VAR Discussion thread

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

The var is a ref too. Just let them make the decision and tell the ref on or off.
Less delay for offside then.

If that worked, we wouldn't be having this discussion!!


VAR officials are trying too hard to look for something that isn't there.

joe_99

At least at 10cm the player will be very visually offside. No more studs, toes and armpits.

SickBoy

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If that worked, we wouldn't be having this discussion!!


VAR officials are trying too hard to look for something that isn't there.

Before VAR, rules were open to interpretation based on what the ref and his/her assistants saw transpire.
Now there's no room for interpretation. So for instance, if there is a fraction of a millimeter in an offside decision and it can be measured using the footage available to them then they are bound by the laws of the game to award offside.

I don't like VAR, but it's what we're stuck with for the moment unfortunately

ArmaniJeanss

joe_99 wrote: »

At least at 10cm the player will be very visually offside. No more studs, toes and armpits.

He'll be very visibly off-side at 9cm as well. But it won't be given, and doubtless it would happen in a high profile match early in the season.

But I think this idea has to go past IFAB anyway, and I can't seeing it being a flyer despite the UK having 4 of the 8 places on that body. I'd hope the other four members don't cave in to what appears to be an English only problem. Accepting the concept of a margin would be a fundamental rewrite of the offside rule.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

SickBoy wrote: »

Before VAR, rules were open to interpretation based on what the ref and his/her assistants saw transpire.
Now there's no room for interpretation. So for instance, if there is a fraction of a millimeter in an offside decision and it can be measured using the footage available to them then they are bound by the laws of the game to award offside.

I don't like VAR, but it's what we're stuck with for the moment unfortunately

But that wasn't really the spirit of the rule.

If it was then, even before VAR, it was expecting the,on-field referee to get it right down to the millimeter even without tech. And putting a different number on it wing make any difference.

In any case, it's not VAR its the rule.

Years ago it was cganged so that level was onside to make the game more industry and give the attacker the advantage. Now it seems we'ven gone backwards

SickBoy

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

.

Years ago it was cganged so that level was onside to make the game more industry and give the attacker the advantage. Now it seems we'ven gone backwards

I completely agree with you.
They're looking for reasons to disallow goals rather than look for reasons to allow them.

Quazzie

So the only thing that VAR gets right 100% of the time they are changing it so it can be wrong some of the time.

Just get rid of it if that's the nonsense that's going to go on.

Quazzie

So the only thing that VAR gets right 100% of the time they are changing it so it can be wrong some of the time.

Just get rid of it if that's the nonsense that's going to go on.

joe_99

Quazzie wrote: »

So the only thing that VAR gets right 100% of the time they are changing it so it can be wrong some of the time.

Just get rid of it if that's the nonsense that's going to go on.

Totally incorrect. There is a margin of error in the offside VAR decisions.

Quazzie

joe_99 wrote: »

Totally incorrect. There is a margin of error in the offside VAR decisions.

And the current proposal is to make that margin of error considerably larger. So large in fact that if a player is 3 inches offside, then he is deemed inside.

Ridiculous.

joe_99

Quazzie wrote: »

And the current proposal is to make that margin of error considerably larger. So large in fact that if a player is 3 inches offside, then he is deemed inside.

Ridiculous.

I'll say again offside is not 100% today under VAR. That is a fact. The 10 cm rule will reduce the current margin of error by taking account of frame rates and ball leaving foot problems.

Richard Hillman

10cm is nothing. It's not even the phone I am typing on. 30cm will be clear enough.

Quazzie

joe_99 wrote: »

I'll say again offside is not 100% today under VAR. That is a fact. The 10 cm rule will reduce the current margin of error by taking account of frame rates and ball leaving foot problems.

Sky HD is 50fps. Which means it is accurate within 1/50th of a second. That's accurate enough to make it 100% in my opinion.

It's funny how you think that 1/50th of a second isn't good enough but 10cm is better.

Shanotheslayer

Quazzie wrote: »

Sky HD is 50fps. Which means it is accurate within 1/50th of a second. That's accurate enough to make it 100% in my opinion.

It's funny how you think that 1/50th of a second isn't good enough but 10cm is better.

If you've ever played games, 50FPS is nothing.

Unless I'm mistaken and it's different

osarusan

As I said earlier, it's one thing to make a law about any (goalscoring) part of the body being offside when human ability alone will never be able to spot the offside toenails and armpits. Human ability will only spot the more obvious ones, the 'real offsides'.

Then VAR comes along and has the ability to spot the offside toenails and and armpits. I dare say the people who wrote the original law never envisioned the kind of offside decisions VAR is now enabling. There's widespread agreement that this is not what offside 'should' be. So now there is a conundrum.

So, what are the potential solutions:

Just keep things as they are?
Abandon VAR for offsides?
Use VAR differently (one view, no lines, etc)?
Rewrite the law?
Offer (invent?) a margin for error to eliminate the toenail and armpit calls?

Liberta Per Gli Ultra

NewRed2 wrote: »

Anyway, offsides weren't even the half of it, so they're focusing on one tiny element of the problem.

VAR has had a majorly negative impact on football, that's the bottom line. So just remove it and let the ref have the monitor pitch-side and tell him to use it if he needs to for major events and just get on with it other than that.
Football without being able to celebrate goals is half the sport it used to be.

Spot on. You have a depressing situation now in the bigger leagues around Europe, where supporters and players cannot celebrate a goal wholeheartedly because they know somebody is playing "spot the infringement" with a piece of tech in the background.

In the past, everyone in the stadium and watching on TV could instantly and instinctively celebrate a goal scored or mourn a goal conceded, with the exception of the odd goal that looked dubious and required a glance at the officials first. The co-commentators on the coverage were free to say "that looks marginal but take nothing away from the goal", similar to what they say in rugby when a try is scored from a potentially forward pass.

ArmaniJeanss

Liberta Per Gli Ultra wrote: »

Spot on. You have a depressing situation now in the bigger leagues around Europe, where supporters and players cannot celebrate a goal wholeheartedly because they know somebody is playing "spot the infringement" with a piece of tech in the background.

I don't think I've seen one instance where fans haven't celebrated a goal with the same enthusiasm as before. I've seen the odd exception with players (Mane was a bit subdued after a goal and as it turned out the goal got pulled back for handball).
But in general your argument seems to be that allowing a goal to stand despite handball, offside or a foul in the build-up is better than people having their celebrations proven to be wrong.
That seems a bad argument to me.

Liberta Per Gli Ultra wrote: »

In the past, everyone in the stadium and watching on TV could instantly and instinctively celebrate a goal scored or mourn a goal conceded, with the exception of the odd goal that looked dubious and required a glance at the officials first. The co-commentators on the coverage were free to say "that looks marginal but take nothing away from the goal", similar to what they say in rugby when a try is scored from a potentially forward pass.

I really don't recall commentators having such a calm attitude to marginal decisions. 30 minute heated debates afterwards, yeah. Calm rugby-type acceptance of the vagaries of refereeing, jesus no.
Maybe I watched different TV stations.

osarusan

The whole 'taking away from the enjoyment of the game' argument isn't one I find all that strong. Other sport such as rugby, American football, cricket, tennis, plenty of other sports really, have adapted to it and now it's just part of the game.

This will happen in football also.

DM_7

VAR should be simple.

Goal is scored, video referee checks for offside via a freezeframe. If it is not an obvious offside then it is not given as offside. No drawing lines or any of that.

Needs to be for obvious mistakes.

Handballs etc should only be checked if ref asks for a check.

joe_99

Quazzie wrote: »

Sky HD is 50fps. Which means it is accurate within 1/50th of a second. That's accurate enough to make it 100% in my opinion.

It's funny how you think that 1/50th of a second isn't good enough but 10cm is better.

https://mobile.twitter.com/jonawils/status/1160241782506086401

Read this thread. Players moving at 25kph can travel 13.8cm in 1/50th of a second. Stop on the wrong frame and a player can be on or offside. Pretty much impossible to confirm the exact frame a ball leaves the foot.

dfx-

osarusan wrote: »

The whole 'taking away from the enjoyment of the game' argument isn't one I find all that strong. Other sport such as rugby, American football, cricket, tennis, plenty of other sports really, have adapted to it and now it's just part of the game.

This will happen in football also.

All sports with huge breaks in play built into the game already, unlike football. If the keeper holds onto the ball for more than six seconds, people complain.

joe_99

osarusan wrote: »

The whole 'taking away from the enjoyment of the game' argument isn't one I find all that strong. Other sport such as rugby, American football, cricket, tennis, plenty of other sports really, have adapted to it and now it's just part of the game.

This will happen in football also.

Football is a very low scoring game with often only one scoring event per game. All the sports you listed above are high scoring games.

The release on a scoring event is what makes the game great. Some goals are celebrated for years afterwards

SickBoy

osarusan wrote: »

The whole 'taking away from the enjoyment of the game' argument isn't one I find all that strong. Other sport such as rugby, American football, cricket, tennis, plenty of other sports really, have adapted to it and now it's just part of the game.

This will happen in football also.

I hope you're wrong

Liam O

Boots with sensors and only the feet mattering is the only way of doing offside with tech and have it not be nitpicked imo. A quicker timeline designed to only eliminate obvious wrong decisions would be the best of the current ideas.

osarusan

joe_99 wrote: »

Football is a very low scoring game with often only one scoring event per game.

Surely this is a reason for ensuring that the goals themselves are valid?


I don't disagree that it takes away from the occasion, but that's a price worth paying (within limits).


Remember that VAR didn't come out of nowhere, it came out of years of people whining endlessly about bad decisions. Just as people celebrate goals for years, they whine for years about goals that should have or shouldn't have stood.

SickBoy

osarusan wrote: »

I don't disagree that it takes away from the occasion, but that's a price worth paying (within limits)

I disagree.
Goal line technology was a massive step in the right direction, it's fast and accurate.
VAR is just too slow to make decisions and the excitement is lost, like some of the electricity is gone from the game.

osarusan

SickBoy wrote: »

I disagree.
Goal line technology was a massive step in the right direction, it's fast and accurate.
VAR is just too slow to make decisions and the excitement is lost, like some of the electricity is gone from the game.

Fair enough, that's just something I don't think we'll ever agree on.

Fitz*

SickBoy wrote: »

I disagree.
Goal line technology was a massive step in the right direction, it's fast and accurate.
VAR is just too slow to make decisions and the excitement is lost, like some of the electricity is gone from the game.

VAR, or the people using it?

One thing VAR is doing is highlighting the poor standard of refereeing in the top divisions, especially the older generations.

While originally I had a problem with the minimal distance offside decisions, I have come to terms with it as it is basically applying the rules correctly, exactly. But it's now a case that the technology available has grown past the rules that were written up so many years ago. Maybe the 10cm (or whatever distance they pick) buffer will work here as it will stop the minimal distances being chalked off, as the attacker is being given an extra benefit of the doubt. These minimal decisions are the real ire of football fans and VAR as a whole really. The lines coming out to measure whether a person is inside or outside the buffer zone should not come into the equation. If you are looking for that much of an extra advantage including the buffer, just rule it offside, as it originally was.

Penalty decisions, over ruling fouls on goalkeepers and red cards etc are still going to be subjective. I don't think VAR should be allowed to over-rule on field referees as it is one subjective opinion over-ruling the other. What I think should happen is that the VAR referee instructs the on-field referee to view the pitch side monitor and take a second look. Let the on field referee have another look from more angles and either change or back up his own original decision. The game is already stopped anyways so it is not going to be a game-stopping moment.

For example Michael Oliver was the referee for the Man Utd 1 Everton 1 game, where DDG was challenged for a ball and spilled it and Everton scored. He allowed it as it was legal in his opinion. The VAR referee (Craig Pawson) also allowed it as in his opinion, the goalkeeper was just being weak. Craig Pawson was also the on field referee in the Liverpool - Man Utd game and allowed the challenge on DDG in the build up for a goal. He allowed the goal, but the VAR referee just said no goal and that was it. One opinion overruling another.

The handball rule was changed before this season so anybody blaming VAR about those goals being ruled out, or penalties not being given, are really just looking for another stick to beat VAR with even though they are not VAR ruling them out. Just helping the referee spot rule breaks.

dfx-

FitzShane wrote: »

VAR, or the people using it?

You can't separate the two and it can take time to go through a decision if we are chasing in vain 100% accuracy on a selection of decisions. There's no way around it.

It doesn't highlight the poor refereeing standard at all, it picks and chooses what it intervenes on with all the tools and time it has that the referee doesn't. If the referee on the pitch had the unlimited time VAR seems to enjoy to make a decision, they might get more 'right' too.

Every referee decision is an interpretation, an opinion. As long as one on field ref is consistent in 90 minutes, you can't ask for more. Pawson was consistent..

The handball rule was changed to suit a black and white VAR attitude so as not to consider intent, so it is a valid stick to beat it with.

jbt123

Milan Juve semi final of the Coppa d'Italia.. Juve with a last minute penalty.. Horrendous decision.

There is no way that AC get that decision in Turin.

Never change Italy, never change.

osarusan

jbt123 wrote: »

Milan Juve semi final of the Coppa d'Italia.. Juve with a last minute penalty.. Horrendous decision.

There is no way that AC get that decision in Turin.

Never change Italy, never change.

Atrocious decision.

I didn't see the match, just a replay of the 'handball' on youtube.

Did the referee give it originally and not overturn after VAR, or only give it after VAR?

Fitz*

dfx- wrote: »

You can't separate the two and it can take time to go through a decision if we are chasing in vain 100% accuracy on a selection of decisions. There's no way around it.

It doesn't highlight the poor refereeing standard at all, it picks and chooses what it intervenes on with all the tools and time it has that the referee doesn't. If the referee on the pitch had the unlimited time VAR seems to enjoy to make a decision, they might get more 'right' too.

Every referee decision is an interpretation, an opinion. As long as one on field ref is consistent in 90 minutes, you can't ask for more. Pawson was consistent..

The handball rule was changed to suit a black and white VAR attitude so as not to consider intent, so it is a valid stick to beat it with.

What are your thoughts on last night's incident with Harry Maguire? The same referee sent off Son against Chelsea for pretty much the same incident of kicking the player from a position lying on the ground. A reaction kick. Last night he chose not to send off the player for the same incident.

No consistency. And he didn't go to the monitor either. I'm sure if he had went to the monitor, he would have seen the incident again, properly, and probably sent off the player.

I also don't think that Willian dived when the referee booked him for diving. tbf VAR could not intervene as it was not a penalty incident so it's more on the referee making a bad judgement.

I also think that the referee made the wrong call on the handball before Mount hit the post, but am open to correction here. I know that if the ball strikes the hand accidentally, for scorer or assister, and a goal is scored then it gets ruled out. But the referee blew his whistle here just as the shot was taken which eventually hit the post. I thought that only goals were ruled out after the event by VAR, and not supposed to halt any attack. How was the referee to know that the shot was to result in a goal.

I still think if they continued to use VAR for offsides, which is currently working to an extremely high consistency but changed the other incidents to VAR instructing the on-field referee to look at the monitor, we should see a higher level of consistency. The on-field referee last night

ArmaniJeanss

FitzShane wrote: »

I also think that the referee made the wrong call on the handball before Mount hit the post, but am open to correction here. I know that if the ball strikes the hand accidentally, for scorer or assister, and a goal is scored then it gets ruled out. But the referee blew his whistle here just as the shot was taken which eventually hit the post. I thought that only goals were ruled out after the event by VAR, and not supposed to halt any attack. How was the referee to know that the shot was to result in a goal.

You are way off here.
The rule is that the attacking handball leads to a goal-scoring chance, not just a goal. A direct shot on target is clearly a chance, so at that stage the referee having spotted Batshuaiy's handball has to blow.
And it's nothing to do with VAR per se, it's now a rule of the game. If the exact same sequence of events took place in an amateur game then the ref should blow for a free out.

Fitz*

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

You are way off here.
The rule is that the attacking handball leads to a goal-scoring chance, not just a goal. A direct shot on target is clearly a chance, so at that stage the referee having spotted Batshuaiy's handball has to blow.
And it's nothing to do with VAR per se, it's now a rule of the game. If the exact same sequence of events took place in an amateur game then the ref should blow for a free out.

Yeah that's fair enough. I said I was open to correction on the ruling whether it is 'chance' and not 'goal', that's fine I will take that bit back. Yeah I know it's nothing to do with VAR, just easier to implement with VAR. I can understand while the rule was brought in too. I don't really have a problem with the rule at all.

The other points I made stand though.

ArmaniJeanss

FitzShane wrote: »

The other points I made stand though.

Yes, the rest is good

dfx-

FitzShane wrote: »

What are your thoughts on last night's incident with Harry Maguire? The same referee sent off Son against Chelsea for pretty much the same incident of kicking the player from a position lying on the ground. A reaction kick. Last night he chose not to send off the player for the same incident.

No consistency. And he didn't go to the monitor either. I'm sure if he had went to the monitor, he would have seen the incident again, properly, and probably sent off the player.

I've only seen one short clip on a news bulletin of it and I don't think the ref had a good view as Batshuayi was in the line of sight. It's certainly not as clear cut as Son in real time who clearly kicks out to the chest.

He doesn't go to the monitor because VAR doesn't instruct him to. Had he done or seen another angle, he may well have sent him off.

SeeMoreBut

Arsene Wenger wants to see a change in the offside law in time for this summer's European Championships.

His proposals would mean a player will be deemed onside if any part of their body is level or behind the last defender.


So is that his trailing football is in line with the lead foot of the defender count as onside? Offside is clear up you are on or off. No matter what why you move it then you'll have always tight cases.

osarusan

SeeMoreBut wrote: »

No matter what why you move it then you'll have always tight cases.

Yeah, it will just mean strikers being onside by a toenail rather than offside, but will look just as silly.

matrim

SeeMoreBut wrote: »

Arsene Wenger wants to see a change in the offside law in time for this summer's European Championships.

His proposals would mean a player will be deemed onside if any part of their body is level or behind the last defender.


So is that his trailing football is in line with the lead foot of the defender count as onside? Offside is clear up you are on or off. No matter what why you move it then you'll have always tight cases.

It wouldn't stop the line or the "if the defender cut his toenails he'd be onside" comments but it does change it so that the attacker get the advantage and could lead to a more open game.

CSF

That rule change is dumb. I don’t see a value in changing the rule. All that needs to change is the VAR application.

Where the rule is that level is onside, we don’t need to be drawing lines to establish if someone is a millimetre off. I’m comfortable with using eye level VAR check on this with the referees obviously receiving training on how the angles work and what they need to look for.

joeguevara

I think the clear daylight rule would be a positive change.

osarusan

I still think the thicker line for defenders to give 'benefit of the doubt' is a good way to go forward.

Maybe put a panel together to view a load of offside decisions, and get them to classify those into what 'offside and should be offside' and 'offside but shouldn't be offside', and then look at the 'offside but shouldn't be' decisions and work out a distance that can be represented in the thickness of the line.

dfx-

take away the lines and judge it by eye. Benefit of doubt given to the linesman's original decision like for the Wolves Leicester 'goal'..

The changes need to be made to how VAR operates, not changing the laws to suit VAR.

osarusan

dfx- wrote: »

take away the lines and judge it by eye. Benefit of doubt given to the linesman's original decision like for the Wolves Leicester 'goal'.

I don't necessarily have a problem with that, but TV channels will still show their own lines, and show that the lino's decisions are wrong on occasion, and on those occasions people will whine about such a system and why don't they just use lines and make sure it's right.

check_six

CSF wrote: »

That rule change is dumb. I don’t see a value in changing the rule. All that needs to change is the VAR application.

Where the rule is that level is onside, we don’t need to be drawing lines to establish if someone is a millimetre off. I’m comfortable with using eye level VAR check on this with the referees obviously receiving training on how the angles work and what they need to look for.

As you say the rule is not the problem. The rule always required officials to be able to allow for the tiniest part of a player straying over the line to make it offside. The problem is that we now have a system that can measure down to the very fine margins. If the system was not able to measure to milimetres or centimetres then the official would have to eyeball it and make a judgement which would seem more 'natural'.

Bringing in a 'clear daylight' rule does not make any change to the way the offside is measured with the current system. The implementation of clear daylight would look pretty weird also with lads dangling their arms out behind them.

osarusan

check_six wrote: »

As you say the rule is not the problem. The rule always required officials to be able to allow for the tiniest part of a player straying over the line to make it offside. The problem is that we now have a system that can measure down to the very fine margins. If the system was not able to measure to milimetres or centimetres then the official would have to eyeball it and make a judgement which would seem more 'natural'.

Yeah, this is what I've been saying too - VAR allows the offside law to be examined more forensically than was ever intended really. Human eyesight alone will never spot the offside kneecap, just the 'obvious' ones, the ones people think 'should be' offside.

VAR will make the game better. No doubt.

Humans still the problem.

Just watching MOTD now.

Maguire red. Lo Celso red. KDB clear handball for penalty.

None given. No fault of VAR. Just useless humans. All simple and straight forward decisions.

Edit - and the people in positions of power to encourage conversation call VAR ‘it’. ‘It’ is ruining our game. Lineker needs to understand it is still ‘them’ that are ruining the game. And by ‘them’ I mean the people interpreting the laws. The humans using VAR to make decisions. Not the pundits. Although they are all pretty useless too.

gimli2112

It's a good point VAR gave the humans the opportunity to make the correct decisions but didn't, although in the case of the Maguire and KDB incidents it was the same human

cj maxx

Var will no doubt make the game better.
But changing the rules like the ball hitting the hand/arm will invalidate a goal is stupid.
Surely having the incident recorded from multiple camera angles would make it easier to make a decision on intent.
If it leads to a goal tough titty that's the way it falls sometimes. It just smacks of officials abdicating the duty.

Fitz*

The handball rule was needed to stop any confusion surrounding goals like Aguero v Arsenal & Solanke vs WBA. Both were accidental handled over the line but one was ruled out and one was allowed.

It's black or white, no interpretation in the rule so it's good IMO. Just don't use your hands when scoring goals and you are good!