VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion

I honestly think VAR should not interfere in offside decisions. It is still subjected to human judgment and possible error. You are just throwing the responsibility from linesman to the VAR officials.
Until you can automate the VAR offside assessment and get near perfect accuracy (less than 0.5cm margin) like goal-line technology for every cases, please leave the decisions back to the linesmen. They are paid to do the job and let them be responsible for the decisions. There may be human errors but that is just part of the game. I prefer that than nitpicking on which head or knee crosses the line first and sometimes look ridiculously dumb to do so.
 
That is handball, Forest are very lucky.

VAR reckoned, that the hand was too close. Nothing to say about it not needing to be there in the first place.
 
It's amazing to see the differnce in attiudes in the media when it's not United who are on the receiving end of poor decisions from VAR.

If that was us instead of Liverpool yesterday you wouldn't see as much from the media
 
Longshanks said:
According to the technology, but the technology isn't accurate enough to really tell us that. It's essentially a calculated guess even using the technology for the really tight offside calls.

If they are going to use the technology at hand to make the calls then they need a much bigger MOE because the current one is nowhere near big enough.
Click to expand...

How far did the players move in 1/50th of a second, and how big is the margin of error currently?

Garnacho's Shoelaces said:
Except he's behind him when you measure with correct angle, frame and body part.
Click to expand...

The angle is irrelevant, the correct body part was used. Which frame would have been better?
 
Is drawing the lines for offside calls really as difficult/shoddy as they make it seem? On the TV replays from the broadcasters they usually get the lines perfectly fine, and have been getting them fine for years, but the VAR replays often look crooked, and they quite often seem to be neglecting other players that could be playing the attacker onside etc.
 
Watching forest v Brentford. Turner had the ball, got closed down and kicked the player and not the ball.
No appeal but to me a clear foul.

This is what var should be used for. If you give those it basically doesn't Invite players to roll around from contact
 
What I think would also help with the confidence in VAR is if the discussions on why a call is/isn't given could be broadcast, like in cricket where the discussion when the third umpire is reviewing something is broadcast to the entire stadium and on TV
 
sullydnl said:
An increasing amount of conspiracy-thought has unfortunately bled into football, with fans convinced that referees are biased against their club specifically. Allowing this sort of conflict of interest only helps fuel that. It's also unfair on the officials themselves, who then have their integrity questioned.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We shouldn't have to worry about the integrity of refs. It's bad enough worrying about their competence.
 
It was a bad decision, yes. But lets not pretend VAR refs aren't messing up every weekend on big decisions, why do Liverpool only get an apology?

It sets a bad standard now, every club will be wanting an apology when a bad decision goes against them.
 
Pexbo said:
So we’ve been on the shit end of about 5 harsh VAR calls already this season and about 3 have been clear errors which have examples either the week before/same week/week after of being called in another team’s favour.

Despite this I genuinely cannot remember a single time a commentator or pundit has admitted that we have been hard done by on any single decision and often the decision is omitted from highlights and not even discussed and it stinks to high heaven.


Regarding this offside incident, there is no way Howard Webb can omit it from his VAR review show and I refuse to believe that they would re-record the VAR incident to back up their story because the amount of people that would have to be involved for that conspiracy to be true is ridiculous and would end in jail time so it’s fair to believe that the explanation they are giving is the truth.
Click to expand...

Just came to post the same. Just watched skys highlights of yesterdays game to confirm what I already knew. That the penalty incident and tackle on Rashford wouldn’t be shown. Had it been the other way around you know they would both be in there…And that simply is not fair.
 
NotThatSoph said:
How far did the players move in 1/50th of a second, and how big is the margin of error currently?
Click to expand...

At 10mph about 9cm. Think I've read that the current margin of error is 10cm (two 5cm wide lines that can't intersect).
 
Ha anyone figured out why we had 4 minutes of added time? There were several subs plus Johnstone going down for a small head injury yet only 4 was deemed enough. Then you go back to the Arsenal game where it was ensured plenty was added on for them to find the winner. Ridiculous refereeing.
 
Ekkie Thump said:
At 10mph about 9cm. Think I've read that the current margin of error is 10cm (two 5cm wide lines that can't intersect).
Click to expand...

Yeah, I also found 5 cm per line after I commented. There was space between the two lines in Garnacho's case, so it was probably in the ballpark of 15 cm.
 
NotThatSoph said:
How far did the players move in 1/50th of a second, and how big is the margin of error currently?
Click to expand...

Potentially one player could move 15-20cm in-between frames, so two players moving in opposite directions creates a natural MOE of around 30-40 cm. Over a foot in old money.

The current MOE I believe is 10cm. Ok if the players are walking I suppose.
 
Longshanks said:
Potentially one player could move 15-20cm in-between frames, so two players moving in opposite directions creates a natural MOE of around 30-40 cm. Over a foot in old money.

The current MOE I believe is 10cm. Ok if the players are walking I suppose.
Click to expand...

Garnacho is accelerating from a very slow starting speed, while Gabriel's shoulder was basically stationary. There was also clearly visible space between the lines. I could see the argument for making the lines thicker to account for edge cases, or vary the thickness based on different situations (though this would make things more complicated), but this wasn't an edge case.
 
Bale Bale Bale said:
Their reasoning is just unfathomable to me. I really thought that they just saw Diaz was clearly ahead of the full back(Porro) and went "check complete", whilst missing Romero playing him on in the middle. It still would have been totally egregious but less so than what they've come out with.
Click to expand...

That’s exactly what I thought, hence why there was no lines drawn.
 
It’s definitely not a good look for refs to be off to Dubai midweek, then coming back to officiate prem games if certain clubs are owned by the people signing your checks. In theory that is a conflict of interest.

However if City were paying off the refs, wouldn’t they pick something that would fly a little more under the radar than this? You’d give spurs a dodgy pen, or something with some plausible deniability. Not just blatantly get something that’s black and white so badly wrong that people talk about nothing else.

I think sometimes the most obvious answer is the right one: sheer incompetence.
 
dwd said:
He’s offside mate, get your moral compass in check ffs.
Click to expand...

He was onside, there are plenty of pictures showing it.

The problem with VAR deciding offsides its that they seem to just guess when choosing which frame to use, if you look at the Garnacho one the frame they used is not from the point the ball is played so is the wrong one.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Garnacho is accelerating from a very slow starting speed, while Gabriel's shoulder was basically stationary. There was also clearly visible space between the lines. I could see the argument for making the lines thicker to account for edge cases, or vary the thickness based on different situations (though this would make things more complicated), but this wasn't an edge case.
Click to expand...

Garnacho was near enough sprinting and Gabriel actually jumped the other way. They move along way in-between frames. Comparing it to just recorded speeds is very binary because it's not necceserialy how far the entire player has moved, they look at in such a way that the speed that someone's leg actually moves (potentially even quicker than there actual recorded speed) has an impact on it.

The current technology is no where near accurate enough for the accuracy they are currently trying to achieve.

I think they actually got the clear and obvious nonsense the wrong way round, if anything offside should only be overruled if there are clear and obvious errors because we don't have the technology to rule them very accurately and penalties and red cards should actually be checked properly whether it is clear and obvious or not.
 
Longshanks said:
Garnacho was near enough sprinting and Gabriel actually jumped the other way. They move along way in-between frames. Comparing it to just recorded speeds is very binary because it's not necceserialy how far the entire player has moved, they look at in such a way that the speed that someone's leg actually moves (potentially even quicker than there actual recorded speed) has an impact on it.

The current technology is no where near accurate enough for the accuracy they are currently trying to achieve.

I think they actually got the clear and obvious nonsense the wrong way round, if anything offside should only be overruled if there are clear and obvious errors because we don't have the technology to rule them very accurately and penalties and red cards should actually be checked properly whether it is clear and obvious or not.
Click to expand...

Garnacho was not close to top speed. He was at near stand-still, then he was trailing his run while waiting for the pass. When Casemiro passed the ball Garnacho was in the process of launching his sprint, but his body was twisted and he was looking behind. He never reached top speed, because he didn't need to, but he wasn't even sprinting until the ball was almost at his feet. Gabriel was jumping away, but his shoulder barely moved. His feet moved a lot, but they're not relevant.

This isn't a controversial offside. I think these calls are annoying, because I don't think the spirit of the offside rule is about centimeters, but if this is how we decide to do it then the technology is fine. I'm sure you can find examples where the margin of error is dodgy, but this isn't one.
 
sullydnl said:
An increasing amount of conspiracy-thought has unfortunately bled into football, with fans convinced that referees are biased against their club specifically. Allowing this sort of conflict of interest only helps fuel that. It's also unfair on the officials themselves, who then have their integrity questioned.
Click to expand...
When you're a referee that supports a PL club, said PL club is state owned and you're also receiving money from them it's not a ludicrous conspiracy to claim foul play.

When a referee gets paid by the league leaders to ref for them and 2 days later he makes an unbelievable error causing a title rival to have a goal called off the leap to conspiracy becomes a small shuffle.

Would you trust either referee to officiate the match of your team now? To me their credibility is gone. No more hiding behind common human incompetence.
 
Every media crying because VAR got decision wrong against Liverpool but no mention all those wrong decisions against Man Utd.
 
I don't get why people are surprised that Liverpool have gotten an apology. This was a blatant mistake by the refs in the VAR room. It wasn't a decision that could have gone either way and they happened to get on the tough end of it. It was demonstrably the wrong decision, and the refs in charge should be punished accordingly. United might have had a few close decision, and some decisions that could and should have gone the other way, but they haven't had any objectively wrong decicsion against. It was weird when Wolves got an apology (doesn't matter if it should have been a penalty or not, they shouldn't have gotten an apology as it's clearly a situation that could go both ways), but this is embarassing incompetence from the refs and should never be allowed to happen.

Longshanks said:
I think they actually got the clear and obvious nonsense the wrong way round, if anything offside should only be overruled if there are clear and obvious errors because we don't have the technology to rule them very accurately and penalties and red cards should actually be checked properly whether it is clear and obvious or not.
Click to expand...
Offside is not up for interpretation though, it's either offside or it isn't. Garnacho was, by the rules, offside and he was ruled as such. You could certainly claim that there should be a higher margin for when it should be counted as offside, but at some point you'd always arrive at something being offside and then the absolute smallest of margins the other way and it wouldn't have been. It's just the way that it is.
 
Ahmer Baig said:
Every media crying because VAR got decision wrong against Liverpool but no mention all those wrong decisions against Man Utd.
Click to expand...

The this massive outcry will mean Liverpool will probably get loads of soft or questionable decisions their way in their next few matches
 
NotThatSoph said:
e
The angle is irrelevant, the correct body part was used. Which frame would have been better?
Click to expand...

The angle is not irrelevant at all. The greater the angle from the camera to the perspective line it seeks to interpret, the greater affect the margin of error has.

They used the defender's shoulder or head when the better angle showed the other was more advanced, resulting in inaccurate lines.

The frame used showed ball was already releases. Without even accounting for Gaussian blur in the footage, that causes the decision to be unreliable, and in this case wrong.
 
Garnacho's Shoelaces said:
The angle is not irrelevant at all. The greater the angle from the camera to the perspective line it seeks to interpret, the greater affect the margin of error has.

They used the defender's shoulder or head when the better angle showed the other was more advanced, resulting in inaccurate lines.

The frame used showed ball was already releases. Without even accounting for Gaussian blur in the footage, that causes the decision to be unreliable, and in this case wrong.
Click to expand...

They don't use the camera angle to draw the lines, the shoulder was the most forward body part, and they are supposed to use a frame where the ball is released.
 
Zlatan 7 said:
I thought it was supposed to be when it first touches the passers foot, not after the ball has been released

edit: point 2 here
https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside
Click to expand...

You’re right.

And it should go without saying that if we’re arguing about an offside based on the moment a ball is first touched vs the moment it leaves someone’s foot then we’re already through the looking glass.

Offside is a simple rule, intended to stop goal hangers. Something it has done just fine for many decades. The margin of error we had with assistant referees making a call in real time worked plenty well enough for the offside rule to do what it was supposed to do. This stupid VAR-fuelled microanalysis of every offside is so far removed from the affect this law is supposed to have on the game it’s genuinely mental.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
You’re right.

And it should go without saying that if we’re arguing about an offside based on the moment a ball is first touched vs the moment it leaves someone’s foot then we’re already through the looking glass.

Offside is a simple rule, intended to stop goal hangers. Something it has done just fine for many decades. The margin of error we had with assistant referees making a call in real time worked plenty well enough for the offside rule to do what it was supposed to do. This stupid VAR-fuelled microanalysis of every offside is so far removed from the affect this law is supposed to have on the game it’s genuinely mental.
Click to expand...

I have a genuine dislike for VAR in the game. It’s refreshing watching the league cup or my local town to actually enjoy a game of football and enjoy goals being scored
 
NotThatSoph said:
How far did the players move in 1/50th of a second, and how big is the margin of error currently?



The angle is irrelevant, the correct body part was used. Which frame would have been better?
Click to expand...
If we assume an average speed of 25kmph of the attacker, which is being modest then in one frame to the other the movement will be 14cms. That is a significant amount of margin of error when you consider that they are giving offside for 2-3 cms.

Regarding the angle it is obviously very important as you are using 2d pictures to judge a 3d situation. If you don’t use the exact angle to judge then you will not come to the correct decision.
 
NotThatSoph said:
Garnacho was not close to top speed. He was at near stand-still, then he was trailing his run while waiting for the pass. When Casemiro passed the ball Garnacho was in the process of launching his sprint, but his body was twisted and he was looking behind. He never reached top speed, because he didn't need to, but he wasn't even sprinting until the ball was almost at his feet. Gabriel was jumping away, but his shoulder barely moved. His feet moved a lot, but they're not relevant.

This isn't a controversial offside. I think these calls are annoying, because I don't think the spirit of the offside rule is about centimeters, but if this is how we decide to do it then the technology is fine. I'm sure you can find examples where the margin of error is dodgy, but this isn't one.
Click to expand...
Just admit that the technology isn't fit for purpose. There is no way that the goal should of been disallowed.
 
MrMarcello said:
This is the Serie A match I mentioned on page 207. Four minutes had passed by before replay changed everything. I don't buy into the "well, Spurs had taken the free kick, so can't change it now." Maybe it's in the rules but that should be changed going forward if so.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/8446354/fiorentina-penalty-var-spal-serie-a-italy/
--Luca Pairetto's decision to award a penalty for the foul automatically rendered everything that followed in the next four minutes, including the goal, null and void.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/f...L-goal-award-Fiorentina-penalty-decision.html
--The decision, which came more than four minutes after the foul, made everything that had followed null and void, including Valoti's goal.
Click to expand...

I don't think they need to change the rules, just use a bit of common sense.

If the ref realizes there has been a communication error, then there is no real problem in stopping play 5 seconds after he first blew the whistle to restart play. Not formally by the book, but that is the lesser evil compared to making a decision on a goal that comes from miscommunication, which is just ridiculous. You get around it by saying the first whistle blow was invalid or something like that.

Now what needs to be done is of course to make sure this never happens again by changing the way they communicate, but imo there were two major screw ups : 1) VAR being asleep and 2) VAR and REF not working together to correct the mistake.

2 is almost worse than 1 imo.
 
Isn't there a massive irony in rising sea levels from scouser tears because VAR didn't get involved? The reaction is as if VAR incorrectly disallowed a Liverpool goal - but that isn't what happened.

The linesman made a call he'd make as a human almost every time in the 30-or-so seasons that pre-dated VAR, and pundits/media/fans claim VAR "ruins the game", so why is it suddenly a 180 because VAR didn't overrule the offside decision the linesman made?

Oh wait, forgot - it's Liverpool. I forgot that it's somehow only controversial if it negatively affects them.
 
Di Maria's angel said:
Ha anyone figured out why we had 4 minutes of added time? There were several subs plus Johnstone going down for a small head injury yet only 4 was deemed enough. Then you go back to the Arsenal game where it was ensured plenty was added on for them to find the winner. Ridiculous refereeing.
Click to expand...

Towards the end, the tv broadcast was showing live score from other games and included the injury time. Every game that was still going on had 6 minutes of injury time whilst ours stood out like a sore thumb with 4 minutes. It was ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.