VAR - Not the hero we want, the one we need

RochaRoja said:
Usually it’s pretty obvious from player/crowd/coach reactions when something controversial happens.
Click to expand...

Ha. Haha. Hahaha. Bwahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaahaaa good one!


Oh wait, you’re serious. I’m sorry Neymar, your reactions were always honest.

And SUPPORTER crowds, none of you are ever biased or want to see things.

No player ever tried to steal a throw-in.

No player or coach ever said “one can and should always try to act to convince or manipulate the referee”.

Nobody or even whole teams ever claimed hands when it wasn’t the case? Controversy over supposed simulation? Whether the foul was committed in or outside the box? Hands or chest hit?

The VAR allows less discussion. Nobody can claim ref bias. The only problem I see is the time it consumes. Not the accuracy.

The problem is we’d probably start seeing players appealing for everything after goals are given to ensure they’re reviewed so long term you’d have the same issue.
Click to expand...

How is that different from before VAR? Have you ever watched a tournament where not a single player disputed anything and/or everything?
 
cyberman said:
It doesn't really matter what you understand though. You really think these questions arent answered with the amount of money thrown in?
Honest question, has this been brought up before or are you grabbing frame rates from thin air?
Click to expand...

I’m grabbing them from my own head. So thin air, yes. It’s something I thought of, if var is enough to change goal decisions over a few mm, I think it should at least be accurate enough to make that call in the first place. I have doubts that it is. That’s all there is to it really.

The money men/ UEFA/ whoever could have thought of this and just not give a feck, as clearly not many fans do.
 
Too many posts to reply to all the points, but I do agree on the point of the accuracy. When you consider the super tight decisions where a player is literally 1cm offside then it’s clear the margin of error that you will have in that system is larger than that for two reasons:

1. You can’t stop the play at precisely the moment the ball is played, because often you can’t actually see. Is it the moment the player’s foot makes contact with the ball or stops making contact, and both of these will almost always be between frames, so you’re adding error. Perhaps you could take cricket’s approach here where they take the first frame where the bails are clearly dislodged (I.e. the first frame where it’s clear the ball has gone).
2. Drawing a line across the pitch to Cm accuracy with no fixed and highly precise points of reference is not easy at all. You have to calibrate the cameras, which again is not easy to do, you’d need surveyancing equipment. Perhaps they do that, I’m not sure. Taking that line in a virtual frame of reference and painting on the screen will also add error. I’d be astonished if that error is <1cm.


Is all this sounds incredibly pedantic, that’s because it is. And that’s my point, we’ve been peddled a system that is “perfect” and it’s not. We can all accept a human making an error on a tight call, it’s much more grating to accept a supposedly perfect system doing the same.

I would have more respect if there was a tolerance of say 5cm, not to artificially give the attacker an advantage, but to accept that the system isn’t perfect and the odds of a player being given wrongly with such a margin would become vanishingly small.
 
slyadams said:
Too many posts to reply to all the points, but I do agree on the point of the accuracy. When you consider the super tight decisions where a player is literally 1cm offside then it’s clear the margin of error that you will have in that system is larger than that for two reasons:

1. You can’t stop the play at precisely the moment the ball is played, because often you can’t actually see. Is it the moment the player’s foot makes contact with the ball or stops making contact, and both of these will almost always be between frames, so you’re adding error. Perhaps you could take cricket’s approach here where they take the first frame where the bails are clearly dislodged (I.e. the first frame where it’s clear the ball has gone).
2. Drawing a line across the pitch to Cm accuracy with no fixed and highly precise points of reference is not easy at all. You have to calibrate the cameras, which again is not easy to do, you’d need surveyancing equipment. Perhaps they do that, I’m not sure. Taking that line in a virtual frame of reference and painting on the screen will also add error. I’d be astonished if that error is <1cm.


Is all this sounds incredibly pedantic, that’s because it is. And that’s my point, we’ve been peddled a system that is “perfect” and it’s not. We can all accept a human making an error on a tight call, it’s much more grating to accept a supposedly perfect system doing the same.

I would have more respect if there was a tolerance of say 5cm, not to artificially give the attacker an advantage, but to accept that the system isn’t perfect and the odds of a player being given wrongly with such a margin would become vanishingly small.
Click to expand...
Accuracy is not a huge issue if you take fixed reference points on the other side of the field and know the camera position.

It is called maths. I hear com-pute-rs are good at that.

As an aerospace engineer, I can tell you that camera’s and programs accurate of micrometers at tens of thousands of kilometers already exist, so your surprise is surprising as we are talking accuracy on distances within ~100m here for which you need far less accurate lenses.

This isn’t the seventies anymore...
 
FigmentOfYerImagination said:
Ha. Haha. Hahaha. Bwahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaahaaa good one!


Oh wait, you’re serious. I’m sorry Neymar, your reactions were always honest.

And SUPPORTER crowds, none of you are ever biased or want to see things.

No player ever tried to steal a throw-in.

No player or coach ever said “one can and should always try to act to convince or manipulate the referee”.

Nobody or even whole teams ever claimed hands when it wasn’t the case? Controversy over supposed simulation? Whether the foul was committed in or outside the box? Hands or chest hit?

The VAR allows less discussion. Nobody can claim ref bias. The only problem I see is the time it consumes. Not the accuracy.
Click to expand...

And in those situations you review them rather than every single situation even when there’s not a single complaint (i.e. England’s goal, France’s goal, United’s penalty at PSG).
 
There are only 3 options with the offside line & VAR adjudication. 1 - stick with what you've got 2 - move the line to help who you think is being potentially done over 3 - build in tolerance when the camera is possibly misleading us

I have to say that (1) looks like the most sensible & the winner here. I mean, it would hardly be the worst thing about the Offside Rule in any case.

And I did it myself to start - but this is a daft argument coming from the anti-VAR gang now I feel.
 
Last edited:
FigmentOfYerImagination said:
Accuracy is not a huge issue if you take fixed reference points on the other side of the field and know the camera position.

It is called maths. I hear com-pute-rs are good at that.

As an aerospace engineer, I can tell you that camera’s and programs accurate of micrometers at tens of thousands of kilometers already exist, so your surprise is surprising as we are talking accuracy on distances within ~100m here for which you need far less accurate lenses.

This isn’t the seventies anymore...
Click to expand...
As a computer scientist whose master’s thesis was in computer visualisation I can tell you know nothing about camera calibration. Having a camera accurate to microns means sod all if they’re not all pointed absolutely perfectly. Your fixed reference points need to be perfectly placed. Do you know how they calibrate these cameras? If so, please send the details. If not, please stop making assumptions.
 
So many people who don't understand how and when VAR is used....

I mean, look it up. Clear and obvious error refers to subjective decisions, not objective ones like offside. And all goals are rightfully reviewed
 
cyberman said:
Has there been claims of VAR inaccuracy? Only place I've seen it are from posters reaching on here.
Click to expand...
Anyone who works with any type measuring knows that tolerances are an important part of making sure your measurements are right.

If you went into any business and asked them to make something for you without any tolerances you'd be laughed out the door.
 
Fully Fledged said:
Anyone who works with any type measuring knows that tolerances are an important part of making sure your measurements are right.

If you went into any business and asked them to make something for you without any tolerances you'd be laughed out the door.
Click to expand...
But all that's being out forward is anecdotal evidence here.
Has there been accusations of VAR being unable to pick up an offside?
 
cyberman said:
But all that's being out forward is anecdotal evidence here.
Has there been accusations of VAR being unable to pick up an offside?
Click to expand...
Yes, can you not remember the squiggly line fiasco. Or the game where one angle the player was offside, from another angle he looked onside.
 
Zlatan 7 said:
Yes, can you not remember the squiggly line fiasco. Or the game where one angle the player was offside, from another angle he looked onside.
Click to expand...
That was BT own attempts though? They then showed the refs feed which was seperate entirely.
They didn't just come up with VAR yesterday.
 
cyberman said:
That was BT own attempts though? They then showed the refs feed which was seperate entirely.
They didn't just come up with VAR yesterday.
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

I guess you just don’t have any issue with VAR offsides at all and technology is totally error free and accurate. Each to their own
 
Zlatan 7 said:
Fair enough.

I guess you just don’t have any issue with VAR offsides at all and technology is totally error free and accurate. Each to their own
Click to expand...

I'm not sure we have a better idea, tbh.

Back to trusting the bloke with a flag.
 
Fully Fledged said:
Exactly. There should be a tolerance of about half a foot, about 15cm. So if the defenders and the attackers line falls within the tolerance they are given on side. Pretending that the tech is able to give an accurate reading to millimetres is just ridicules.
Click to expand...
And if someone has a goal ruled out for being 16cm offside, you people will be screaming for a foot. The someone will be 31cm offside and you’ll be shouting for daylight.

Either you’re offside or you’re not.
 
even if it's not 100% accurate it's definitely more accurate than the old approach. So it's all good.
 
Just seen the handball given by VAR in the womans World Cup game. It’s ridiculous as with the new hand ball rule & VAR we’re going to get so many penalties with players just aiming to smack the ball at players hands In the box now
 
slyadams said:
As a computer scientist whose master’s thesis was in computer visualisation I can tell you know nothing about camera calibration. Having a camera accurate to microns means sod all if they’re not all pointed absolutely perfectly. Your fixed reference points need to be perfectly placed. Do you know how they calibrate these cameras? If so, please send the details. If not, please stop making assumptions.
Click to expand...

Yet you don’t need one here for micron accuracy, just centimeters over distance below 100m, which is rather easy to set with lasers. Those reference points should be extremely easy to place along the commercial boarding.

Why exactly would you expect poor reference placement? Have you so little trust in our fellow engineers?

Granted, many are indeed silly people.

slyadams said:
Regarding the calibration, https://football-technology.fifa.com/en/blog/the-challenge-of-offside-for-var/, is an interesting read, but it’s light on technical and then subsequent implementation details
Click to expand...

Still says the VAR systems were tested for accuracy of up to millimeters over a grid with 100 calibration points. I would presume those would be required to be hit by the line drawing system properly before being approved as a valid system. So if it’s a mm tolerance, then that would be more than good enough for this application. Looks like they apply triangulation using at minimum three camera’s as well, so that’s even better. I’m sure it’s a complex calculation given the variables, but there’s plenty of money to develop the system and calibrate it for various pitches, lenses, etc. Provided they control for the various variables properly.

Fully Fledged said:
Anyone who works with any type measuring knows that tolerances are an important part of making sure your measurements are right.

If you went into any business and asked them to make something for you without any tolerances you'd be laughed out the door.
Click to expand...

Yeah great, but tolerances can also have lower and upper limits beyond which the product is considered faulty. Demanding for mm let alone cm accuracy isn’t that big a deal. People who think there ought to be 10cm to a foot of tolerance from a modern engineering development which is allowed to cost a few million pounds must be living in the 18th century. For crying out loud, the Romans had higher accuracy on aquaduct drop-off over kilometers distance (!).
 
Last edited:
The goal called back in Englands game vs the Swiss didn't sit well with me. Put it this way, had Ali's header gone straight in and not hit the bar, would the goal had been called back? Sure, Wilson tugged on his arm, and if that gave him and advantage and was the one on the end of the header, then I'd be all for the goal being called back. But he was the one who picked up the rebound well after the initial "foul". I think this opens doors for a lot of goals to be called off because if you look hard enough, you're going to find a foul somewhere...
 
Anustart89 said:
And if someone has a goal ruled out for being 16cm offside, you people will be screaming for a foot. The someone will be 31cm offside and you’ll be shouting for daylight.

Either you’re offside or you’re not.
Click to expand...

I would rather hear the a goal was allowed because a players toe was still onside than to hear that a goal was called off because a toe was offside. In other words, change the offside rule so that there has to be clear daylight between the attacker and the defender. I'm also all for changing the rules so that a player can start in an offside position as long as they receive the ball in an onside position...
 
giorno said:
So many people who don't understand how and when VAR is used....

I mean, look it up. Clear and obvious error refers to subjective decisions, not objective ones like offside. And all goals are rightfully reviewed
Click to expand...

How it’s used and how it should be used are completely different things.

Using it only for clear and obvious errors would be a massive improvement to the game. Using it the pedantic way they are now has made the game worse.
 
SadlerMUFC said:
The goal called back in Englands game vs the Swiss didn't sit well with me. Put it this way, had Ali's header gone straight in and not hit the bar, would the goal had been called back? Sure, Wilson tugged on his arm, and if that gave him and advantage and was the one on the end of the header, then I'd be all for the goal being called back. But he was the one who picked up the rebound well after the initial "foul". I think this opens doors for a lot of goals to be called off because if you look hard enough, you're going to find a foul somewhere...
Click to expand...

The decision was fine. It was a clear foul.

No idea how it took them quite so long to come to that conclusion though. Should’ve taken thirty seconds max to wipe off.
 
SadlerMUFC said:
I would rather hear the a goal was allowed because a players toe was still onside than to hear that a goal was called off because a toe was offside. In other words, change the offside rule so that there has to be clear daylight between the attacker and the defender. I'm also all for changing the rules so that a player can start in an offside position as long as they receive the ball in an onside position...
Click to expand...

That’s a potential benefit of VAR. Now that we’re no longer having to rely on judgements of men/women with flags, the offside rule can become more nuanced.
 
Rafaeldagold said:
Just seen the handball given by VAR in the womans World Cup game. It’s ridiculous as with the new hand ball rule & VAR we’re going to get so many penalties with players just aiming to smack the ball at players hands In the box now
Click to expand...

Yes, Nicola Doherty seemingly in a natural running position, Fran Kirby strikes the ball past her foot and into her arm for a cross. (After 12 mins in the min-by-min part)

https://www.google.no/amp/s/www.tel...-womens-world-cup-2019-live-score-latest/amp/

The main problam is with the new stupid hand ball rule, but with VAR it creates an endless array of petty situations deciding games. If refs are going to be consistent, there will be a penalty at each corner for shirt tugging etc. And all defenders will have to run around in the box with arms behind their backs. Messi will have a field year, and it will look stupid.

All to avoid referees using their reasonability.
 
SadlerMUFC said:
I would rather hear the a goal was allowed because a players toe was still onside than to hear that a goal was called off because a toe was offside. In other words, change the offside rule so that there has to be clear daylight between the attacker and the defender. I'm also all for changing the rules so that a player can start in an offside position as long as they receive the ball in an onside position...
Click to expand...
But how much is clear daylight? 5cm? What about if someone only has 4cm of daylight as seen by var?

There’s always going to be some degree of discussion over the supposed line that’s drawn. By introducing even more nuance into it you’re just further complicating the issue.
 
There's a problem with the clear daylight idea if the lino is looking across a line of 10 players. Space is going to be harder to spot than the most forward shirt of a certain colour. I think it's too much for the eye/brain to process & keep re-processing.

There are 2 pretty obvious answers to that. Neither of which I want to go in to.

I don't think we need a MORE nuanced offside rule either - it's hard enough atm, isn't it?

This for example:
a player can start in an offside position as long as they receive the ball in an onside position
Click to expand...

he would need to be active / play the ball / interfere

and be receiving a forward pass

so it doesn't happen a lot

or you mean in the next phase - where everyone ought to be able to be put back onside? - That is a very dodgy area, because if 5 players go after the ball. the lino can't tell who is who & it gets ignored. A single attacker will get spotted.

I reckon some attacking teams have spotted this, and worked out you can send in offside runners all the time & next phase on it can be quite an advantage. You just can't give them the ball first time. Any pass through ha sto be to an onside runner - but it does anyway.

Arsenal's tippy-tappy phase did a lot of this, imo.
 
RochaRoja said:
How it’s used and how it should be used are completely different things.

Using it only for clear and obvious errors would be a massive improvement to the game. Using it the pedantic way they are now has made the game worse.
Click to expand...
It IS used only for clear and obvious errors! Seriously, look it up
 
giorno said:
It IS used only for clear and obvious errors! Seriously, look it up
Click to expand...

I think we're arguing over what constitutes a clear & obvious error aren't we?

I said it's a 'red herring' because a COE is now anything that the VAR can see?

Associated with the trend/idea/practice for every goal to be checked.

Or only some goals & you might get away with it, :). <--- which seems even more flawed & not much better than not having VAR.
 
montpelier said:
I think we're arguing over what constitutes a clear & obvious error aren't we?

I said it's a 'red herring' because a COE is now anything that the VAR can see?

Associated with the trend/idea/practice for every goal to be checked.

Or only some goals & you might get away with it, :). <--- which seems even more flawed & not much better than not having VAR.
Click to expand...
Ok seriously. Look up how VAR is used. In what situations and for what. Will clear up a lot of your doubts
 
giorno said:
Ok seriously. Look up how VAR is used. In what situations and for what. Will clear up a lot of your doubts
Click to expand...

I accept what you say. I'm talking about what I've seen actually happening.

Nearly everything is a COE once the camera spots it.
 
montpelier said:
Nearly everything is a COE once the camera spots it.
Click to expand...
I'm facepalming. You've made me facepalm. Be ashamed of yourself :nono:

nearly everything isn't reviewable by VAR. Only goals(ALL GOALS ARE REVIEWED, ALWAYS), penalty shouts, potential red cards, and cases of mistaken identity. That's it.
 
giorno said:
I'm facepalming. You've made me facepalm. Be ashamed of yourself :nono:

nearly everything isn't reviewable by VAR. Only goals(ALL GOALS ARE REVIEWED, ALWAYS), penalty shouts, potential red cards, and cases of mistaken identity. That's it.
Click to expand...

‘That’s it’ That can all be a large part of the game..! All goals being reviewed for starters will mean you can never truly celebrate as a soft foul could be seen (which look 100x worse in slow mo replays) or a 1mn offside (depending on freeze frame of when ball was played)

Penalty shots..well you can get multiple of those in a game- 10 plus. Especially with hand ball now being pretty much anything they hits your hand- players will just be smashing it at defenders hands now in the box.

I think you underestimate how often VAR will be called into action
 
Rafaeldagold said:
‘That’s it’ That can all be a large part of the game..! All goals being reviewed for starters will mean you can never truly celebrate as a soft foul could be seen (which look 100x worse in slow mo replays) or a 1mn offside (depending on freeze frame of when ball was played)

Penalty shots..well you can get multiple of those in a game- 10 plus. Especially with hand ball now being pretty much anything they hits your hand- players will just be smashing it at defenders hands now in the box.

I think you underestimate how often VAR will be called into action
Click to expand...

I know you and your buddy will just keep making things up, but maybe try to read the actual rules and guidelines just once, so you don't look as silly:

The referee can watch footage in normal speed &/or in slow motion but, in general, slow motion replays should only be used for ‘point of contact’for physical offences and handball; normal speed should be used for the ‘intensity’of an offence or to decide if a handball was ‘deliberate’. The other match officials will not review the footage unless asked to do so by the referee

https://www.knvb.nl/downloads/bestand/9844/var-handbook-v8_final
 
Rafaeldagold said:
‘That’s it’ That can all be a large part of the game..! All goals being reviewed for starters will mean you can never truly celebrate as a soft foul could be seen (which look 100x worse in slow mo replays) or a 1mn offside (depending on freeze frame of when ball was played)

Penalty shots..well you can get multiple of those in a game- 10 plus. Especially with hand ball now being pretty much anything they hits your hand- players will just be smashing it at defenders hands now in the box.

I think you underestimate how often VAR will be called into action
Click to expand...
I follow a league that has been using VAR for 2 years now. No, i do not believe i underestimate how often VAR gets called into action
 
do.ob said:
I know you and your buddy will just keep making things up, but maybe try to read the actual rules and guidelines just once, so you don't look as silly:

The referee can watch footage in normal speed &/or in slow motion but, in general, slow motion replays should only be used for ‘point of contact’for physical offences and handball; normal speed should be used for the ‘intensity’of an offence or to decide if a handball was ‘deliberate’. The other match officials will not review the footage unless asked to do so by the referee

https://www.knvb.nl/downloads/bestand/9844/var-handbook-v8_final
Click to expand...

You’ve just proven my point?

The referee CAN watch in normal/slow motion.

Also handball will look so much worse in slow mo- which again you’ve just proven they can use it for.

So no need to make anything up- the facts are there silly :)
 
Rafaeldagold said:
You’ve just proven my point?

The referee CAN watch in normal/slow motion.

Also handball will look so much worse in slow mo- which again you’ve just proven they can use it for.

So no need to make anything up- the facts are there silly :)
Click to expand...

Refs can do all kinds of nonsense in theory. In reality they won't last for very long if they think they are above rules and guidelines.

Sometimes I wonder if you actually watch football matches, because for example in Bundesliga there is an intervention around every 306 minutes of playtime on average. Which is in stark contrast to the fantasies you keep sharing in this thread. I doubt it's much different in other competitions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.