looks out from an angle you most certainly would not be able to tell conclusively.
VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
looks out from an angle you most certainly would not be able to tell conclusively.
I think the VAR should use his eyes and base his opinion on the footage available. Or pause the match for six months while video experts draw lines and analyse the video.
Come on, man. Move on. United were second best all day long.
Which is inconclusive.
Never said Brighton were not better but that was not the point here.
VAR cannot be sure the ball was in or out.
What do you suggest the ref should do then? Call of the match?
The ref gave the goal. The VAR should not over turn in my opinion unless it has conclusive evidence
Fair enough. I disagree with you though. I think the footage available was sufficient to disallow the goal.
Wish you were right.
Fair enough. I disagree with you though. I think the footage available was sufficient to disallow the goal.
Wish you were right.
We can agree to disagree. Im not even saying it was in, Im just saying from the footage I have seen I don’t see how you can say either way.
Thumbs up. Have a nice evening.
I can clearly see grass in between the ball and the line. I'm not sure what else I need.
A brain to know that the ball is curved and there fore the angle you are seeing you can see grass even when the whole ball is not out of play
Wasn't there an incident in the world cup, was it in a Germany game, where a similar thing happened, everyone was sure the ball was out as it looked like clear daylight between ball and line, yet a look above the ball showed that the whole ball wasn't out due to the curvature?
Balls are round.
He was tripped on the ankle/foot but it was just outside the box. There was a replay shown on Peacock, dunno about any other global networks.
The photo is right down the line genius. Are you suggesting change the camera angle until it touches the ball? Can't possible be this obtuse.
And still you do not get it
The photo is right down the line genius. Are you suggesting change the camera angle until it touches the ball? Can't possible be this obtuse.
And the photo is right down the line, which shows the circle isn't touching the straight line.
I think the term is ‘clear and obvious’, no? To me it was both clear and obvious that the ball was out, and the fact that there was no perfect angle to conclusively prove it doesn’t change that. You seem to be arguing that because there may have been a non-zero element of doubt, that VAR can’t overturn. I don’t think that’s how VAR works
Its not clear and obvious it was out. The definition of clear and obvious is that there is non zero element of doubt by the way
That Simpsons episode where Homer enters the third dimension would blow some minds on here, I swear. Maybe it was out, but the angle people are basing their judgement on was not conclusive in the slightest.
Oh I get it. You trying to tell me the camera angle posted in this thread is somehow the wrong angle even though we are staring at straight line, meaning the ball should never have any grass between it and the line if it wasn't out. Like you said, all you need is a brain.
This statement is incorrect
This wasn’t out btw.
You are never going to have a perpendicular camera shot from directly over the ball everywhere it crosses the lines but that was not too bad. The second one though... you absolutely can't make a call based on that angle when you can hardly even see the ball. Don't think they are at all comparable.
Should have a too close to call option always favouring the attacking team, but we would then probably be discussing its erratic application.
The ball was beyond the byline. Close of course, but clear enough.
Var needs to be scrapped, it is used in near every competition differently even in the fa cup it’s used in some games and not others.
football used be one the only sport’s basically the same from grassroots right up now it’s near the opposite
football used be one the only sport’s basically the same from grassroots right up now it’s near the opposite
It looked out from what I saw but I agree that the angle isn't conclusive. Does VAR have access to camera angles that don't get shown on TV? If not I don't understand how VAR can go against the on field decision.
This wasn’t out btw.
Exactly. There’s this weird assumption that seeing a gap between the ball and the line means it has crossed the line. But you can have a visible gap and the ball still be in play because its widest part is still over the line. Which is what happened in the picture you showed and probably happened today.
Disagree. I think Utd had a penalty overturned recently where it was simply not possible to make a non-zero claim about what effect the minimal amount of contact made by a Utd player had on the Arsenal player, or if the contact was even made. Yet it was overturned. Offsides are based on stills from cameras that cannot capture every infinitely small moment in time. They are snapshots. Yet they are overturned. I’d go so far as to say there will almost never be a non-zero decision in something like VAR I’m football.
I think it’s pretty clear from the available footage that it’s debatable, so not clear and obvious error by the ref and linemen to rule it in. VAR decisions, injuries, people with meldowns - We have absolutely shit for luck these first months of he league. Unfortunately, with the hysterical fans and sensationalist media jumping in on top, it looks like it’s starting to get to the players as well.
Actually the Arsenal player made contract with the United player and that was the reason for it being overturned. Even then I did not believe that met the threshold for something that should he overturned.
And as the VAR people say offside is done by the system which takes into account multiple angles and has software which takes into account the angle when drawing the lines.
What we do know is that from the angle the VAR looked at the ball can look out and it not be out and that is not a small 0.1 % chance of that being the case but actually its likely to be the case due to the fact the ball is curved. When it looks that close from the angle that ball has a reasonable chance of actually being in play
I think there's a clear difference between the Havertz incident and a ball going out of play or an offside call. One involves multiple moving parts with deception potentially involved, the other is literally two lines. Or in other words objective vs subjective. VAR should only inform the on field ref of objective facts imo.
hahah it's like drawing blood out of a stone isn't it with some people?
How do you apply that to offsides that are based on however many frames per second, and thus couldn’t ever capture the exact moment of a pass. Or a camera that can never be calibrated exactly. You accept a margin of error surely?
Explain to me how the ball being curved applies to a line shown at a near 90 degree angle? You realize this makes a difference, right?
I’m glad I’m not the only who understands basic geometry
The line is not at a 90 degree angle. Of course you can’t tell from this angle
This wasn’t out btw.
Its not 90 degrees for 1 and 2 the lower part of the ball will mean you can see grass
It’s pretty damn close.
I’m obviously talking about the the point where you would measure the diameter. Do you not see that no part of that circle touches the white line?
They need to strike the “clear and obvious” part because they are looking at everything but clear and obvious errors .
Ive already explained that you would not be able to tell from that angle but we agree to disagree. Whether or not you believe it to be close. When you are talking about millimetres then the angle being off 90 degrees even by a few degrees makes a big difference.
I’ve already explained that’s the one of if not the best angle possible (probably a degree or two off), and no it’s not millimeters out of bounds given the scale of the image.