VAR Discussion thread

citytillidie

gstack166 wrote: »

That’s clearly wrong seeing as their was 2 handballs in the lead up to Liverpool’s first goal. No penalty should of been awarded but the goal shouldn’t of stood as Bernardo handled the ball. You cannot say advantage was given when the ball fell to a man in his own 18 yard box surrounded by 2 City players.

There obviously was a problem with the technology or something that day, their had to been, but it wasn’t checked during that game. It never once even showed them in the booth like they normally do & fill us in who’s in there, Tyler told us who was the VAR official that day but we got no footage of them in the room.

There was a VAR check after the first goal sure you seen the City players all around the ref.

8-10

gstack166 wrote: »

‘There’s nothing clear at Anfield for knowing that there’s a check, let alone what’s it’s for or what the outcome is’

Fair enough that's obvious something new they've brought in. As I say, the last couple of times I've seen a VAR check at Anfield there was no visual indication and once no indication of any kind.

It's a step in the right direction if they are using the scoreboard. The confusion last season was ridiculous without this type of communication.

Still want VAR to die a death overall but unfortunately I think it's here to stay. Communication is a big plus though. I'll look out for the scoreboard next time I'm at Anfield if there's a check. Definitely wasn't done last season.

8-10

8-10 wrote: »

Fair enough that's obvious something new they've brought in. As I say, the last couple of times I've seen a VAR check at Anfield there was no visual indication and once no indication of any kind.

It's a step in the right direction if they are using the scoreboard. The confusion last season was ridiculous without this type of communication.

Still want VAR to die a death overall but unfortunately I think it's here to stay. Communication is a big plus though. I'll look out for the scoreboard next time I'm at Anfield if there's a check. Definitely wasn't done last season.

So Anfield tonight did use the scoreboard to communicate VAR. However it still wasn't clear. First one there was an announcement before anything on the scoreboard then no indication of what was being checked, just that it happened and then was over.

Second one said checking offside and then that same thing came on the scoreboard

All 3 decisions were announced by the Ref and the PA before the scoreboard gave the outcome. So kind of pointless, but at least they're trying to make it clearer. Long way to go though

Cantona's Collars

So it has emerged tonight that Danny Ings goal should not have stood with VAR officials admitting that there was a handball in the build up and "they didn't want to slow the game down".
This making it up as they go along has to end. There's international rules for VAR yet the EPL insist on going their own way and Mike Riley ignoring common sense.

~Rebel~

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

So it has emerged tonight that Danny Ings goal should not have stood with VAR officials admitting that there was a handball in the build up and "they didn't want to slow the game down".
This making it up as they go along has to end. There's international rules for VAR yet the EPL insist on going their own way and Mike Riley ignoring common sense.

I bloody hate this new handball rule. It's just nonsensical... you can't have a thing be a foul only depending on what happens afterwards. If it totally accidentally touches your hand in the box, after bouncing off someone else from 6 inches away, it's totally fine. But if you score in the next 30 seconds or so, it's a free out.

j8wk2feszrnpao

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I bloody hate this new handball rule. It's just nonsensical...

They are trying to make it more “black or white” and remove “shades of gray”. In other words, they are trying to make less “judgement calls” and “interpretations”. If it hits the hand, it hits the hand and you blow it up.
Not saying they are doing it well, but that’s what they are trying to do.
Today it looked totally accidental. Other times it’s an individuals point of view wether it’s accidental or not. So they are trying to remove the interpretation, and make it simple; i.e. did it hit the hand or not.

ArmaniJeanss

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

So it has emerged tonight that Danny Ings goal should not have stood with VAR officials admitting that there was a handball in the build up and "they didn't want to slow the game down".
This making it up as they go along has to end. There's international rules for VAR yet the EPL insist on going their own way and Mike Riley ignoring common sense.

Think you've got that wrong - they said they didn't spot it and that it could only be seen on one particular camera angle.
So they didn't make anything up or disregard any rule.

I watched the game on Sky, literally no-one (player, commentator or fan) noticed it at the time - it started filtering through about 10 minutes later.
It's a strange one, from normal angles it looks completely like a foot hitting the ball, so much so that you wouldn't even call for a different angle.

windy shepard henderson

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

So it has emerged tonight that Danny Ings goal should not have stood with VAR officials admitting that there was a handball in the build up and "they didn't want to slow the game down".
This making it up as they go along has to end. There's international rules for VAR yet the EPL insist on going their own way and Mike Riley ignoring common sense.

nonsense it has to be called at the time , if its not spotted then it wont be called back ,

until you go down the road of all scoring plays are under review like american football it cant just spot things out as it goes along automatically

osarusan

windy shepard henderson wrote: »

nonsense it has to be called at the time , if its not spotted then it wont be called back ,

until you go down the road of all scoring plays are under review like american football it cant just spot things out as it goes along automatically

All scoring plays are under review already.

What happened here is that in the VAR review of the goal, they didn't check a particular replay - the only replay in which the handball was visible.

Cantona's Collars

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Think you've got that wrong - they said they didn't spot it and that it could only be seen on one particular camera angle.
So they didn't make anything up or disregard any rule.

I watched the game on Sky, literally no-one (player, commentator or fan) noticed it at the time - it started filtering through about 10 minutes later.
It's a strange one, from normal angles it looks completely like a foot hitting the ball, so much so that you wouldn't even call for a different angle.

It wasn't just this incident that I meant by saying they are making it up as they go along, there's been several more contentious incidents in games this season.

Sky have footage of the handball,and it clearly shows it,VAR admitted that they checked if Ings handled it and if the ball went out of play before he scored but missed the other handball.
They can spot a toenail offside but missed that.

CSF

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

It wasn't just this incident that I meant by saying they are making it up as they go along, there's been several more contentious incidents in games this season.

Sky have footage of the handball,and it clearly shows it,VAR admitted that they checked if Ings handled it and if the ball went out of play before he scored but missed the other handball.
They can spot a toenail offside but missed that.

It’s tricky to grasp exactly which point you’re making here. VAR is bad? The people VAR refereeing are bad? They’re intentionally refereeing wrong?

I think we’d all agree that it was the wrong decision yesterday, but it seems you’re equally angry when they get similarly difficult to identify (and equally lengthy to confirm) decisions right?

dfx-

There's several angles where the handball last night was visible. Of course it is rubbish to have to give it, but that's the VAR problem.

For Arsenal's second equaliser, there were two balls on the pitch...

j8wk2feszrnpao

dfx- wrote: »

There's several angles where the handball last night was visible

Those angles were only shown after the game finished.
I haven’t seen any confirmation that VAR had that angle at the time and decided it was ok.

y0ssar1an22

dfx- wrote: »

There's several angles where the handball last night was visible. Of course it is rubbish to have to give it, but that's the VAR problem.

For Arsenal's second equaliser, there were two balls on the pitch...

and not just on the pitch. in the box :eek:

have the FA (or whoever) released their rule book on VAR? so everyone knows what the refs should be doing?

dfx-

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Those angles were only shown after the game finished.
I haven’t seen any confirmation that VAR had that angle at the time and decided it was ok.

there's plenty of regular replay angles that show it too if you're looking for it, the one behind the goal line shows it.

Brighton's goal yesterday was arguably with a player less than metre from the wall. Again it's rubbish to have to give it, but this is what they wanted.

No interpretation allowed leads to this...

j8wk2feszrnpao

dfx- wrote: »

there's plenty of regular replay angles that show it too if you're looking for it, the one behind the goal line shows it.

The commentary team never mentioned it. SKY didn’t show it until after the game ended. No one pointed it out in the match thread or the BBC tracker....
VAR will miss stuff as well.

~Rebel~

munstermagic11 wrote: »

They are trying to make it more “black or white” and remove “shades of gray”. In other words, they are trying to make less “judgement calls” and “interpretations”. If it hits the hand, it hits the hand and you blow it up.
Not saying they are doing it well, but that’s what they are trying to do.
Today it looked totally accidental. Other times it’s an individuals point of view wether it’s accidental or not. So they are trying to remove the interpretation, and make it simple; i.e. did it hit the hand or not.

That's not what the rule is. They've done the exact opposite of what you said.

I wouldn't like it either if what you said was the rule, but at least you'd know where you stand -- but instead they've created a situation where there is no black and white in the moment, you have no idea whats going to happen, until what happens next happens. And that sounds needlessly confusing, because it is.

The way the rule works, if the ball accidentally touches your hand in the box, that's grand, play on. Unless your team scores in the next while, then the thing that was not a foul in the moment suddenly in retrospect becomes a foul.

So what's supposed to happen if you're a striker, in a great position, a great ball is played through - but it catches a deflection at the last second from someone else a yard away and brushes your hand. You felt it. You know it happened. You know VAR will have seen it. But it's not a foul cause your hand was by your side and it was clearly accidental... but you're in front of goal. So, you're there, ball at your feet, what are you supposed to do? You know you can play on, cause it was clearly not on purpose, but you also know that if you (or anyone else in the next 30 seconds or so) score, play gets pulled back and it wont stand. Are you meant to just turn around and lash the ball back to your midfielder?!

Richard Hillman

VAR had an absolutely stomping day today.

j8wk2feszrnpao

~Rebel~ wrote: »

So what's supposed to happen if you're a striker, in a great position, a great ball is played through - but it catches a deflection at the last second from someone else a yard away and brushes your hand. You felt it. You know it happened. You know VAR will have seen it. But it's not a foul cause your hand was by your side and it was clearly accidental... but you're in front of goal. So, you're there, ball at your feet, what are you supposed to do? You know you can play on, cause it was clearly not on purpose, but you also know that if you (or anyone else in the next 30 seconds or so) score, play gets pulled back and it wont stand. Are you meant to just turn around and lash the ball back to your midfielder?!

Clearly to who? You say accidental, someone else says intentional. That's the interpretation/judgement that they are trying to take out. If it hits your hand, and you score, it's disallowed.
I'm not claiming that it's perfect, far from that. They are trying to make the laws black or white. It's not easy. But the old way of doing it wasn't perfect either.

VAR had a very good day today. There's still a lot of work and improvements required. But it's only the end of Nov in its 1st season.

The unseen and unacknowledged benefits has been the reduction in non contact dives that result in pens, and there's far less pulling/dragging down opponents in set pieces. As I said it's not been perfect, but that's because it can't be (as there's still a human making the call at the end of the day).

~Rebel~

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Clearly to who? You say accidental, someone else says intentional. That's the interpretation/judgement that they are trying to take out. If it hits your hand, and you score, it's disallowed.
I'm not claiming that it's perfect, far from that. They are trying to make the laws black or white. It's not easy. But the old way of doing it wasn't perfect either.

VAR had a very good day today. There's still a lot of work and improvements required. But it's only the end of Nov in its 1st season.

The unseen and unacknowledged benefits has been the reduction in non contact dives that result in pens, and there's far less pulling/dragging down opponents in set pieces. As I said it's not been perfect, but that's because it can't be (as there's still a human making the call at the end of the day).

I wouldn't have as much of problem with it if the black and white thinking you mention was used - if it touches your hand, its a foul, the whistle is blown. I wouldn't like that, but I could understand it. But that's not the rule.

Instead, it's the greyest of greys, where it only becomes a foul IF you score. If anything else happens, it's fine.

It's the Shrondinger's Cat of football. It's both a foul, and not a foul, and only later results tell you which.

CSF

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I wouldn't have as much of problem with it if the black and white thinking you mention was used - if it touches your hand, its a foul, the whistle is blown. I wouldn't like that, but I could understand it. But that's not the rule.

Instead, it's the greyest of greys, where it only becomes a foul IF you score. If anything else happens, it's fine.

It's the Shrondinger's Cat of football.

Is this actually the rule or am I misinterpreting something? Referee will blow it up as a free if he sees it, goal or not right?


It only becomes reviewable if the player scores, fair enough, but people seemed to want minimal interference from VAR.

~Rebel~

CSF wrote: »

Is this actually the rule or am I misinterpreting something? Referee will blow it up as a free if he sees it, goal or not right?


It only becomes reviewable if the player scores, fair enough, but people seemed to want minimal interference from VAR.

Nope, the rule is not that all handballs are fouls - it's that no goal can come after any form of handball.

So the ref will blow up a purposeful handball in the moment if he sees it.

But the problem is that if the ref (or VAR afterwards) sees an accidental handball, they allow play to continue. And play goes on as normal, because accidental handball is still not a foul - unless a goal is scored during the following phases, in which case the accidental handball now becomes a foul in retrospect.

j8wk2feszrnpao

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Nope, the rule is not that all handballs are fouls - it's that no goal can come after any form of handball.

So the ref will blow up a purposeful handball in the moment if he sees it.

But the problem is that if the ref (or VAR afterwards) sees an accidental handball, they allow play to continue. And play goes on as normal, because accidental handball is still not a foul - unless a goal is scored during the following phases, in which case the accidental handball now becomes a foul in retrospect.

A goal being scored is probably the biggest event during a game.

If a handball (accidental or not) is involved, then it's not a goal. That's not grey. That's black or white.

No interpretation (or at least far less interpretation) involved. Same for all teams. No judgement call required to think was that intentional or not (because you'll see those calls argued a hell of a lot more).

~Rebel~

munstermagic11 wrote: »

A goal being scored is probably the biggest event during a game.

If a handball (accidental or not) is involved, then it's not a goal. That's not grey. That's black or white.

No interpretation (or at least far less interpretation) involved. Same for all teams. No judgement call required to think was that intentional or not (because you'll see those calls argued a hell of a lot more).

Of course it's grey, because the event itself - the supposed foul - is not a foul in the moment and only becomes a foul depending on proceeding events. Things you do on the field should be allowed, or not allowed. Not this weird ambiguous in-between state they've created.

If you want no interpretation involved, and clear black and white, then simply say all handballs in the box are fouls. This "it's only a foul depending entirely on events following it" stuff is nonsense.

j8wk2feszrnpao

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Of course it's grey, because the event itself - the supposed foul - is not a foul in the moment and only becomes a foul depending on proceeding events. Things you do on the field should be allowed, or not allowed. Not this weird ambigious in between state they've created.

It's not grey. It's a Yes/No answer. A goal is scored, was a hand used? If Yes, goal not allowed. If No, goal allowed.

You don't have to judge if it was accidental or not. That's where shades of grey come into. And we are in this position cause managers would come out and blame the ref making that judgement call.

~Rebel~ wrote: »

If you want no interpretation involved, and clear black and white, then simply say all handballs in the box are fouls.

They tried that in Spain, and it didn't work.

~Rebel~ wrote: »

This "it's only a foul depending entirely on events following it" stuff is nonsense.

I disagree. You can slide into a tackle and get the ball, but if you follow on through raising you legs into the knee of a player, it's a foul. It's a foul based on events after the initial contact on the ball.

Again it may not be the ideal law, but it is black or white (and does reduce the decision making for the ref/VAR). Remove the law and going back to "accidental or not" won't resolve the issue cause there'll always be controversy with that.

~Rebel~

munstermagic11 wrote: »

It's not grey. It's a Yes/No answer. A goal is scored, was a hand used? If Yes, goal not allowed. If No, goal allowed.

You don't have to judge if it was accidental or not. That's where shades of grey come into. And we are in this position cause managers would come out and blame the ref making that judgement call.

It's putting judgement of the game above the game itself. The game itself should always be of the utmost importance, and the judgment of it is the thing that should be maleable to how the game works. The game has laws and rules so that everyone knows where they stand - except in this instance no-one does.

As I mentioned in the hypothetical situation above, what is the striker supposed to do if the ball grazes his hand after bouncing off an opponents thigh from a half a yard away? Seriously? What should he do? He's committed no foul, but he also can't score. The fundamental basis of the game is to try to put the ball in the opponents net, but this rule means he can't try to do the one thing that is the point of the game - but he has also at that point committed no foul.

They tried that in Spain, and it didn't work.

In what sense? And in what way is this better than that?

I disagree. You can slide into a tackle and get the ball, but if you follow on through raising you legs into the knee of a player, it's a foul. It's a foul based on events after the initial contact on the ball.

Ah c'mere that's a pretty bad comparison... a tackle is one action that takes place over one move and is one instance. The initial touch on the ball is not what is being punished, the single act of hitting the other player is. This rule is talking about completely separate actions taking place long after the ball-to-hand, even being done by completely separate people. If the ball touches my hand, and i pass to you, and you score, it's still ruled out.

Again it may not be the ideal law, but it is black or white (and does reduce the decision making for the ref/VAR). Remove the law and going back to "accidental or not" won't resolve the issue cause there'll always be controversy with that.

The judgement becomes black and white, but not the situation. The situation is now the most ambiguous in football. And rules should always be in service of football, not of judgement.

j8wk2feszrnpao

~Rebel~ wrote: »

The game has laws and rules so that everyone knows where they stand - except in this instance no-one does.

Everyone knows where they stand, it’s a simple rule. Does it hit the hand when a goal is scored? It’s Yes or No.

~Rebel~ wrote: »

As I mentioned in the hypothetical situation above, what is the striker supposed to do if the ball grazes his hand above bouncing off an opponents thigh from a half a yard away? Seriously? What should he do?

It doesn’t matter what he can do, just what he can’t. He has every other option other than kicking it into the back of the net (which he can do actually, but it’ll be ruled out).

Everyone knows where they stand, it’s a simple rule. Does it hit the hand when a goal is scored? It’s Yes or No.

~Rebel~ wrote: »

In what sense? And in what way is this better than that?

If it hit the hand it was a pen. This is better in that if your arms are down at your side in a natural position it’s not a pen.

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Ah c'mere that's a pretty bad comparison...

Not in terms of what you initially stated. It’s one legal action that’s then judged a foul based on what occurs after the initial incident.

~Rebel~ wrote: »

This rule is talking about completely separate actions taking place long after the ball-to-hand, even being done by completely separate people.

We’re talking about events that are seconds apart, not long periods between the actions.

~Rebel~ wrote: »

The judgement becomes black and white, but not the situation. The situation is now the most ambiguous in football. And rules should always be in service of football, not of judgement.

The judgement is black and white, but so is the situation. It’s the same for every team, each and every time. I do understand what you mean by it’s only a foul if a goal is scored, but that’s why they brought it in, cause goals are the biggest moments in football. Everyone knows the law and what the result is.

Give me the alternative that works better? Judgement calls based on the refs interpretation, that didn’t work. It was shades of grey, and people/managers b1tched about those.

y0ssar1an22

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Everyone knows where they stand, it’s a simple rule. Does it hit the hand when a goal is scored? It’s Yes or No.

that bit is ambiguous. how many seconds do you go back to check for a handball? a certain number of passes? a certain portion of the pitch?

j8wk2feszrnpao

y0ssar1an22 wrote: »

that bit is ambiguous. how many seconds do you go back to check for a handball? a certain number of passes? a certain portion of the pitch?

They can’t have a written law for each and every scenario. Unfortunately humans have limits, so you’ll always have some leeway for judgement. Say you bring in 5 secs, and it happens within 6 secs, then people will complain about that.
Largely speaking, this works.
If you or anyone else has an alternative to scrap this for something better that works, I’m ok with improvement.

~Rebel~

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Everyone knows where they stand, it’s a simple rule. Does it hit the hand when a goal is scored? It’s Yes or No.


It doesn’t matter what he can do, just what he can’t. He has every other option other than kicking it into the back of the net (which he can do actually, but it’ll be ruled out).

I see, so the one thing he can't do is just the singular thing that is the entire point of the game.

Everyone knows where they stand, it’s a simple rule. Does it hit the hand when a goal is scored? It’s Yes or No.

You keep mentioning the yes/no aspect of it, but that initial decision of it being accidental or purposeful still has to be made each time. If the ref thinks it was purposeful, he has to blow up and stop play. If he thinks it was accidental, he lets play run. So that decision already happens regardless, this doesn't remove it. This just adds an extra caveat that if a goal is scored, it gets killed regardless...its like a little blanket protection for refs, rather than being for the benefit of the game as a whole. People have arms. Having arms shouldn't be a punishable offense.

If it hit the hand it was a pen. This is better in that if your arms are down at your side in a natural position it’s not a pen.

Not in terms of what you initially stated. It’s one legal action that’s then judged a foul based on what occurs after the initial incident.

What? No, that's just not what happens at all... Your example was a good tackle in which the player carries on, studs up, and smashes a fella afterwards. The legal action is never punished - the illegal action of smashing through the guy is what is punished. What happens before it is not even taken into consideration - smashing through a guy on its own is a perfectly self contained foul irrespective of events before or after. So as a comparison it bears no relationship to what we're talking about.

What would be closer as an example, would be if the punishment depended on how badly hurt the player was. For instance, a yellow if the player was grand, a red if the player was really badly hurt - as happened with the red card on Son in the Spurs game a few weeks back. And which was afterwards rescinded because it was a stupid decision based on outcome rather than action.

So in practice this rule is totally unique in football - it is the only one where what happens afterwards informs upon what happened before.

We’re talking about events that are seconds apart, not long periods between the actions.

This in itself is also ambiguous. So if the ball touches a players hand through no fault of their own, can they just hang onto the ball for 6 or 7 or 8 seconds before smashing it into the goal? Can they pass it around in the box for a set period of passes or time before they can then shoot? Or does the ball have to get recycled back out of the box and then back in? No idea.

The judgement is black and white, but so is the situation. It’s the same for every team, each and every time. I do understand what you mean by it’s only a foul if a goal is scored, but that’s why they brought it in, cause goals are the biggest moments in football. Everyone knows the law and what the result is.

Give me the alternative that works better? Judgement calls based on the refs interpretation, that didn’t work. It was shades of grey, and people/managers b1tched about those.

You say this like this is a big issue that kept happening and had everyone clamoring for an improvement on. I honestly can't really remember anyone ever saying this was something that really needed to be worked on. All the big handball complaints that were at the forefront of peoples attention were based around it hitting the defender - what was or wasn't a penalty. It's always always been accepted in football that players have arms, and if you're not consciously using them to cheat, you're grand. This thing of a ball bouncing onto an arm in the build up to a goal was not really something anyone was asking for... it's a weird nonsensical solution to a problem no-one was posing.


But sure look, we're clearly on utterly opposing sides of this. I think all laws and rules in the game should be based around distinct actions, and done for the benefit of the game, rather than the benefit of those judging. I'm obviously not gonna change your mind, and you're definitely not gonna change mine.

inforfun

https://streamable.com/0cth2



Clip starts a bit late but VAR cancelled this goal yesterday.
Ref was 2 meters away and saw nothing wrong at first.

Better, more angles in this interview.
https://twitter.com/FOXSportsnl/status/1201383185818554368

j8wk2feszrnpao

~Rebel~ wrote: »

I see, so the one thing he can't do is just the singular thing that is the entire point of the game.

Yes, that's right, you can't break the laws of the game.

You can be standing offside, but unless you touch the ball or interfere with play, it's not going to be awarded. So that's another example where the outcome decides whether it's blown up by the ref or not.

~Rebel~ wrote: »

its like a little blanket protection for refs, rather than being for the benefit of the game as a whole.

It is for the benefit of the game, it makes decisions easier.

~Rebel~ wrote: »

People have arms. Having arms shouldn't be a punishable offense.

Tell that to the countless managers and players that b1tched about goals being scored with the arm, cause they disagree with you. Hence the law change.

~Rebel~ wrote: »

What? No, that's just not what happens at all... Your example was a good tackle in which the player carries on, studs up, and smashes a fella afterwards.

Again, that was in context to your initial statement.
In my example the first tackle was legal, as is accidentally making contact with your arm (it's not always blown up). Based on the outcome of it hitting your arm, it will be a foul if it results in a goal. Based on your resulting tackling, going into someone, it will be a foul.

A better example is the offside rule whereby you are offside, but it won't be called unless you touch the ball or interfere with play. You can be legally offside, but what happens afterwards determines the outcome, so not unique.

And so what if it was unique? As if that is somehow a problem to introduce a unique law. People adjust.

~Rebel~ wrote: »

So if the ball touches a players hand through no fault of their own, can they just hang onto the ball for 6 or 7 or 8 seconds before smashing it into the goal? Can they pass it around in the box for a set period of passes or time before they can then shoot? Or does the ball have to get recycled back out of the box and then back in? No idea.

That's where a ref judgement is used. I already responded to a similar question on that. You can't have a written law for each and every scenario as the game is being reffed by humans who have a limited capacity for making decisions in such a quick timeframe.
I asked for a better solution, but you didn't provide it. They are trying to appease those who just complain about it when a goal is scored with a hand/arm, making it a more straight forward law. Again, not saying it's perfect (and I'm open to better options), but neither was the previous alternative.

~Rebel~

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Yes, that's right, you can't break the laws of the game.

You can be standing offside, but unless you touch the ball or interfere with play, it's not going to be awarded. So that's another example where the outcome decides whether it's blown up by the ref or not.


It is for the benefit of the game, it makes decisions easier.

Tell that to the countless managers and players that b1tched about goals being scored with the arm, cause they disagree with you. Hence the law change.

Again, that was in context to your initial statement.
In my example the first tackle was legal, as is accidentally making contact with your arm (it's not always blown up). Based on the outcome of it hitting your arm, it will be a foul if it results in a goal. Based on your resulting tackling, going into someone, it will be a foul.

A better example is the offside rule whereby you are offside, but it won't be called unless you touch the ball or interfere with play. You can be legally offside, but what happens afterwards determines the outcome, so not unique.

And so what if it was unique? As if that is somehow a problem to introduce a unique law. People adjust.


That's where a ref judgement is used. I already responded to a similar question on that. You can't have a written law for each and every scenario as the game is being reffed by humans who have a limited capacity for making decisions in such a quick timeframe.
I asked for a better solution, but you didn't provide it. They are trying to appease those who just complain about it when a goal is scored with a hand/arm, making it a more straight forward law. Again, not saying it's perfect (and I'm open to better options), but neither was the previous alternative.

As I already mentioned, clearly neither of us are going to change the others mind with these big long chopped up point by point detailed messages. For me, none of your examples are comparative at all... like your latest one - the foul isn’t being offside, it’s interfering with play from an offside position. And in your other example, the foul isn’t smashing the guy dangerously after getting the ball cleanly - it’s for smashing the guy dangerously period. What happened with the ball before is irrelevant. The foul is the thing done exactly when the whistle is blown in each of these cases. In the case of our yoke, the foul is the thing done at some point well before, which only becomes a foul depending on other totally legal actions that the player does next.

And sure in the larger scheme of things - I don’t think this was a change that was needed, or asked for. It just wasn’t something with any big outcry or gnashing of teeth. It didn’t need anything, the big appeasement you mention simply wasn’t an issue with much/any weight or noise behind it at all. But for a while at least, we’re stuck with this Schrodinger’s Cat of a situation, where time stands still for a moment after a bad bounce until a fella can smash it top bins and give away a foul, or hit the crossbar and all is well.

<edit> I think the crux of my issue is this - If you accept that accidental handballs are possible, and obviously they are. And if the game recognizes that players have arms, and thus that accidental handballs are simply a part of the game since by their nature they're non-actions - which it does, as accidental handballs are expressly not fouls. Then this situation becomes farcical, punishing a player for a non-action that the rules accept is through no fault of their own. Yup, it makes it simpler for refs, but that doesn't make it better for the game. Accidental handballs are either fouls, or they are not, and as long as they are not, that should be that. Anything else is a hypocrisy of their own rules.

a) How many decisions has VAR made that were correct that were otherwise not made or were incorrect?

b) how many decisions have been made by VAR that are obviously incorrect?

If a > b*, then it won't go anywhere.

*Hint:

It is

People seem to forget the vast number of correct decisions that are made that were missed by the officials in real time. Yes it is in its infancy and yea, there have been a couple of teething problems, which is to be expected. A couple of high-profile cockups shouldn't change the fact that, overall, it has had a positive impact on the game.

~Rebel~

[Deleted User] wrote: »

a) How many decisions has VAR made that were correct that were otherwise not made or were incorrect?

b) how many decisions have been made by VAR that are obviously incorrect?

If a > b*, then it won't go anywhere.

*Hint:

It is

People seem to forget the vast number of correct decisions that are made that were missed by the officials in real time. Yes it is in its infancy and yea, there have been a couple of teething problems, which is to be expected. A couple of high-profile cockups shouldn't change the fact that, overall, it has had a positive impact on the game.

Yeah, VAR’s been pretty decent for the most part, aside from a few wrinkles... they really need to rethink this thing of English refs (exclusively) refusing to view replays themselves. And I’d love to see a little more leniency on offsides to better match the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law... like a slightly thicker line for the defender than the attacker to give them a tiny bit of benefit of the doubt needed for movement occurring faster than the available frame rates. But on the whole it’s shown a lot of positives - Iheanacho’s last second winner yesterday being a great example.

j8wk2feszrnpao

~Rebel~ wrote: »

For me, none of your examples are comparative at all...

Actually they are. Being in an off issue position isn’t a foul, nor is accidentally handling the ball. Touch the ball when in an offside position and it’s called. Score a goal after handling the ball and it’s called. It’s simple.

~Rebel~ wrote: »

And sure in the larger scheme of things - I don’t think this was a change that was needed, or asked for. It just wasn’t something with any big outcry or gnashing of teeth.

It was needed, as it took the controversy over the refs opinion away. And even if it there wasn’t about cry for it, so what? Was there an outcry for the new kickoff rule, or the receiving the goal kick in the penalty area? It doesn’t matter.

~Rebel~ wrote: »

Schrodinger’s Cat of a situation

No it not. Not a apt comparison in any way. It’s such a simple rule, don’t get the confusion.

~Rebel~ wrote: »

If you accept that accidental handballs are possible, and obviously they are.

Of course they are possible. The issue is that people have different opinions on whether it was intentional or not. I’ve seen accidental hand balls and managers/fans have gone mental that it was intentional and the goal shouldn’t have counted; blaming the ref for the loss.
This way, it’s simple, for every team. Won’t always work cause you can’t cover every circumstance (Southamptons goal against Watford) but less likely to end in controversy.

8-10

Deleted User wrote: »

a) How many decisions has VAR made that were correct that were otherwise not made or were incorrect?

b) how many decisions have been made by VAR that are obviously incorrect?

If a > b*, then it won't go anywhere.

*Hint:

It is

People seem to forget the vast number of correct decisions that are made that were missed by the officials in real time. Yes it is in its infancy and yea, there have been a couple of teething problems, which is to be expected. A couple of high-profile cockups shouldn't change the fact that, overall, it has had a positive impact on the game.

I don't think it's been positive at all, I think it's made the game worse

The 2 main changes I would make would be:

1. Change the policy around clear and obvious mistake. We are seeing VAR refuse to overturn a decision with the video evidence because the ref didn't make an error. It's bull****, just treat every reviewed incident on video as if the VAR official is the ref seeing the incident for the first time and make the correct decision based on the evidence. Whether that decision agrees or disagrees with the onfield decision is immaterial, just make the right call.

2. Adapt Skycam for use on offside calls. If you want to be precise about it, you need a top-down flat view of the field. That way you can accurately draw a line perpendicular to the sideline and perfectly see who's body part is last touching that line at point of ball being played using the normal on field cameras synchronised for checking in case of anything obscuring the ball or body part from above so you have both views beside each other.

This diagonal camera view with lines being drawn at the VAR official's interpretation of perspective is not precise enough for what they are trying to do with it. I don't know if Skycam would be infallible but it would be better, and if it's not precise enough then they need to stop doing it because it's a joke.

thomasj

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11095/11877745/var-is-a-mess-but-there-is-no-way-back-says-uefa-president-aleksander-ceferin

UEFA president is not a fan.

inforfun

"No way back"?

Get rid of it now completely. Learn from it and start from scratch again. Test till you see red in the eyes on lower levels (like what usually is the case with new stuff) and try again.

This was a disaster already at the confed cup in 2017 (var actually managed to casue a fight on the pitch in a Mexico match) and 2,5 years later it only got worse.

CSF

inforfun wrote: »

"No way back"?

Get rid of it now completely. Learn from it and start from scratch again. Test till you see red in the eyes on lower levels (like what usually is the case with new stuff) and try again.

This was a disaster already at the confed cup in 2017 (var actually managed to casue a fight on the pitch in a Mexico match) and 2,5 years later it only got worse.

If it gets abandoned, are other steps going to be taken to improve the standard of refereeing or are we all just going to go back to ignoring the real cause of the issue here?

8-10

CSF wrote: »

If it gets abandoned, are other steps going to be taken to improve the standard of refereeing or are we all just going to go back to ignoring the real cause of the issue here?

You would assume so. Wasn't there 5th and 6th officials behind the goals in recent years in Europe and Internationals? Where did that go?

.G.

They were awful too, numerous times stuff happened in full view of them and they did absolutely nothing about it. You could have ten of these lads on the pitch, if they are as bad as most of these are standards won't improve.

CSF

.G. wrote: »

They were awful too, numerous times stuff happened in full view of them and they did absolutely nothing about it. You could have ten of these lads on the pitch, if they are as bad as most of these are standards won't improve.

As long as this remains the case, they need to be forced into making VAR work.

Nobody should be signing up for a ‘they may be sh*t referees, but they’re OUR sh*t referees’ mentality.

How would scrapping VAR improve the standard of decision making process more than making them swallow their pride, acknowledge that they will have to give up some of their authority when the video shows them to be wrong, and make a proper effort at making the implementation into something that actually improves things.

inforfun

CSF wrote: »

If it gets abandoned, are other steps going to be taken to improve the standard of refereeing or are we all just going to go back to ignoring the real cause of the issue here?

But here you get the main cause of the var problems. The same awful referees are the var a day later.

In the past a bad decision by a ref aws news for a day. 3 days if it was a big match. And it wasnt a weekly thing. But at least you had the excuse of: well, he is only human and they make mistakes.
Now every week the var is reason for an entire week of discusions till the next round is played. And even with 57 different angels and 900 replays they get it wrong at times.
That is not an improvement.

But i give you that... standard of refereeing should be the main concern first.

osarusan

I certainly don't think it is making things worse, just not remedying the clear and obvious errors as comprehensively as I'd have hoped for.

The solution to a flawed VAR is to refine and improve, not to get rid of it.

Ashbourne hoop

Let's be honest, its been a disaster. Every goal and big decision goes to VAR, I thought it was just for "clear and obvious" mistakes. I'd get rid of it and try and improve refs. Even with VAR there's still debateable decisions, so nothing has changed there. I liked the refs behind the goal, I'd go with that put tell them they've to play a part in the decision making, and not just stand there with sticks.....

osarusan

I think that after the 2018 world cup people were generally cautiously optimistic about it.

Is there similar discussion of it in other leagues that use it, or is the EPL implementing it in such a way that it's worse, or creating more controversy?

inforfun

osarusan wrote: »

I think that after the 2018 world cup people were generally cautiously optimistic about it.

Is there similar discussion of it in other leagues that use it, or is the EPL implementing it in such a way that it's worse, or creating more controversy?

The general idea in The Netherlands is that the VAR is there to make Ajax champions.
That an alternative (without var) league end result of last season has PSV as nr 1, doesnt help.

Personally what annoys me most is almost randomness with which situations are chosen to look back at.

Posted a clip here of a Feyenoord player who almost lost his shirt when he was held back in the opposition penalty area. Ref didnt do a thing, VAR neither.
A blind person saw what was happening.
Those things can not happen with all the cameras and angles they have available.

On Spanish tv they drop a few lines to make clear what can be and will not be reviewed before kick off.
Not a bad idea i think.

Apparently in Italy they were pissed off last season that it wasnt used and now they are pissed of because it is used and they are not happy wit hthe way it works.

CSF

inforfun wrote: »

The general idea in The Netherlands is that the VAR is there to make Ajax champions.
That an alternative (without var) league end result of last season has PSV as nr 1, doesnt help.

Personally what annoys me most is almost randomness with which situations are chosen to look back at.

Posted a clip here of a Feyenoord player who almost lost his shirt when he was held back in the opposition penalty area. Ref didnt do a thing, VAR neither.
A blind person saw what was happening.
Those things can not happen with all the cameras and angles they have available.

On Spanish tv they drop a few lines to make clear what can be and will not be reviewed before kick off.
Not a bad idea i think.

Apparently in Italy they were pissed off last season that it wasnt used and now they are pissed of because it is used and they are not happy wit hthe way it works.

For me, most of what you’re saying indicates that the problem isn’t VAR and is instead the people looking at it and making decisions. Who will still be doing that.

inforfun

I guess we got our wires crossed then because for me VAR = the ref looking at the screen while i take it for you VAR = the system?