote quite clearly demonstrates why VAR is unnecessary. It was brought in to clear up wrong decisions and has just introduced a whole new set of decisions that we're arguing about, whilst getting some very simple stuff wrong. Four or five big decisions in the last couple of days (depending on whether you think the Saha incident was a pen). That is more than I remember for any similar number of games in the past (I accept we're cramming them in at the moment so the timescale is shorter).
If you accept this then why not just accept the previous situation?
The current format is obviously causing problems. If the professional players aren't happy with it and the managers aren't happy with it and the pundits aren't happy with it and most of the fans aren't happy with it then it probably needs changing.
What we currently have isn't consistent. That's the point.
If it was consistent we would know the exact moment boot touches ball and would have an exact freeze-frame of player positions, every single time. The fact we can't get a precise 'decision moment' means the technology can't, by any definition, be consistent for any form of consistent that doesn't accept wrong.
If you're happy with wrong decisions then why bother with VAR at all?
If you just want a technology crutch to spare the linesman the occasional blush go and find another sport.
Ilsan_Boro
New member
For me one of the joys of the game used to be winning against teams you hated courtesy of a dodgy decision - and the dodgier the better.
Of course, that works the other way too sometimes but if you can't handle that, go and watch some other sport was always my answer.
Of course, that works the other way too sometimes but if you can't handle that, go and watch some other sport was always my answer.