VAR ruled this offside...

[Plymouthblade]

What are you on about? Who reserves their celebrations until it’s been confirmed by VAR?

Rugby fans

 

[Plymouthblade]

They are not going to admit it’s shit as they will look like fools, but it’s took the game away completely whether it’s in our favour or not it’s a pile of shit

 

[YES Blade]

Well the Spurs fans were as outraged as us so you're point looks a bit silly now

I didn’t hear anything on the stream I was watching so I’ll take your word for that.

 

[YES Blade]

I'm quoting what was stated in the press this week as being something that was mentioned at the Premier League manager's meeting. Apparently, (and I think it was in the interview with Frank Lampard last weekend), the manager's were reassured that VAR would only be used to investigate "clear and obvious" errors by the referee.

This is not how it is being used.

To your points above though, and here's why I don't like VAR...

This is not applying technology with accuracy. For example, in tennis the technology can tell us 100% if a ball is in or out. But in football it isn't doing that. It's not monitored by sensors on the line or in the ball. It's monitored by some old fart in a studio, magnifying the picture and drawing random lines on it. So, it's not accurate, I'm sorry, it's just not. And similarly with the "is he offside or not", that's interesting that you've put it that way. Because, and I'm assuming a smart chap like you knows this, being "offiside" is not an offence, or a reason to stop the game. And it's not a reason to disallow a goal either, unless the player, or his team, gained some sort of advantage from being "offiside".

My ultimate gripe with VAR though is this...

if you are going to hand the final decision to someone other than the 4 officials who are there seeing it with their own eyes, then it needs to be 100% right and not only that, but you need to demonstrate to those 60,000 fans (and the worldwide millions who are watching) WHY you made that decision. If we don't do that then we undermine everyone's confidence in fair play and sportsmanship in the game.

It doesn't get any clearer or more obvious to me than that!

Why does it need to be 100%? Surely if it’s for example 90% without VAR and 95% with VAR, that’s a better situation? VAR isn’t 100% perfect and don’t think anyone has ever claimed it was ever going to be, but it gives the team of officials a better chance of getting the decision correct by being able to view replays.

The offsides seem to be the most controversial decision this week because we’ve seen another extremely tight call disallow a goal, but by the letter of the law Lundstram was offside and it was the correct decision. No one likes to see it come down to millimetres but they have to be consistent with the stance they have taken. The refs would get hammered for favouring the big clubs if Liverpool gets awarded a goal that was only a bit offside, unfortunately they can’t use discretion on something where it is factual.

VAR can be improved and will be improved in the coming years, but for this season I think we’re going to be stuck with what we’ve got as it would be deemed unfair to change how it’s used mid season.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

When even Lineker's throwing the WTFs about you know it's a bad one.

And against Spurs.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

Why does it need to be 100%? Surely if it’s for example 90% without VAR and 95% with VAR, that’s a better situation? VAR isn’t 100% perfect and don’t think anyone has ever claimed it was ever going to be, but it gives the team of officials a better chance of getting the decision correct by being able to view replays.

The offsides seem to be the most controversial decision this week because we’ve seen another extremely tight call disallow a goal, but by the letter of the law Lundstram was offside and it was the correct decision. No one likes to see it come down to millimetres but they have to be consistent with the stance they have taken. The refs would get hammered for favouring the big clubs if Liverpool gets awarded a goal that was only a bit offside, unfortunately they can’t use discretion on something where it is factual.

VAR can be improved and will be improved in the coming years, but for this season I think we’re going to be stuck with what we’ve got as it would be deemed unfair to change how it’s used mid season.

Trouble is your argument doesn't include 'clear and obvious'.

 

[YES Blade]

Trouble is your argument doesn't include 'clear and obvious'.

Offsides, as has been pointed out earlier don’t fall under the clear and obvious. They are factual, you are either offside or onside, there is no “well he was only slightly offside, so it’s not a clear and obvious error”.

It’s how the system is implemented which needs improving and in time that will get better, I’m certain of it. It’s like everything, nothing is perfect from day one, it takes time.

 

[wizadry]

I don’t remember a single injury stoppage in the 2nd half and there were 4 subs, so I’d say 6 minutes was about right.

There was another VAR check for our ‘legitimate’ goal, not as long but there was one, there was two goals, five subs plus the main VAR incident, I think 6 minutes was at least a couple of minutes shy of how many there should’ve been.

 

[Large Mendonca]

I don’t remember a single injury stoppage in the 2nd half and there were 4 subs, so I’d say 6 minutes was about right.

That doesn't take into account the 2nd VAR stoppage check for Baldock's goal either

 

[ZoneManWilf]

The offsides seem to be the most controversial decision this week because we’ve seen another extremely tight call disallow a goal, but by the letter of the law Lundstram was offside and it was the correct decision. No one likes to see it come down to millimetres but they have to be consistent with the stance they have taken. The refs would get hammered for favouring the big clubs if Liverpool gets awarded a goal that was only a bit offside, unfortunately they can’t use discretion on something where it is factual.

But its not factual. Hawk eye on tennis and cricket is factual to the margin of error that it can be 99.999% trusted.

The offsides as they stand in football simply cannot be factual given the technology they are using. Proven by the blurred bollocks line that seemed to be in the wrong place on Dier. And that before talking about the exact frame the ball is played forward. I had exactly the same thoughts on the Firmino one, so it's not just because it's us.

I have little problem with them overturning blatant offsides but if the technology isn't sufficient to do what they are doing at the moment with offside to these tiny levels.

If it's so marginal that it can't actually be accurately determined, then you stay with the on field decision.

The principle of VAR, I'm OK with to stop blatantly incorrect decisions, but the PL implemention is fucking ludicrous, especially with these offsides.

 

[gordoncharles]

Offsides, as has been pointed out earlier don’t fall under the clear and obvious. They are factual, you are either offside or onside, there is no “well he was only slightly offside, so it’s not a clear and obvious error”.

There have been dozens of replies on various threads as to why that isn't true and it's a shame that they have to be repeated. It involves such variables as camera angles, frame rates, motion blur, shadows, plus the very real issue that nobody knows for sure at what millisecond in time the ball is played.

I saw something from a computer scientist suggesting that at the speed of play and the inherent inaccuracies there is a margin of error up to 38cm.

 

[Niceguyeddie]

I didn’t hear anything on the stream I was watching so I’ll take your word for that.

here's one

 

[Sparky The Blade]

The camera not being in line creates an inaccuracy. The pixelated image creates an inaccuracy. The 50fps that VAR works at creates an inaccuracy. The timing of the ball leaving the players foot creates an inaccuracy.

The level of inaccuracy should be calculated to a distance. Then that distance is depicted in the thickness of the lines to build a tolerance either side. If the two lines overlap at all then it is within the goldilocks zone and should be deemed level. Thats how VAR should work.

 

[Dronfield Blade]

Picture one: 90 Degree line, using the edge of the box as a guide, another 90 degree line following touchline.



Picture 2: Another 90 degree line. Using the other 2 as guide.



Please tell me if im doing something wrong!? What is the VAR line true against? How do they get the angle for the red line?

50 frames per seconds and blurry image quality...... also the judgment of when the ball is actually played. Its ridiculous.

FUCK VAR!

 

[Sparky The Blade]

Picture one: 90 Degree line, using the edge of the box as a guide, another 90 degree line following touchline.

View attachment 64246

Picture 2: Another 90 degree line. Using the other 2 as guide.

View attachment 64247

Please tell me if im doing something wrong!? What is the VAR line true against? How do they get the angle for the red line?

50 frames per seconds and blurry image quality...... also the judgment of when the ball is actually played. Its ridiculous.

FUCK VAR!

Horizon. Your lines can't meet. Due to the positioning of the camera one of those lines has to be at an angle. All it depicts is that the camera is not in line with the players.

 

[GRUMPY BLADE]

But its not factual. Hawk eye on tennis and cricket is factual to the margin of error that it can be 99.999% trusted.

The offsides as they stand in football simply cannot be factual given the technology they are using. Proven by the blurred bollocks line that seemed to be in the wrong place on Dier. And that before talking about the exact frame the ball is played forward. I had exactly the same thoughts on the Firmino one, so it's not just because it's us.

I have little problem with them overturning blatant offsides but if the technology isn't sufficient to do what they are doing at the moment with offside to these tiny levels.

If it's so marginal that it can't actually be accurately determined, then you stay with the on field decision.

The principle of VAR, I'm OK with to stop blatantly incorrect decisions, but the PL implemention is fucking ludicrous, especially with these offsides.

Agree, there should be daylight between the players to give a VAR offside.

 

[VwBlade]

Agree, there should be daylight between the players to give a VAR offside.

Was just about to say the same. Isn't that the actual law of offside?

 

[BettingBlade]

Was just about to say the same. Isn't that the actual law of offside?

Youd still have the same issue with tight calls though due to the frame rate issues as before. There has to be a margin for error, where the VAR says if he’s less that 20mm (for arguments sake) offside then its undetermined therefore the original decision stands. If VAR is changing a decision it should be beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[SB_90]

I was watching MOTD, I am hugely confused because I saw the image & radio Sheffield live. I assumed that the image was the cross that preceded McGoldrick goal. but watching MOTD im baffled at how lundstram is offside when his cross was headed away by dier. all my knowledge surely says that is a different phase of play & anything before that is pointless

because how far we going back, well Norwood was offside In 10th minute so the goal in 25th minute is ruled out

 

[Dronfield Blade]

Horizon. Your lines can't meet. Due to the positioning of the camera one of those lines has to be at an angle. All it depicts is that the camera is not in line with the players.

Fair enough, even by eye, the line made by VAR looks off, if you actually drew a line on the pitch, using the edge of the box as a guide I cant see it looking anything like the VAR line.

If fans are to trust this system it needs to be more transparent. Im no expert (as many fans wont be) so it should be explained and held accountable. Even if it is a couple of day after the match. VAR should at least fight its own corner and explain decisions and the way it works. Educate fans so we trust the system in future.

 

[Roygbiv]

Apparently Chris Foy has said it was offside. If the referees genuinely think they're getting it right then there is no hope.

 

[Yellarbellyblade]

Sunday Supplement on Sky is ripping VAR apart now, some very intelligent observations.

Mike Riley getting ripped a new one while Wilder getting talked up.

 

[Niceguyeddie]

Sunday Supplement on Sky is ripping VAR apart now, some very intelligent observations.

Mike Riley getting ripped a new one while Wilder getting talked up.

Just watched that would have like to see them.spend a bit more time on it but got the impression they're sick of talking about the same thing happening every week

Bang on about Riley it's purely down to him that the system has been manipulated to look like it's not working when we all know it's him who should be redundant

 

[BobblesBlade]

Main point for me is phases. Once that cross is cleared by Dier the phase resets.

No way is it offside.

Exactly!

 

[Yellarbellyblade]

Just watched that would have like to see them.spend a bit more time on it but got the impression they're sick of talking about the same thing happening every week

Bang on about Riley it's purely down to him that the system has been manipulated to look like it's not working when we all know it's him who should be redundant

The point they made that football doesn’t belong to Mike Riley and his gang, it belongs to players managers and fans was the one PL needs to remember - what is VAR for?

 

[Niceguyeddie]

The point they made that football doesn’t belong to Mike Riley and his gang, it belongs to players managers and fans was the one PL needs to remember - what is VAR for?

As soon as I heard in pre season that the premier league or the pgmol Had decided that they were going to do things differently to everyone else ( or the FIFA directive )my optimism for a fairer system turned to anger at the inevitable shitstorm that Riley and his minnions would create

 

[Sabella's Socks]

But its not factual. Hawk eye on tennis and cricket is factual to the margin of error that it can be 99.999% trusted.

The offsides as they stand in football simply cannot be factual given the technology they are using. Proven by the blurred bollocks line that seemed to be in the wrong place on Dier. And that before talking about the exact frame the ball is played forward. I had exactly the same thoughts on the Firmino one, so it's not just because it's us.

I have little problem with them overturning blatant offsides but if the technology isn't sufficient to do what they are doing at the moment with offside to these tiny levels.

If it's so marginal that it can't actually be accurately determined, then you stay with the on field decision.

The principle of VAR, I'm OK with to stop blatantly incorrect decisions, but the PL implemention is fucking ludicrous, especially with these offsides.

Where do you get your evidence and statistics on the trustworthiness of Hawkeye?

I think it's likely it's being slavishly and unquestioningly obeyed, and nothing more.

Tennis players used to regularly question Hawkeye, so did cricketers, particularly with regard to lbw.

As far as I can tell they were just beaten into submission. And in this Brave New World everyone does what the technology tells them.

Maybe there is actual evidence, but last time I looked I couldn't find any.

 

[Harrisblade]

Why does it need to be 100%? Surely if it’s for example 90% without VAR and 95% with VAR, that’s a better situation? VAR isn’t 100% perfect and don’t think anyone has ever claimed it was ever going to be, but it gives the team of officials a better chance of getting the decision correct by being able to view replays.

The offsides seem to be the most controversial decision this week because we’ve seen another extremely tight call disallow a goal, but by the letter of the law Lundstram was offside and it was the correct decision. No one likes to see it come down to millimetres but they have to be consistent with the stance they have taken. The refs would get hammered for favouring the big clubs if Liverpool gets awarded a goal that was only a bit offside, unfortunately they can’t use discretion on something where it is factual.

VAR can be improved and will be improved in the coming years, but for this season I think we’re going to be stuck with what we’ve got as it would be deemed unfair to change how it’s used mid season.

You're missing the point.
VAR is not meant to be used in cases where it 'might' be offside, but where it obviously WAS offside and the officials missed it.
See post #218 for the views of the UEFA referee's spokesman.

 

[ZoneManWilf]

Where do you get your evidence and statistics on the trustworthiness of Hawkeye?

I think it's likely it's being slavishly and unquestioningly obeyed, and nothing more.

Tennis players used to regularly question Hawkeye, so did cricketers, particularly with regard to lbw.

As far as I can tell they were just beaten into submission. And in this Brave New World everyone does what the technology tells them.

Maybe there is actual evidence, but last time I looked I couldn't find any.

Admittedly I've assumed. But both cricket and tennis use the much more established hawk eye, and those decisions are over a specific smaller areas of the court or wicket. VAR is trying to determine millimetre offsides over 50 or 60 yards of pitch and the tech is clearly not up to the task.

Plus, cricket has a margin of error called umpire's call, probably covering an uncertain area of about 10-15% of the stumps.

So the technology is used on an advisory basis with the umpire on pitch call being used as the core decision with a margin of uncertainty where it stays with the initial decision. It has the effect of removing clearly incorrect decisions, so more are right, but marginal ones are essentially unchanged.

Why VAR can't do the same approach for offsides is beyond me as its just common sense.

 

[Champagneblade]

Letter of the law - correct...

but when it takes nearly 4 mins you’ve killed both sides momentum

VAR is not for me

How is it? Even if that freeze frame is correct, which it isn't because the pass is not in the process of being made, it's already been made, the head and shoulder, both legitimate tools to touch the ball unlike the hand, are both as far forward as the foot, as is the knee possibly.