VAR Lines

[Mumbo]

Var was introduced in offer to correct any unintentional inconsistency shown by the human failure of referees and assistants.

VAR is used to confirm or deny these inconsistencies, but off field referees are charged with judgements regarding these inconsistencies. It’s like the referee marking his own homework!

It also appears that VAR decisions also suffer From such inconsistencies,because decisions are confirmed or denied by other referees.

VAR seems to be failing in exactly the same way that referees made errors of judgement, which led to some calls for its introduction. Referees are human, and mistakes occur. Now we have a situation where the technology to eradicate such mistakes was introduced, and it is being judged by other referees, who are equally inconsistent when making judgements, supposedly improved by technology?

Scrap it, because it does not do what it was introduced for.

AI technology can do owt these days,surely it could be applied to offside decisions to take away the human error element.

 

[Agreasychipbutty]

Was there a VAR check on maguires dive and subsequent penalty decision?……if there was I missed it.

I suspect they quickly dismissed it because it would have dropped the ref right in it given he effectively disallowed a perfectly good goal by blowing too early.

 

[Slugger]

90,000 frames are shot between 23 seconds and 32 seconds on this video.
With the pinpoint accuracy of the offside lines that are drawn, pausing the video on 23 seconds ("as the ball is kicked") or on 32 seconds (again "as the ball is kicked") will make a difference between the receiving forward being offside or not.

Agree with other posters. Either it's clear and obvious or give the attacker the benefit of the doubt.

Maguire was onside last night (proved by a picture that shows the whole width of the pitch) but VAR meant that lots of us were questioning the goal. Before VAR we'd just have accepted it.

 

[Agreasychipbutty]

AI technology can do owt these days,surely it could be applied to offside decisions to take away the human error element.

They have an automatic (or at least semi automated) system for the champions league, not sure why they don't use that for the prem. I don't like the route VAR and offside is going but if they're going to nit pick over millimetres they should at least be accurate. How can they claim to measure offside to such degrees of accuracy when they don't know which frame the ball was hit in, players are going to be moving a few inches per frame at running speed at 60fps. I believe the champions league system has lots of cameras to 3D track players and sensors in the ball to accurately tell when it was hit.

 

[Mumbo]

They have an automatic (or at least semi automated) system for the champions league, not sure why they don't use that for the prem. I don't like the route VAR and offside is going but if they're going to nit pick over millimetres they should at least be accurate. How can they claim to measure offside to such degrees of accuracy when they don't know which frame the ball was hit in, players are going to be moving a few inches per frame at running speed at 60fps. I believe the champions league system has lots of cameras to 3D track players and sensors in the ball to accurately tell when it was hit.

I thought they were putting sensors in the ball?

 

[Trigger Blade]

Was there a VAR check on maguires dive and subsequent penalty decision?……if there was I missed it.

The Canadian feed I was watching (with the added delight of Lee Hendrie) made several references at different points of the game to VAR checks. I don’t recall specifically about Harry’s temporary and unexpected loss of balance, but they were all mentioned almost in passing. As all the decisions were in Man U’s favour, they were quickly dealt with, nothing to see.

 

[WorkingtonBlade]

I can’t imagine how ‘clear and obvious‘ would work with off-side. By what distance does an off-side decision have to be wrong for it to be considered a ‘clear and obvious‘ error? Either it’s a consistent distance, in which case it just means drawing another line, or it isn’t a consistent distance, in which case there are going to be endless cries of bias.

It would only be a matter of time before someone calculated that one off-side decision was wrong by 22cm and was over-turned, whereas another was wrong by 24cm and was not over-turned.

You can’t just say, “it’s only clear and obvious if you can definitely tell it’s wrong without using lines” because that’s completely subjective. One person will say they can definitely tell, and another will say they can’t quite be sure.

If you’re going to use VAR to check for off-side, it has to be black and white - either the decision was right, or it wasn’t - and unfortunately that means drawing lines, and sometimes decisions are going to be wrong by a tiny amount and the whole thing’s going to look stupid.

The technology will improve over time, there’ll be less human involvement and the line-drawing will get better - and it’ll still be total crap for those at the game, because every time your team scores a goal you have to hang around and wait for VAR to decide whether it’s actually a goal. That applies whichever way you use VAR. The only solution is to get rid of VAR - but that won’t happen because neutrals who only watch football on TV tend to like it, and that’s where the money is.

 

[William Large]

The Canadian feed I was watching (with the added delight of Lee Hendrie) made several references at different points of the game to VAR checks. I don’t recall specifically about Harry’s temporary and unexpected loss of balance, but they were all mentioned almost in passing. As all the decisions were in Man U’s favour, they were quickly dealt with, nothing to see.

The stream I was watching started off as a Dutch feed which although I didn’t understand the vast majority was quite entertaining.
It bizarrely switched after about 15 mins to English commentary with Lee Hendrie as ‘expert’ co comms. Irritating little cunt who puts on a raspy ‘commentary voice’ Much preferred the Dutch commentators.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

They have an automatic (or at least semi automated) system for the champions league, not sure why they don't use that for the prem. I don't like the route VAR and offside is going but if they're going to nit pick over millimetres they should at least be accurate. How can they claim to measure offside to such degrees of accuracy when they don't know which frame the ball was hit in, players are going to be moving a few inches per frame at running speed at 60fps. I believe the champions league system has lots of cameras to 3D track players and sensors in the ball to accurately tell when it was hit.

All true. But also all going down the route of what football isn't about.
It's like been taken over by some nerdy kids who just don't get it.

 

[Charlieblade]

AI technology can do owt these days,surely it could be applied to offside decisions to take away the human error element.

My point is, that it does not remove human error.. The decision is upheld, or denied by a video assistant referee.

 

[SwissBlade]

I can’t imagine how ‘clear and obvious‘ would work with off-side. By what distance does an off-side decision have to be wrong for it to be considered a ‘clear and obvious‘ error? Either it’s a consistent distance, in which case it just means drawing another line, or it isn’t a consistent distance, in which case there are going to be endless cries of bias.

It would only be a matter of time before someone calculated that one off-side decision was wrong by 22cm and was over-turned, whereas another was wrong by 24cm and was not over-turned.

You can’t just say, “it’s only clear and obvious if you can definitely tell it’s wrong without using lines” because that’s completely subjective. One person will say they can definitely tell, and another will say they can’t quite be sure.

If you’re going to use VAR to check for off-side, it has to be black and white - either the decision was right, or it wasn’t - and unfortunately that means drawing lines, and sometimes decisions are going to be wrong by a tiny amount and the whole thing’s going to look stupid.

The technology will improve over time, there’ll be less human involvement and the line-drawing will get better - and it’ll still be total crap for those at the game, because every time your team scores a goal you have to hang around and wait for VAR to decide whether it’s actually a goal. That applies whichever way you use VAR. The only solution is to get rid of VAR - but that won’t happen because neutrals who only watch football on TV tend to like it, and that’s where the money is.

Clear and obvious refers to the error in the onfield decision. Have they made a clear and obvious error in making their judgement? The intention, as i understand it was to reduce controversy and ensure the right decision has been made.

This has perhaps been the case in many areas which have been defined as clear cut because of the laws being well defined.

However, one problem, amongst many, in bringing in VAR was that they considered the technology in their readiness and didn't look too far beyond that at the laws themselves. They focussed on Cameras, mic's, screen on the pitch, cabin in Stockley park, comms to the ref. Great, job job, lads. But what about the rest?

What was very apparent from the decision at Spurs in 2019 with Lundstrams big toe, to the decsion this weekend and the decision onfield at Old Trafford this week, is that that they haven't standardised the process and nor have they helped those making the decision to remove the subjectivity. In the example of offside, its still clear cut, black and white. Like almost all decisions, but is it a toe, the body, the majority of the body, light between the two bodies?

Drawing lines is great, that can be standard practice, but what is offside now? Same with handball? Same with fouls in the area? Same with diving?

Many decisons are overturned, wrongly. VAR is an assistant, it shouldn't be the police. The question they should ask when they review is whether there was a clear error. Not to find a reason to over turn a decision.

As i've said before, there needs to be a time limit. If it takes longer than 30-60 seconds to review then the onfield decision is deemed correct. VAR has to assist and not disrupt the game.

 

[WorkingtonBlade]

Clear and obvious refers to the error in the onfield decision. Have they made a clear and obvious error in making their judgement? The intention, as i understand it was to reduce controversy and ensure the right decision has been made.

This has perhaps been the case in many areas which have been defined as clear cut because of the laws being well defined.

However, one problem, amongst many, in bringing in VAR was that they considered the technology in their readiness and didn't look too far beyond that at the laws themselves. They focussed on Cameras, mic's, screen on the pitch, cabin in Stockley park, comms to the ref. Great, job job, lads. But what about the rest?

What was very apparent from the decision at Spurs in 2019 with Lundstrams big toe, to the decsion this weekend and the decision onfield at Old Trafford this week, is that that they haven't standardised the process and nor have they helped those making the decision to remove the subjectivity. In the example of offside, its still clear cut, black and white. Like almost all decisions, but is it a toe, the body, the majority of the body, light between the two bodies?

Drawing lines is great, that can be standard practice, but what is offside now? Same with handball? Same with fouls in the area? Same with diving?

Many decisons are overturned, wrongly. VAR is an assistant, it shouldn't be the police. The question they should ask when they review is whether there was a clear error. Not to find a reason to over turn a decision.

As i've said before, there needs to be a time limit. If it takes longer than 30-60 seconds to review then the onfield decision is deemed correct. VAR has to assist and not disrupt the game.

I understand the logic of ‘clear and obvious’ when it comes to other decisions, but I can’t see how it can be applied to off-side. Other decisions are already subjective by their nature, so adding another subjective layer - while not ideal - is probably unavoidable. However, off-side is not subjective. The law is clear, and adding a subjective layer would be unwise.

I don’t think the x seconds thing would help, because it would just result in “how did they manage to be sure in x seconds that this Sheffield United player was off-side when they were only 9cm off-side, but they weren’t sure in x seconds that this Man United player was off-side when they were 10cm off-side”. It just brings it down to how quickly they manage to get the right images on the screen for the VAR, how quickly the particular VAR team work, how confident the VAR ref is feeling at that moment - it’s all wide open to accusations of bias.

I actually think, if we must have VAR, the best way to do it is the appeal system, like in cricket. Put the ball back in the court of the team to say when they genuinely think a decision was wrong and then it will be checked, rather than checking everything, which is what makes it all so slow and creates the problem that virtually any goal can be ruled out ages later, even when nobody in the ground saw any problem with it.

 

[Mumbo]

My point is, that it does not remove human error.. The decision is upheld, or denied by a video assistant referee.

I get that but surely it could be fully automated.

 

[SwissBlade]

I get that but surely it could be fully automated.

Apparently offsides will be next season. Again doesn’t help us in the slightest

 

[sitwell]

My point is, that it does not remove human error.. The decision is upheld, or denied by a video assistant referee.

Cheated

 

[Charlieblade]

I get that but surely it could be fully automated.

I’m sure it could, but on current evidence, the addition of AI would leave any final decision shrouded in the potential corruption of officials?
AI is still error prone, just like referees. VAR should be scrapped, because all it does is provide another layer of regulations for officials to hide behind.