VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion

ayushreddevil9 said:
How come it's not a problem in other sports?
Click to expand...
I don't know enough about other sports and their referees and use of tech. One point I'd be interested in is whether other sports change their rules or interpretation of them so often, eg handballs, offside, fouls incurring a yellow etc...
 
Giggsyking said:
Click to expand...

I hope Ratcliff gives some backbone to this club and puts pressure on these shit refs and technology they use.

We had Fergie who admittedly put pressure on the refs, and we need to do this in Ratcliff’s tenure.
 
Are these numbers accurate:



if so, that’s insane. especially when you see the stone-wallers in those screenshots that we weren’t given
 
Pogue Mahone said:
This all implies that there are obvious “true” answers that these incompetents are failing to spot. I defy you to find one controversial decision which has got 100% consensus on this place. The whole world is raging about the Newcastle goal this morning but you can easily argue that both giving it and not giving it would have been the correct decision. Likewise the penalty we conceded against City. There is only very rarely a “true” answer for tight calls and there will always be subjectivity for most big decisions in football.

The narrative all this post-VAR moaning creates about officials being corrupt or profoundly incompetent is as damaging to the game as the poxy technology itself.
Click to expand...

Objectively
1) Brighton game - standard of proof not met that ball went out of play. No evidence.
2) Spurs game - unless holding your arm above your head is now natural, it's a penalty objectively.
3) Arsenal game - Garnacho is onside. Objectively an inadequate angle used, wrong frame used and lines drawn from wrong body part of defender.
4) City game - Rodri clearly simulates the extent of the contact. It's obvious cheating and you can objectively show the same contact at least 20+ times in every game not intervened for.

These aren't close calls open to interpretation and debate. They are now a pattern of behaviour which gives rise to it being deliberate rather than merely unconscious bias against United.
 
I heard Dermot Gallacher on Talksport today defending VAR by saying that some of the decisions in football are "subjective", as in one foul for one referee is not a foul for another etc. That's not good enough frankly and it's infuriating: there simply aren't -that- many borderline decisions, they just decide them seemingly on a whim, for instance last week Vs city and yesterday with Maguire.

But as per the stats above: Why are we losing 5 goals - goals that could change the outlook of our entire season - to subjective decisions? I can't help but think that this mean that EVERY time there's a "subjective" decision it's going to go against us simply because otherwise there's an insane level of pressure on the referees from the media - if not to really pursue an anti United agenda than to generate clicks - and that, subjectively, since Klopps moaning they've collectively decided it's just easier to rule against us every time? If I was Ten Hag I'd be taking the 50-100k fines every game to call it out and force the media to talk about it, because it's getting a bit outrageous.
 
Garnacho's Shoelaces said:
Objectively
1) Brighton game - standard of proof not met that ball went out of play. No evidence.
2) Spurs game - unless holding your arm above your head is now natural, it's a penalty objectively.
3) Arsenal game - Garnacho is onside. Objectively an inadequate angle used, wrong frame used and lines drawn from wrong body part of defender.
4) City game - Rodri clearly simulates the extent of the contact. It's obvious cheating and you can objectively show the same contact at least 20+ times in every game not intervened for.

These aren't close calls open to interpretation and debate. They are now a pattern of behaviour which gives rise to it being deliberate rather than merely unconscious bias against United.
Click to expand...

The Garnacho offside decision was, factually, made completely in line with VAR protocol and in line with other offside decisions that get made every single week.

The fact that you have managed to convince yourself that it was not only wrong but objectively wrong and not open to debate is quite funny and evidence of the bias people view these decisions through. Unfortunately, it is not evidence of deliberate bias against United.
 
The officials are just shit scared of the scrutiny they will be under if they allow a United goal that has the slightest hint of any wrongdoing no matter how minimal. Nothing to do with the UAE payments, no siree.
 
sullydnl said:
The Garnacho offside decision was, factually, made completely in line with VAR protocol and in line with other offside decisions that get made every single week.

The fact that you have managed to convince yourself that it was not only wrong but objectively wrong and not open to debate is quite funny and evidence of the bias people view these decisions through. Unfortunately, it is not evidence of deliberate bias against United.
Click to expand...
There was a parallel camera angle and they chose the angle from behind, which is objectively worse for a call which if we are honest was too tight for the technology anyway. Why did they not use the better angle?
 
Bale Bale Bale said:
The Maguire one was clear, that's why MOTD didn't go over it for those Utd fans shouting conspiracy. Plus Utd won anyway so who cares. I get the argument over consistency as City had one allowed just like that but what do you want refs to do? Just keep making the wrong decision over and over again because one went against Utd?
Click to expand...

It was so clear it took Var, the Ref and a monitor check nearly 5 minutes to make a decision on it.
 
stevoc said:
So Maguire was marginally offside when a freekick came in that sailed over his head but was occupying a defender that theoretically could have been covering the other attacker behind him who is onside and eventually crosses to another attacker who is onside and scores. Yeah if that was applied to every game and every scenario we'd see a lot more offsides and a lot less goals scored.

So by this logic if any attacking player is offside when the ball is played that leads to a goal, then that goal has to be ruled out yes?

As they're potentially tying up a defender who could have covered the onside players who score or assist.

Let's see if that interpretation of the rules gets applied again this season.
Click to expand...
I think it was a combination of occupying a defender and attempting to play the ball that resulted in him being given offside.
 
While we are enjoying Arteta's meltdown, until we have an overhead camera to prove if a ball is in play or not these type of debates will keep occurring.
The Rashford pass that was deemed out of play is the reverse of this.

Until then we simply have to move on.
 
sullydnl said:
The Garnacho offside decision was, factually, made completely in line with VAR protocol and in line with other offside decisions that get made every single week.

The fact that you have managed to convince yourself that it was not only wrong but objectively wrong and not open to debate is quite funny and evidence of the bias people view these decisions through. Unfortunately, it is not evidence of deliberate bias against United.
Click to expand...

I don't really get the wailing and gnashing of teeth about the Garnacho one. While it was tight I thought he was off and don't really see the controversy at all.

Someone mentioned so many subjective ones going against us. For me once it becomes subjective they should err on the side of the attacking team and give the goal. If it's subjective then by definition it's not objectively an infringement of the rules.
 
Lash said:
This is a stupid stat that doesn't mean much without any context. VAR gets generalised too much and this stuff doesn't really help.
Click to expand...

Considering the other teams get into the box far more than United do.. might have something to do with it
 
Yorke to Cole said:
Does anyone AI could be used in VAR? If so how and would be positive or a dangerous path?
Click to expand...
You could use it to ensure greater consistency. If they built a simulation system similar to FM to monitor games in real time, by feeding the system information on correct decisions, the bot referee should be able after some time to calculate the most consistent decision. You'd need chips in alle the balls, all the boots and maybe even censors in the shirts. Their weight, height and body strength could be measured beforehand. Let's say a player is bumping into Salah and Salah removes his footing to go down, system should be able to detect that in real time and give a decision on that to a ref in less than a second. Beep - no foul on his watch. Another situation is when a defender goes down to protect the ball out wide when being pressured in a defensive position, usually a free kick no matter how hard the contact, here the system could make a non biased decision based on impact. Does that constitute a penalty if it happened in the box? You could really plot in a blueprint for how the rules should work and use that as a reference point for consistency. How are you going to argue something was soft, if even if it's soft, it's always soft.

For me it would be the most important change in refereeing with the use of technology because it actually improves a system. It wont completely remove human error, but it will take a lot of the guesswork out of the simple decisions and make the game run more smoothly. It would be a lot less fuss if everyone would just agree on the rules and focus on playing football.

These days we have rule changes every year, different practices are introduced and thrown out as soon as they come. Nobody can agree on what the rules should be, and a different explanation is used for the same situation each week depending on who gets the decision in their favour. The integrity is at an all time low for me and it's killing the sport. The competitive element is threatened by oil money and political investment as it is. I also think such a system could be rendered out for the public to explore, not hidden. Every decision would then have an explanation behind it and updating it by public opinion would be easier than having a meeting with 23 refs who should all just change at once.
 
sullydnl said:
The Garnacho offside decision was, factually, made completely in line with VAR protocol and in line with other offside decisions that get made every single week.

The fact that you have managed to convince yourself that it was not only wrong but objectively wrong and not open to debate is quite funny and evidence of the bias people view these decisions through. Unfortunately, it is not evidence of deliberate bias against United.
Click to expand...

There's literally a camera angle showing it was onside. You are incorrect.
 
The penalty stat posted in this thread is obviously bs. United received 5 more penalties just the season Klopp made those comments.

We haven't gotten a lot of penalties under Ten Hag though, but we got a huge amount under Ole. Make of that what you want.
 
MikeKing said:
You could use it to ensure greater consistency. If they built a simulation system similar to FM to monitor games in real time, by feeding the system information on correct decisions, the bot referee should be able after some time to calculate the most consistent decision. You'd need chips in alle the balls, all the boots and maybe even censors in the shirts. Their weight, height and body strength could be measured beforehand. Let's say a player is bumping into Salah and Salah removes his footing to go down, system should be able to detect that in real time and give a decision on that to a ref in less than a second. Beep - no foul on his watch. Another situation is when a defender goes down to protect the ball out wide when being pressured in a defensive position, usually a free kick no matter how hard the contact, here the system could make a non biased decision based on impact. Does that constitute a penalty if it happened in the box? You could really plot in a blueprint for how the rules should work and use that as a reference point for consistency. How are you going to argue something was soft, if even if it's soft, it's always soft.

For me it would be the most important change in refereeing with the use of technology because it actually improves a system. It wont completely remove human error, but it will take a lot of the guesswork out of the simple decisions and make the game run more smoothly. It would be a lot less fuss if everyone would just agree on the rules and focus on playing football.

These days we have rule changes every year, different practices are introduced and thrown out as soon as they come. Nobody can agree on what the rules should be, and a different explanation is used for the same situation each week depending on who gets the decision in their favour. The integrity is at an all time low for me and it's killing the sport. The competitive element is threatened by oil money and political investment as it is. I also think such a system could be rendered out for the public to explore, not hidden. Every decision would then have an explanation behind it and updating it by public opinion would be easier than having a meeting with 23 refs who should all just change at once.
Click to expand...

… Or just get the fembot from Austin Powers to automatically shoot divers
 
Out of curiosity: where is goal line technology “placed”?

Couldnt that just be used to decide questions like yesterday’s with Arsenal? Or where Rashford passed to Højlund and he scored?
 
kiristao said:
I think it was a combination of occupying a defender and attempting to play the ball that resulted in him being given offside.
Click to expand...

But surely by that stage he wasn't actually offside and wasn't it the second phase of play after Garnacho took possession of the ball?
 
stevoc said:
Well yes but if those numbers are true then there must be an explanation.
Click to expand...
There was a Twitter thread by the Swedish Rumble which showed that the number of touches we take in the box per penalty is way outside of the average.
 
Pexbo said:
There was a Twitter thread by the Swedish Rumble which showed that the number of touches we take in the box per penalty is way outside of the average.
Click to expand...

As in we have a lot less touches inside the opposition box compared to other top teams?

Or that we have to have way more touches inside the opposition box before we get awarded one?
 
stevoc said:
But surely by that stage he wasn't actually offside and wasn't it the second phase of play after Garnacho took possession of the ball?
Click to expand...
So you are telling me that he didn't attempt to play the ball before Garnacho got it? Just because he didn't actually reach the ball doesn't mean that he didn't attempt to play. In doing so he also physically interfered with an opponent that also attempted to play the ball. That is two bullet points right there in the offside rule. It's a pretty obvious offside.
 
stevoc said:
As in we have a lot less touches inside the opposition box compared to other top teams?

Or that we have to have way more touches inside the opposition box before we get awarded one?
Click to expand...
 
Lay said:
Considering the other teams get into the box far more than United do.. might have something to do with it
Click to expand...
It's hard to even take anything from it, are we bad at holding our runs or defensive line, so a lot are overturned offside goals? Are they pens? Are they handballs ruling out goals? They need to be categorised to try and understand anything from it.
 
MikeKing said:
You could use it to ensure greater consistency. If they built a simulation system similar to FM to monitor games in real time, by feeding the system information on correct decisions, the bot referee should be able after some time to calculate the most consistent decision. You'd need chips in alle the balls, all the boots and maybe even censors in the shirts. Their weight, height and body strength could be measured beforehand. Let's say a player is bumping into Salah and Salah removes his footing to go down, system should be able to detect that in real time and give a decision on that to a ref in less than a second. Beep - no foul on his watch. Another situation is when a defender goes down to protect the ball out wide when being pressured in a defensive position, usually a free kick no matter how hard the contact, here the system could make a non biased decision based on impact. Does that constitute a penalty if it happened in the box? You could really plot in a blueprint for how the rules should work and use that as a reference point for consistency. How are you going to argue something was soft, if even if it's soft, it's always soft.

For me it would be the most important change in refereeing with the use of technology because it actually improves a system. It wont completely remove human error, but it will take a lot of the guesswork out of the simple decisions and make the game run more smoothly. It would be a lot less fuss if everyone would just agree on the rules and focus on playing football.

These days we have rule changes every year, different practices are introduced and thrown out as soon as they come. Nobody can agree on what the rules should be, and a different explanation is used for the same situation each week depending on who gets the decision in their favour. The integrity is at an all time low for me and it's killing the sport. The competitive element is threatened by oil money and political investment as it is. I also think such a system could be rendered out for the public to explore, not hidden. Every decision would then have an explanation behind it and updating it by public opinion would be easier than having a meeting with 23 refs who should all just change at once.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the reply. I do not know much or read much about this technology as an innovation.

I completely agree with everything you say. I think realignment of the rules each season also makes it difficult for supporters.

I think referees also should explain their decision like it does in Rugby. Last week when the penalty was given to Man City, the play went on for approximately a minute and a half after the free kick incident. This is unacceptable when you consider the match going supporters.
 
CoopersDream said:
So you are telling me that he didn't attempt to play the ball before Garnacho got it? Just because he didn't actually reach the ball doesn't mean that he didn't attempt to play. In doing so he also physically interfered with an opponent that also attempted to play the ball. That is two bullet points right there in the offside rule. It's a pretty obvious offside.
Click to expand...

Attempting to play the ball dosent automatically make you offside but if you attempt to play the ball and that impedes an opponents ability to play the ball then your offside.

So the question is does Maguire in attempting to play the ball impede the ability of the defender to play the ball. Its very debatable. I understand how they decided that he did but I'm not sure I really agree with it.
 
stevoc said:
Well yes but if those numbers are true then there must be an explanation.
Click to expand...

You've have at least 9 pens awarded in the prem since Klopp whinged about it (which was in January 2021 according to a google search)...
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/12179737/is-liverpool-boss-jurgen-klopps-man-utd-penalty-claim-correct#:~:text=The champions slipped to a,two second-half penalty appeals.

You've had 1 this season, 3 in 2022/23 and 5 in 2021/22. I don't know if you had any more in the 2020/21 season after theJanuary that Klopp moaned, I'm not that bored to check.
 
CoopersDream said:
So you are telling me that he didn't attempt to play the ball before Garnacho got it? Just because he didn't actually reach the ball doesn't mean that he didn't attempt to play. In doing so he also physically interfered with an opponent that also attempted to play the ball. That is two bullet points right there in the offside rule. It's a pretty obvious offside.
Click to expand...
If he’s only offside when trying to play the ball then the defender is already too far behind for him to be impeded.
 
duffer said:
You've have at least 9 pens awarded in the prem since Klopp whinged about it (which was in January 2021 according to a google search)...
https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11661/12179737/is-liverpool-boss-jurgen-klopps-man-utd-penalty-claim-correct#:~:text=The champions slipped to a,two second-half penalty appeals.

You've had 1 this season, 3 in 2022/23 and 5 in 2021/22. I don't know if you had any more in the 2020/21 season after theJanuary that Klopp moaned, I'm not that bored to check.
Click to expand...
That’s not at least 9. We didn’t get any in the season after Klopp said it. So that’s literally exactly 4.
 
Longshanks said:
Attempting to play the ball dosent automatically make you offside but if you attempt to play the ball and that impedes an opponents ability to play the ball then your offside.

So the question is does Maguire in attempting to play the ball impede the ability of the defender to play the ball. Its very debatable. I understand how they decided that he did but I'm not sure I really agree with it.
Click to expand...
To me it's pretty clear cut per the rules and in the spirit of the game absolutely should be offside.
 
ROFLUTION said:
… Or just get the fembot from Austin Powers to automatically shoot divers
Click to expand...
It's actually easier than mechatronic tits. In the game Fifa, bad refereeing decisions are minimal because why would you want that in the game if you could be without. In a multi billion industry if you find that refs are more successful in a simulated portrayal of the game than in real life, you have to ask how? Surely that means football has neglected the technological aspect of growth within the sport for years and that it's time to catch up. They have realised this, but using VAR is dumb. You have 5 regular refs looking at the footage a few times instead of using technology to be efficient, take the guesswork out of it.

Look.
Handballs. Really easy, cut and dry. - Just have a consistent rule and apply it all the time.
Offsides. Really easy cut and dry. - The monitored simulated game knows exactly when the ball leave the foot and where all the players are.
Out of play situations. Really easy cut and dry. - The Monitored game register when the ball is outside of the line.

Freekicks, red cards, yellow cards.
The most difficult aspect to get right I'd imagine but the more information you give the system the more it learns. Which creates a measure of consistency when similar situations occur.

The result would be a fair game. Often you see City give freekicks away without getting cards, yet when the other team who has less of the ball goes in for a tackle, City players drop like flies and get cheap free kicks. There is all sorts of exploitive tactics currently used against refs, and they have no idea how to protect against it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.