VAR Discussion thread

eigrod

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Theyre trying so hard to give the title to Liverpool they disallowed a Sheff Utd goal and let the ref assist one for City. Worst cheats ever.

Not to mention the penalty & retake City got 2 days ago. Just the 4 big decisions for them in 2 days.

j8wk2feszrnpao

beggars_bush wrote: »

Not once this season in the Premier League has a referee gone to a pitchside monitor to view the replays. Joke

What will that change? Honest question. I don't get what benefit that brings.

We saw the ref in the World Club Cup award a pen and gave a yellow. VAR informed him that it was outside the box. He went to the monitor, and somehow gave a drop ball?
The drop ball made no sense. If not a foul, it should have been a goal kick.
But there was clear contact outside, so it should have been a foul and a red.

The ref lost his mind a bit on that. I don't trust PL refs not to do something similar. Influenced by the time it takes to get to the monitor, review a number of angles/lines, crowd whistling, those on the sideline maybe shouting over at him, managers gesturing.....

I largely defend VAR (esp when they call it right, and yet some people still just give out), but I'm not blind to it's failing as well. It drastically needs to improve upon it communications. We should hear the discussion on what they are checking and reviewing and how they reach their conclusion. But it's the first season, can it not be allowed to be given time to improve? The calls to bin it are ridiculous and immature; the "death of football" is hyperbole nonsense.

Guy:Incognito

Weepsie wrote: »

But they're not. They can say they are calibrating it all they want, but you can look at the same indicident from 2 angles and draw different conclusions. They could spend hours and still not be 100%. When it's that marginal, I don't believe they should be going against the call on the pitch.

The call on the pitch is complete guesswork when its any way close. It cant be anything but. A linesman cant look at all the players in a line as well as judging the exact moment a ball is hit anything up to 50 meters away , all in real time. with any degree of accuracy.

So the alternative to VAR is the old system of "ah sure they equal themselves out over the season".

Its ruling out close calls but the old system of basically a coin toss was worse. Just because it was worse straight away is colouring peoples view of it.

noodler

munstermagic11 wrote: »

If I'm reading that right, it has given as many as it's taken away? And that's the death of football?

Emm...zero sum game?

Any var decision for a team is by definition a bar decision against another?

It will always "give as many as it takes away" surely?

Guy:Incognito

munstermagic11 wrote: »

What will that change? Honest question. I don't get what benefit that brings.

We saw the ref in the World Club Cup award a pen and gave a yellow. VAR informed him that it was outside the box. He went to the monitor, and somehow gave a drop ball?
The drop ball made no sense. If not a foul, it should have been a goal kick.
But there was clear contact outside, so it should have been a foul and a red.

The ref lost his mind a bit on that. I don't trust PL refs not to do something similar. Influenced by the time it takes to get to the monitor, review a number of angles/lines, crowd whistling, those on the sideline maybe shouting over at him, managers gesturing.....

I largely defend VAR (esp when they call it right, and yet some people still just give out), but I'm not blind to it's failing as well. It drastically needs to improve upon it communications. We should hear the discussion on what they are checking and reviewing and how they reach their conclusion. But it's the first season, can it not be allowed to be given time to improve? The calls to bin it are ridiculous and immature; the "death of football" is hyperbole nonsense.

The VAR should be confirming with the on field ref what the appropriate punishment is. if its a clear rule that results in X then he says that so theres no ambiguity. The ref cant get it wrong if he only has 1 option and if he still ****s it up then drop the hammer on him. The VAR just says "well I told him exactly what had to happen and he didnt do it".

Where theres a choice of outcome he can be given the choices and a recommendation.

Daemonic

The lines drawn over pixellated toes is doing VAR no favours. Drop the lines completely, look at the freeze frame and decide if the player is level. If they aren't obviously offside then there is no obvious error and the goal is allowed.

Edit: And the review of the freeze frame should be made by the assistant ref on that end of the pitch, in consutation with the referee if required so the decision is owned by the officials on the pitch.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The VAR should be confirming with the on field ref what the appropriate punishment is. if its a clear rule that results in X then he says that so theres no ambiguity. The ref cant get it wrong if he only has 1 option and if he still ****s it up then drop the hammer on him. The VAR just says "well I told him exactly what had to happen and he didnt do it".

Where theres a choice of outcome he can be given the choices and a recommendation.

I'm not getting what you are saying. I don't really see where the benefit is.

If there's only one option, then VAR can tell the ref. No need to go to the monitor.

But if it's an opinion based decision, then have the ref go over to the monitor and re-examine his own decision and then make a call? I see some logic here (it's the refs call), but I reckon we'll end up with the same baggage (i.e. people will stay say how did he come to that decision after taking all that time to run over to a monitor and watch replay after replay).

cj maxx

VAR in its current form will not be in the EPL next year.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Daemonic wrote: »

The lines drawn over pixellated toes is doing VAR no favours. Drop the lines completely, look at the freeze frame and decide if the player is level. If they aren't obviously offside then there is no obvious error and the goal is allowed.

Define obviously.
I ask, because people will have different opinions on that. Freeze frames from different angles will tell different stories (which is why they use the tech to draw the lines).

I understand people have ideas on how to improve things, never a bad thing. But you do need some definition to apply it to a law or guideline so that we get consistency.

Guy:Incognito

All in all, theres 10 goals less this season than last at the 20 game mark (still Liverpool - Wolves game in hand to play to make it 20 for everyone). Hardly a massive difference being made.

Feel free to check other seasons

Owl.

.G. wrote: »

As seen above, the Sterling one was the first "armpit" effort its just that they never actually said that word until Firmino and everyone has lost their sh!t about it since then. It's not the actual armpit thats off, its just a word to describe the part of the body where the arm joins the torso

Is that not the same as saying "It's not the actual foot that's off, it's just a word to describe the part of the body where the leg ends"?

Guy:Incognito

munstermagic11 wrote: »

I'm not getting what you are saying. I don't really see where the benefit is.

If there's only one option, then VAR can tell the ref. No need to go to the monitor.

But if it's an opinion based decision, then have the ref go over to the monitor and re-examine his own decision and then make a call? I see some logic here (it's the refs call), but I reckon we'll end up with the same baggage (i.e. people will stay say how did he come to that decision after taking all that time to run over to a monitor and watch replay after replay).

They cant be communicating it right if mistakes are being made when theres only 1 option(your example of the world club final) .

Regardless of whether the on field ref is looking at a monitor, my point was about the communication. Even if its quite obvious what the outcome needs to be, the VAR should say it and the ref should confirm, to stop silly errors.

Rule out silly mistakes where possible is all im getting at.

monkey9

Daemonic wrote: »

The lines drawn over pixellated toes is doing VAR no favours. Drop the lines completely, look at the freeze frame and decide if the player is level. If they aren't obviously offside then there is no obvious error and the goal is allowed.

Edit: And the review of the freeze frame should be made by the assistant ref on that end of the pitch, in consutation with the referee if required so the decision is owned by the officials on the pitch.

This is the obvious and common sense approach to offside decisions with VAR. The whole point of it is to use technology to help officals out when they've made blatant errors.

VAR for me is not meant to be ruling out the five goals that were disallowed this weekend. They were all onside looking at the freeze frames and that's all it should take to make the decision, not calibrating lines and angles.

Guy:Incognito

cjmc wrote: »

VAR in its current form will not be in the EPL next year.

Therell be changes and tweaks made, just like there is to any other rule.

VAR can only check what the law says, if the law says x part of the body is offside then sobeit. If people dont like the offside rule, change the offside rule. Getting rid of VAR wont change the offside rule, itll just go back to refs and linesmen not being able to tell the difference in real time, itd still be offside according to the law.

.G.

Owl. wrote: »

Is that not the same as saying "It's not the actual foot that's off, it's just a word to describe the part of the body where the leg ends"?

Clearly not. I mean think about the armpit, how would it even be possible to score a goal with it! Arm fully up in the air and then jump at the ball armpit first.

.G.

beggars_bush wrote: »

The only way of ending 30 years without the title for Liverpool was to bring in a system that's bent and can be manipulated.
The whole of the country knows it too

Not once this season in the Premier League has a referee gone to a pitchside monitor to view the replays. Joke

Whats your username on bluemoon mate?

j8wk2feszrnpao

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

They cant be communicating it right if mistakes are being made when theres only 1 option(your example of the world club final) .

Well VAR told the ref to check the replay, and we saw VAR put up foul outside, bu the ref decided no foul (baffling).
In this case VAR should have been able to tell the ref it was outside, a foul, and a red. No to have the ref go over to the monitor (and confuse himself).

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Rule out silly mistakes where possible is all im getting at.

I hope they get there. Listening on the conversation would help with that, so maybe allow the ref/VAR discussion be heard. Might also get players to back off rather than crowding the ref with their hands over their mouth.

j8wk2feszrnpao

.G. wrote: »

Clearly not. I mean think about the armpit, how would it even be possible to score a goal with it! Arm fully up in the arm and then jump at the ball armpit first.

The armpit thing was weird. If the ball hits your armpit, it's hitting the inside of your arm.

dfx-

munstermagic11 wrote: »

I reckon they are getting more right than the officials. And they are showing that (as marginal as it might be) that they are getting most calls right (even if people don’t like it).
So if someone is a few cm onside, and VAR shows it, the onfield decision stands, even if wrong?
Define marginal? Cause you need that.

You don't need to define anything. This is the idea of changing the rule instead of changing what VAR does.

Ban the use of measuring sticks for offside, use your eye. If it's inconclusive, let the original decision stand.

j8wk2feszrnpao

dfx- wrote: »

You don't need to define anything. This is the idea of changing the rule instead of changing what VAR does.

Ban the use of measuring sticks for offside, use your eye. If it's inconclusive, let the original decision stand.

You do need to define it. That's why VAR was brought in, fans/managers/players were b1thcing about refs getting it wrong.

Look at Wolves today. The first goal was a legit goal, and VAR got it right. Yet Coady starting the b1tching about VAR correctly overturned a wrong handball decision. No mention that they defended a simple ball over the top like a Sunday League team, just finger pointing at VAR.

bluefinger

munstermagic11 wrote: »

You do need to define it. That's why VAR was brought in, fans/managers/players were b1thcing about refs getting it wrong.

Look at Wolves today. The first goal was a legit goal, and VAR got it right. Yet Coady starting the b1tching about VAR correctly overturned a wrong handball decision. No mention that they defended a simple ball over the top like a Sunday League team, just finger pointing at VAR.

This. Players need to stfu and get on with it. So much whining is killing the game not var. Nes coming out afterwards and crying about the 'feeling of the game' also beyond ridiculous. What? Because of emotions you're supposed to reverse decisions?
Decisions both correct albeit the second was tight. Though if the offside was against them for a goal you're damn sure they'd be giving out about that.

dfx-

You don't need to define it, take away the measuring sticks and look at it, call it as you see it like the rest of VAR. Give the advantage to the attacking team. The same principle as the assistant with the flag is using.

No-one would complain if the Wolves goal had been given today..or Pukki..or Mousset based on advantage.

Coady was bitching about the process - how no-one was able to tell him anything while talking to the ref. He wasn't told what was being looked at, which offside is being looked at, by how much, what the delay was.

j8wk2feszrnpao

dfx- wrote: »

You don't need to define it, take away the measuring sticks and look at it, call it as you see it like the rest of VAR.

You do need to define it and Coady proven it. Obviously they were checking the handball. He would have been told that at HT or even FT, after which he was interviewed, and he still b1tched about it. Never mentioned their poor defending of a simple ball over the top; deflection stuff.

If the ref failed to tell them at the time that VAR checked it and didn’t relay that to him, ok, needs to be improved. But it was obvious. Is he unable to see 1 + 1 = 2? It wasn’t the most difficult deduction to make.

I also believe that VAR decisions/checks are announced over the PA system at Anfield.

dfx- wrote: »

Give the advantage to the attacking team. The same principle as the assistant with the flag is using.

No-one would complain if the Wolves goal had been given today..or Pukki..or Mousset based on advantage.

What advantage? They were offside according to the current rules.
I’m asking you to define what offside should be. Souness came up with “as long as some part of you is onside”. You’ll still get marginal calls, but these toe/armpit ones might go away.

Again, I’ve no problem with trying to allow these stand, but you need a rule change or some definition for VAR as to the extent you allow “advantage”.

dfx-

VAR doesn't need definition in any other respect so it doesn't need it for offside. The referee's assistant is not using any definition either than their own judgment and that's what VAR should do. No lines.

j8wk2feszrnpao

dfx- wrote: »

VAR doesn't need definition in any other respect so it doesn't need it for offside. The referee's assistant is not using any definition either than their own judgment and that's what VAR should do. No lines.

There’s a definition of offside (used by linesmen), VAR implements it. If you want to change it, what’s the new definition?

If you want VAR to use no lines, then it comes down to a judgement call solely and we’re back to where we started, fans/players/managers moaning about the refs/linesman judgement wishing technology would be used to get it right.

BorneTobyWilde

Bending a run was an art form top strikers did to gain an edge, now it's ruled out as offside if you lean over those magical VAR lines.
Easiest and fairest way is to just use the players feet to decide the offside, not as if a player can send his head forward to score a goal and leave his legs behind.
They should also use a thicker line, the equivalent of a foot or half a foot, a threshold, that way a big toe is not given offside, unless it breaches that threshold, then it's clear it was.

beggars_bush

I guarantee if Ferguson was still managing that VAR would have been dropped already this season

osarusan

dfx- wrote: »

You don't need to define anything. This is the idea of changing the rule instead of changing what VAR does.

Ban the use of measuring sticks for offside, use your eye. If it's inconclusive, let the original decision stand.

2 minutes later Sky will have their own images with lines showing that the attacker was 6 inches offside and fans and players and managers will go mental.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Therell be changes and tweaks made, just like there is to any other rule.

VAR can only check what the law says, if the law says x part of the body is offside then sobeit. If people dont like the offside rule, change the offside rule. Getting rid of VAR wont change the offside rule, itll just go back to refs and linesmen not being able to tell the difference in real time, itd still be offside according to the law.

So you agree the Wolves goal last night was correctly ruled offside and yet they're only doing so Liverpool can cheat?

Nunu

osarusan wrote: »

2 minutes later Sky will have their own images with lines showing that the attacker was 6 inches offside and fans and players and managers will go mental.

No they wouldn’t 6 inches would be clear & obvious...that’s half a foot.

It’s plain as day these offside decisions, the mm ones, are no good for the game at all. End of. Nobody can complain if they scrap these frankly amateur looking ‘CAD’ lines and go with just looking at all the angles and if they look level they’re level. Carry on.

Btw I’m very much pro VAR. the PL have made a balls if it. What they’re trying to prove by not giving their refs access to pitch side monitors I don’t know? Just making the refs look like lame ducks standing there for 3 or 4 mins while the offsite refs deliberate. This is actually the major issue in my mind. They gotta bite the bullet and mic the ref up & whole process shown to fans on screens.

Nunu

I didn’t see post match Wolves interviews but definitely during the game they were incensed that referee blew his whistle, twice, for handball in lead up to Mané goal. This is a whole separate issue to VAR letting the goal stand. Ref messed up there. Should never have blown. Asked VAR to check for him if he thought he saw handball.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Nunu wrote: »

I didn’t see post match Wolves interviews but definitely during the game they were incensed that referee blew his whistle, twice, for handball in lead up to Mané goal.

He blew the whistle after the ball crossed the goal-line, not during the lead up.

CSF

beggars_bush wrote: »

I guarantee if Ferguson was still managing that VAR would have been dropped already this season

VAR isn’t going to be dropped. The offside rule will be changed. Other than offsides VAR has already become a whole lot less controversial as time goes on.

I don’t know if the offside rule is going to be changed mid-season, but it won’t last the course. There is too much pressure on for it to not be.

I’m still interested as to what the change will be. I’m not in favour of changing the threshold for offside, because you’re then just moving the arbitrary line, and people will still freak out when a goal is disallowed for being on the brink of that line.

Instead, I’d prefer to abandon the lines they’re using, and adopt a clear and obvious approach that they’re using for other decisions. If the VAR ref can see an offside with his own eyes, based on the print screen available he gives it. If he can’t, the goal stands.

Quazzie

munstermagic11 wrote: »

The armpit thing was weird. If the ball hits your armpit, it's hitting the inside of your arm.

Apart from people on here having hissy fits, and the likes of Paddy Power on facebook looking for reactions, have you seen armpit mentioned anywhere else?

I think it was mentioned once, and now it's the go to buzzword for morons who want to be negative about marginal offsides caught by VAR.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Nunu wrote: »

It’s plain as day these offside decisions, the mm ones, are no good for the game at all.

So if over a cm, then it’s ok? What’s allowed, and what’s not?

Nunu wrote: »

Nobody can complain if they scrap these frankly amateur looking ‘CAD’ lines and go with just looking at all the angles and if they look level they’re level. Carry on.

Of course there will be complaints, we’ve seen people argue over ridiculously tight calls, that’s why VAR was brought in.

Nunu wrote: »

What they’re trying to prove by not giving their refs access to pitch side monitors I don’t know? Just making the refs look like lame ducks standing there for 3 or 4 mins while the offsite refs deliberate. This is actually the major issue in my mind.

Don’t know why having the ref go to the monitor would help. They’d still need to see all the replays and take at least as much time, while being pressured by fans and sideline staff. If a ref decides an offside call was marginal, but stays with the decision (lines removed), then you’ll get people who will be of the opinion that it wasn’t offside and slate the ref.

Nunu wrote: »

They gotta bite the bullet and mic the ref up & whole process shown to fans on screens.

While I’d like to see that happen, I’m not sure it’d resolve everything. As Coady proven, even for an obvious non handball, they’ll finger point at something other than themselves.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Quazzie wrote: »

Apart from people on here having hissy fits, and the likes of Paddy Power on facebook looking for reactions, have you seen armpit mentioned anywhere else?

I think it was mentioned once, and now it's the go to buzzword for morons who want to be negative about marginal offsides caught by VAR.

I’ve never heard it before in football for offsides. I’m not sure why they used it on that occasion and for the Kane disallowed goal (the two instances I’ve seen, might be more). Something they may look at for next season.

Fitz*

CSF wrote: »

VAR isn’t going to be dropped. The offside rule will be changed. Other than offsides VAR has already become a whole lot less controversial as time goes on.

I don’t know if the offside rule is going to be changed mid-season, but it won’t last the course. There is too much pressure on for it to not be.

I’m still interested as to what the change will be. I’m not in favour of changing the threshold for offside, because you’re then just moving the arbitrary line, and people will still freak out when a goal is disallowed for being on the brink of that line.

Instead, I’d prefer to abandon the lines they’re using, and adopt a clear and obvious approach that they’re using for other decisions. If the VAR ref can see an offside with his own eyes, based on the print screen available he gives it. If he can’t, the goal stands.

It cannot be changed mid-season. That would be worse than what is currently happening.

The only thing consistent with the current instance of VAR rules, specifically the offside lines, is that it is consistent for all 20 teams, for and against.

Changing it mid-season would mean for example Norwich v Spurs Pukki has a goal ruled offside marginally and they lose out on 2 points and in the reverse fixture with changed rules, hypothetically Kane scores a marginal offside goal which is ruled onside after the rule change. Only Norwich get screwed this way.

The rules have to stay the way they are this season, but hopefully next season we see a change to the offside rule and a sort of 'buffer' or margin of error introduced for the offside decisions - a 6 inch buffer or something to allow for a slight difference in time of when the ball is actually played. If you are in and around that buffer you are onside. If you are going to mms to decide whether you are in the buffer or not, then just give it offside as you already are getting the benefit of the buffer, so trying to get a 2nd advantage is too much.

PhlegmyMoses

munstermagic11 wrote: »

So if over a cm, then it’s ok? What’s allowed, and what’s not?


Of course there will be complaints, we’ve seen people argue over ridiculously tight calls, that’s why VAR was brought in.


Don’t know why having the ref go to the monitor would help. They’d still need to see all the replays and take at least as much time, while being pressured by fans and sideline staff. If a ref decides an offside call was marginal, but stays with the decision (lines removed), then you’ll get people who will be of the opinion that it wasn’t offside and slate the ref.


While I’d like to see that happen, I’m not sure it’d resolve everything. As Coady proven, even for an obvious non handball, they’ll finger point at something other than themselves.

I don't think that you are fully grasping what people have an issue with here. Whilst these decisions are probably technically correct (I am dubious about that), they go against the spirit of the offside law and take the game in a direction that people do not want. Offside is to stop goal hanging, not catch somebody's armpit offside. You cannot hand wave away people's feelings about this by saying "Well ackshually, these are computer assisted lines and the law states that even 1cm......" This is all well and good but people's argument is that even if it is technically correct according to the law, they don't feel like it is adding any value to the game by getting into micro detail on these incidents.

There has been a tendency to call people idiots or not understanding the laws either, because the decision is technically correct, which misunderstands what is bothering people about it. It is telling that most pros seem to dislike the system, and incidents like this wont win doubters over. I am actually a fan of VAR as well, being a big rugby fan and all that, but the way that it oh s being implemented has not been beneficial and it is getting involved in some silly things.

PhlegmyMoses

Quazzie wrote: »

Apart from people on here having hissy fits, and the likes of Paddy Power on facebook looking for reactions, have you seen armpit mentioned anywhere else?

I think it was mentioned once, and now it's the go to buzzword for morons who want to be negative about marginal offsides caught by VAR.

It's from the Pukki decision. The line used measured up to his armpit. His arm was offside so the starting point from where he could be offside was armpit/shoulder. So morons/actual thing that happened, potato/potato

Quazzie

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

It's from the Pukki decision. The line used measured up to his armpit. His arm was offside so the starting point from where he could be offside was armpit/shoulder. So morons/actual thing that happened, potato/potato

His armpit or his shoulder? Did VAR state armpit, or is that the buzzword people keep using? Lallanna proved yesterday, a shoulder can be offside.

citytillidie

When have rules ever changed mid season ? Sure when rules where changed in the summer the LOI they will not start in the LOI until this season, the old rules applies until the season is over

PhlegmyMoses

Quazzie wrote: »

His armpit or his shoulder? Did VAR state armpit, or is that the buzzword people keep using? Lallanna proved yesterday, a shoulder can be offside.

No, VAR doesn't state anything, it's a program used by refs to assist the on field ref with technology. The ref doesnt say anything either, because they don't explain their decisions and are not mic'd up. People are making light of a pretty stupid way that football has decided to go about using this technology. But you seem to be getting upset over something pretty minuscule and are calling people morons, so I may just leave you at it.

ebbsy

If both attacker and defender's bodies cross each other then that should not be offside.

It is not difficult.

Quazzie

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

No, VAR doesn't state anything, it's a program used by refs to assist the on field ref with technology. The ref doesnt say anything either, because they don't explain their decisions and are not mic'd up. People are making light of a pretty stupid way that football has decided to go about using this technology. But you seem to be getting upset over something pretty minuscule and are calling people morons, so I may just leave you at it.

I'm not getting upset over anything to be honest. I just find the use of armpit as a pretty good indicator of the kind of person I'm dealing with. People (like yourself it seems) use the word as a way to discredit VAR somehow. It drags the conversation unnecessarily off topic, because they can't accept the fact that 1mm offside is still offside. It's black and white. There is no grey area in offside calls, and VAR does an absolutely fantastic job of proving that.

shamrock55

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

It's from the Pukki decision. The line used measured up to his armpit. His arm was offside so the starting point from where he could be offside was armpit/shoulder. So morons/actual thing that happened, potato/potato

I think the armpit was first mentioned for a disallowed firmino goal a few weeks back

PhlegmyMoses

Quazzie wrote: »

I'm not getting upset over anything to be honest. I just find the use of armpit as a pretty good indicator of the kind of person I'm dealing with. People (like yourself it seems) use the word as a way to discredit VAR somehow. It drags the conversation unnecessarily off topic, because they can't accept the fact that 1mm offside is still offside. It's black and white. There is no grey area in offside calls, and VAR does an absolutely fantastic job of proving that.

Does it? Have asked the question a few times, how do they determine the moment the ball is kicked by the passing player?

Edit: And either way, the "Ackshually it is technically correct" argument ignores the overall point. A lot of people think that VAR has no business getting involved in those type of marginal calls. It is not what the offside law was designed for, even if they are technically correct. Something will have to give because these decision are ridiculous and against the spirit of the law and what it is trying to prevent.

Quazzie

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Does it? Have asked the question a few times, how do they determine the moment the ball is kicked by the passing player?

Live HD TV is shown at 60fps, so every frame is 1/60th of a second. It's pretty easy to go frame by frame to see that one second the ball is touching the foot, and the next it's not. The last frame where there is contact is when the ball is kicked.

If 1/60th of a second isn't a small enough time frame for you, it's relatively easy to shoot in 120fps.

I'm not sure if UHD is actually more than 60fps, it might already be possible.

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

Edit: And either way, the "Ackshually it is technically correct" argument ignores the overall point. A lot of people think that VAR has no business getting involved in those type of marginal calls. It is not what the offside law was designed for, even if they are technically correct. Something will have to give because these decision are ridiculous and against the spirit of the law and what it is trying to prevent.

What you (and others) are talking about is a change in the rules of the game, and this isn't the problem of VAR.

j8wk2feszrnpao

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

I don't think that you are fully grasping what people have an issue with here.

I get what people have an issue with. It's the very marginal calls. And don't get me wrong, I understand that. But they you need to redefine what VAR should/shouldn't check or the margin that they are meant to allowed for that has consistency, improves the games and eliminates this argument.

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

You cannot hand wave away people's feelings about this by saying "Well ackshually, these are computer assisted lines and the law states that even 1cm......" This is all well and good but people's argument is that even if it is technically correct according to the law, they don't feel like it is adding any value to the game by getting into micro detail on these incidents.

I'm not dismissing their feelings. But we're talking about the laws of the game, at some point that is what needs to be addressed, or the protocols used by VAR. VAR has given back the same amount of goals as it's taking away (referring to the graph that was used), but people are going a bit nuts that it's taken away from the game (without mentioning what it's added). Carragher did that in the studio, he went on about he goals tit took away, but not what it gave back.

PhlegmyMoses wrote: »

There has been a tendency to call people idiots or not understanding the laws either, because the decision is technically correct, which misunderstands what is bothering people about it. It is telling that most pros seem to dislike the system, and incidents like this wont win doubters over. I am actually a fan of VAR as well, being a big rugby fan and all that, but the way that it oh s being implemented has not been beneficial and it is getting involved in some silly things.

Well, this is what managers/players/fans wanted. I mean, we knew this going into the season, that VAR would be used. It was always likely that there would be incredibly tight calls, but it would at least be accurate (or far more accurate than the officials).

I've no problem with people having a rant. But then come up with something that will work. Because I assure you, if you want to remove black or white decision making, and reintroduce "seeing with the eye", you'll have the same issues that led to being VAR being introduced.

Of course, like Coady for the first goal, for some they'll just rant away no matter what, cause nothing is their own fault.

PhlegmyMoses

Quazzie wrote: »

Live HD TV is shown at 60fps, so every frame is 1/60th of a second. It's pretty easy to go frame by frame to see that one second the ball is touching the foot, and the next it's not. The last frame where there is contact is when the ball is kicked.

If 1/60th of a second isn't a small enough time frame for you, it's relatively easy to shoot in 120fps.

I'm not sure if UHD is actually more than 60fps, it might already be possible.




What you (and others) are talking about is a change in the rules of the game, and this isn't the problem of VAR.

I know the technology that is available, but are they using it for the point of passing? Do we have confirmation? Rugby uses ridiculous frame rate footage to determine if a ball has been lost before being dotted down for a try. But I have no idea what football is using, I only see the footage being used for the offside line, whi h seems to be where all the focus is. I am dubious whether they have close ups on players feet for every angle so we can determine when the pass is released either. Then you have to correlate that to where the player was in his run. I dont feel like that is happening - we would have seen footage trying to correlate the pass and the movement of the receiver surely - and I am not sure that you can be very accurate with it anyway. So what we likely have is micro detail at an accurate level for a slight bit of a body part being offside, using an approximation of when the ball is kicked. Which can still be wrong if what we are looking for is ultimate accuracy.

And yes, I am not looking to get rid of VAR, I think it is great. Either change the law or get it out of that specific scenario because it is harming rather than enhancing the game.

LuckyLloyd

Apply the UEFA / FIFA system, piggyback on their development stream and job done.