Spurs review - Blades Good, VAR Bad (BladesPod)

[Beans]

Evening all,

Lots to discuss from an eventful visit to Tottenham and a deserved point for the Blades (at least) - me and Roygbiv do just that in this week's pod. Includes some love for McGoldrick (of course), ranting about VAR (sadly, also of course), what it's like sat among the home fans, and plenty more besides.

Small correction: I said Harry Kane had 1 shot in this game, it was actually 2. Think my overall point still stands though. Thanks as always for listening!

 

[Tom Bott]

First like ?

Speed reading, speed listening.

 

[Stretch]

Cheers Beans and just in time....

I need something to drown out the 2 obnoxious twats sat in front of me on the tram. Having a full blown row in front of everyone without a care in the world.
They even have 3rd party involved via speaker phone.

'Council' some might say

 

[Yewsman]

My comments:

I do not accept your view that Lundstram was offside. The images I have seen do not clearly show he was OFFSIDE. The rule as I understand is that being level with the last defender is onside and any benefit goes to the attacker? There is no way with the limitations of the technology and the "lines" drawn you can say the video evidence shows conclusively he WAS offside so he gets the benefit.

On VAR I quite agree that the VAR officials should be held to account and should explain the reasoning behind their decision to disallow the goal.

 

[Wright1889]

Each still picture when using VAR can be off by as much as 30cm due to the FPS (Frames per second) that the cameras are recording at, and then the speed that the players are moving at. So VAR is not accurate in these situations. Neither is it clear and obvious. As soon as a picture becomes pixelated it is not accurate..

In my opinion the naked eye can clearly see that Lunny is onside without using lines that probably aren’t even parallel to the pitch.

 

[espoo blade]

Enjoyable podcast lads! Keep up the good work!

 

[BladesOnToast]

Great podcast, my only complaint is that each of you at least once referred to "city" but didn't say which one. Leicester? Norwich? Salford?

 

[Roygbiv]

Great podcast, my only complaint is that each of you at least once referred to "city" but didn't say which one. Leicester? Norwich? Salford?

That is a poor show to be fair

 

[finlaytheblade]

My comments:

I do not accept your view that Lundstram was offside. The images I have seen do not clearly show he was OFFSIDE. The rule as I understand is that being level with the last defender is onside and any benefit goes to the attacker? There is no way with the limitations of the technology and the "lines" drawn you can say the video evidence shows conclusively he WAS offside so he gets the benefit.

On VAR I quite agree that the VAR officials should be held to account and should explain the reasoning behind their decision to disallow the goal.

Yes if John Moss thinks the line across the pitch is parallel with the 18 yd line then he needs my glasses no way is that right its skewed in favour of Dear . Cant beleave that goal was denied for offside ,joke of a decision.

 

[Houston_Blade]

Good listen again, went very ranty for a bit but it’s hard not to talk about VAR, I’ve had 3 conversations at work today with people who don’t give a flying one about football.

Good glossing over Enda’s error, it didn’t really happen.

 

[Swannyblade]

Each still picture when using VAR can be off by as much as 30cm due to the FPS (Frames per second) that the cameras are recording at, and then the speed that the players are moving at. So VAR is not accurate in these situations. Neither is it clear and obvious. As soon as a picture becomes pixelated it is not accurate..

In my opinion the naked eye can clearly see that Lunny is onside without using lines that probably aren’t even parallel to the pitch.

Completely agree.
From the VAR video footage and freeze frames you cannot definitively say that Lunny was offside due to the margin of error.
Add to this the phases of play issue and the subjective interpretation of what is supposed to be an objective rule and you have a farce...an anger inducing, joy-killing farce.
And what’s worse is that I feel like an idiot when getting so irate about frames-per second, wonky lines and the size of a player’s boot when blurred in an image - this isn’t where my football passion should be channeled.

 

[Yellarbellyblade]

That is a poor show to be fair

You ok now you’ve had a good rant?

100% agree with you

 

[Roygbiv]

You ok now you’ve had a good rant?

100% agree with you

It's the 7th rant I've had about it this week but I still think there are more to come

 

[Beans]

Great podcast, my only complaint is that each of you at least once referred to "city" but didn't say which one. Leicester? Norwich? Salford?

Apologies, it was Salford both times

 

[bromtom]

Completely agree.
From the VAR video footage and freeze frames you cannot definitively say that Lunny was offside due to the margin of error.
Add to this the phases of play issue and the subjective interpretation of what is supposed to be an objective rule and you have a farce...an anger inducing, joy-killing farce.
And what’s worse is that I feel like an idiot when getting so irate about frames-per second, wonky lines and the size of a player’s boot when blurred in an image - this isn’t where my football passion should be channeled.

If you look at the frame, Lunny's foot is as long as his leg from ankle to knee. I have size 12 feet, and am roughly the same height as Lundstram at 6'1” and my feet are nowhere near as long as my lower leg, 2/3rds at most, and I've got short legs for my height.

Do they not apply common sense and think, "hang on, that's not accurate is it"

 

[Charlieblade]

Thank you Roy. Your explanation regarding the VAR incident was spot on for me. The system was trying to justify disallowing that score. It went on for too long during the game for it to be anything other than, someone trying to justify why they could disallow that goal.
Like most people, I am thoroughly fed up with the constant teview and reaction to McGoldicks goal. I nearly didn’t listen to bladespod because of it.

No one would have been even slightly miffed if that was given as a goal.
Pundits will be annoyed, because that’s their job, discussing talking points after the game. The decision making process has been usurped by the VAR system trying to justify itself. The advent of AI in football

 

[bromtom]

Thank you Roy. Your explanation regarding the VAR incident was spot on for me. The system was trying to justify disallowing that score. It went on for too long during the game for it to be anything other than, someone trying to justify why they could disallow that goal.
Like most people, I am thoroughly fed up with the constant teview and reaction to McGoldicks goal. I nearly didn’t listen to bladespod because of it.

No one would have been even slightly miffed if that was given as a goal.
Pundits will be annoyed, because that’s their job, discussing talking points after the game. The decision making process has been usurped by the VAR system trying to justify itself. The advent of AI in football

AI would do it properly.

Player tracking based on pitchside tracking points, kinematics, and frame information, ball velocity, distance travelled, predicted point of impact etc.

That would be VAR done right in my opinion.

At the moment with replaced one fallible system (a referee) with two fallible systems.

 

[Charlieblade]

AI would do it properly.

Player tracking based on pitchside tracking points, kinematics, and frame information, ball velocity, distance travelled, predicted point of impact etc.

That would be VAR done right in my opinion.

At the moment with replaced one fallible system (a referee) with two fallible systems.

I agree with your conclusion but objective AI might embarrass referees too much.

 

[Niceguyeddie]

Thank you Roy. Your explanation regarding the VAR incident was spot on for me. The system was trying to justify disallowing that score. It went on for too long during the game for it to be anything other than, someone trying to justify why they could disallow that goal.
Like most people, I am thoroughly fed up with the constant teview and reaction to McGoldicks goal. I nearly didn’t listen to bladespod because of it.

No one would have been even slightly miffed if that was given as a goal.
Pundits will be annoyed, because that’s their job, discussing talking points after the game. The decision making process has been usurped by the VAR system trying to justify itself. The advent of AI in football

The moose on. Talksport for once made sense saying that he knew after a minute and a half they would find a way of disallowing the goal because they didn't want to look stupid for halting play for that long for no reason

 

[Antonb]

Thank you for the podcast guys, love listening to them. And we are 5th totally on merit!

 

[Charlieblade]

The moose on. Talksport for once made sense saying that he knew after a minute and a half they would find a way of disallowing the goal because they didn't want to look stupid for halting play for that long for no reason

Neil Swarbrick. the guy supposedly in charge of VAR says he believes VAR is worth 7/10 on current form. He has dismissed the relative success of rugby union TMO because they are 6 years ahead of VAR.
RU refs had input into their system and they have sufficient self respect to be more objective about it.
The games are not the same, but surely deserve shared experiences. Swarbrick clearly doesn't think so.

VAR chief Neil Swarbrick marks new system as 'seven out of 10' despite criticism

The use of video assistant referees in Premier League games is given a mark of seven out of 10 by the man in charge, despite strong criticism.

www.bbc.com

 

[carthesis]

Neil Swarbrick. the guy supposedly in charge of VAR says he believes VAR is worth 7/10 on current form. He has dismissed the relative success of rugby union TMO because they are 6 years ahead of VAR.
RU refs had input into their system and they have sufficient self respect to be more objective about it.
The games are not the same, but surely deserve shared experiences. Swarbrick clearly doesn't think so.

VAR chief Neil Swarbrick marks new system as 'seven out of 10' despite criticism

The use of video assistant referees in Premier League games is given a mark of seven out of 10 by the man in charge, despite strong criticism.

www.bbc.com

More to the point, saying there's no comparison because rugby is six years ahead or whatever is ludicrous. Yes, they started using it 6 years beforehand, but football should have LEARNED from the rugby approach, rather than just reinventing the wheel again and again. Even though there is a six year time gap, we shouldn't be that far behind in implementation terms.

By saying that, all he's really admitting in my ears is that they haven't even TRIED to learn from other sports.

Something to be proud of there then.

 

[Charlieblade]

More to the point, saying there's no comparison because rugby is six years ahead or whatever is ludicrous. Yes, they started using it 6 years beforehand, but football should have LEARNED from the rugby approach, rather than just reinventing the wheel again and again. Even though there is a six year time gap, we shouldn't be that far behind in implementation terms.

By saying that, all he's really admitting in my ears is that they haven't even TRIED to learn from other sports.

Something to be proud of there then.

.... cheers for making the point better than i did.

 

[carthesis]

.... cheers for making the point better than i did.

Lol! Sorry - wasn't trying to do that!

But yeah - it's typical football and referee arrogance really. "Football is SO much different and SO much more important we couldn't POSSIBLY take advice and ideas and such from another sport that has far more experience in this than us."

Bunch of wankers.

And while I'm in favour of VAR generally, I'm in favour of it being used the RIGHT way. Even though the Spurs game it went against us, I'd be just as appalled about that decision if it had been a goal disallowed for the Unclean. Using those lines and everything else for making such an utterly marginal call implies a level of accuracy in the entire system which quite simply does not exist! All the calls for "offside is offside; rules of the game" etc. have a point in the same way as people complaining about getting 3 points for doing 31 in a 30 zone and being told "you were above the limit" - but would you be so accepting of that ruling if it was determine that the radar gun that clocked you doing 31 was only accurate to the nearest 5mph? Because that's what we are talking about here - the implied accuracy of a system that just doesn't exist.

 

[JohnDenver]

Roygbiv ”#PeakTuftyball”

 

[Jesus_was_a_Blade]

On the whole VAR debate, you can make a case for him being either onside or just offside. Frame rates, pixel resolutions, inaccuracy of the person(s) choosing when to freeze the image & where to place the lines...

The problem is everything mentioned in the paragraph above sounds like it belongs in a maths or science class. It should be nowhere near a football pitch. If a player has 99.9% of his body in line with a defender, do we really believe he's offside? Has that 1mm gained him a significant advantage?

Football is supposed to be a game of passion & emotion. The more I think about it the more I believe the VAR is a cancer that is slowly going to kill the game we love.

FIFA & UEFA will be culpable for this slow death, and VAR is just the tip of the iceberg. Hosting finals in countries inaccessible to fans, ridiculous kick off times to please oversea's viewers, extortionate costs for some tickets. These organisations no longer care about the experience of the fans in the stadium, and they haven't for some time. As long as they are making a profit, they're more than happy to bleed the game dry...