Author Topic: The VAR thread (Read 111768 times)

QuoCob · « **Reply #345 on:** Wed 03 Jul 2019 08:19 »

Quote from: Acme Thunderer on Wed 03 Jul 2019 08:12

Quote from: bruntyboy on Tue 02 Jul 2019 23:11
How long will it be until the law is changed and offsides are only given within the 18 yard line to the goal line?

Also unless there is SFP involved I'd like penalties not to be given if. like DOGSO, players are not heading towards the goal when fouled - just a direct free kick.

The offside law change you suggest was tested on a London league in the 1970s and was discarded after less than a season, although I cannot think why.

It was used during the Watney Cup Competition for 2/3 seasons from 1971.
"This measure was designed to reduce midfield congestion and promote more goals, at a time when defences were becoming much better organised."
"It proved to be a success with fewer stoppages and less defensive football."

QuoCob · « **Reply #346 on:** Wed 03 Jul 2019 08:31 »

Quote from: Acme Thunderer on Tue 02 Jul 2019 22:02

Two crucial VAR incidents in tonight's semi-final. Decision to disallow the England goal was correct - just - but I could not see any contact leading to the England penalty, despite the numerous replays. Sad that England couldn't profit from the penalty but, on balance, the better side won.

The only angle that you could see contact was from behind, the USA player caught her 'kicking' leg on the down swing.

I thought that the official had a decent game. Didn't think that she 'lost control' at all.
The commentator saying that 'she had forgotten that she had already awarded a caution' was a bit disingenuous, officials cannot remember all incidents throughout a game and I believe that as soon as she looked at her card, she correctly awarded the red.

Microscopist · « **Reply #347 on:** Wed 03 Jul 2019 10:36 »

Quote

...too microscopic

Impossible

Ashington46 · « **Reply #348 on:** Wed 03 Jul 2019 11:03 »

Quote from: Microscopist on Wed 03 Jul 2019 10:36

Quote
...too microscopic
Impossible

The future!

bmb · « **Reply #349 on:** Wed 03 Jul 2019 14:19 »

In my mind when something is such tiny a margin, ie needing 20 different angles to find that miniscule amount of contact to justify giving a penalty or for when it's just a toenail offside then it's not a clear & obvious error. I know that's not the FIFA interpretation maybe but for me if it something that cannot be seen by the naked human eye then I just don't get how it can be considered a clear & obvious error, it really does not make sense to me. How is that clear? How is that obvious?

A sneaky shove in the back on the blindside of the referee that can be seen instantaneously & obviously from a different angle then fine, a strikers hand helping the ball over the line into the goal again on the blindside of the referee (like Kassai had in the Turkey v Croatia match played without VAR or AARs) I'm ok with those being given rather than go unpunished as I'm sure most of us are. That to me is what VAR should be being used for, something that a match official, be it the ref or AR would/could see if they were in a different position/had X-ray vision. That handball when facing goal, that the referee cannot see through players to see and that their AR may miss because firstly they are concentrating more on the offsides, as they should be, and secondly because the sheer volume of players in the area is going to give them a degree of an impeded view anyway - that's where they need that extra pair of eyes & those are the decisions that everyone wants to see them receive help if needs be to get right. I'm fine with a player who has used gamesmanship and thrown themself to the floor like a sack of spuds when there has been zero contact getting caught out & not getting a penalty they clearly did not deserve. I also think a booking and a 3 match ban should follow that scenario but that's nothing to do with VAR! It might force them to clean up their game a bit when they don't win them anymore - a ban each time they did it certainly would work rather quickly! However when it comes to having to play any incident from all 24+ cameras just to find someones bootlace brush another player or something equally as ridiculous or when needing to use a mathematical equation that Einstein would have been proud of to determine that 0.0001mm of a players toenail was offside for me it then goes past being clear & obvious. Yay on the one hand for the correct decision, but even that's no guarantee depending on the competency of the VAR ref themselves & the quality & the angles of images available to them. On the other hand though, the skills & the errors are what make the game beautiful, whether they are on the part of the 22 players or the 3-5 strong team of match officials. There is clear & obvious when seen from another angle or there is technically correct while being more detrimental to the game as a whole, imo!

Microscopist · « **Reply #350 on:** Wed 03 Jul 2019 16:29 »

Quote from: Ashington46 on Wed 03 Jul 2019 11:03

Quote from: Microscopist on Wed 03 Jul 2019 10:36
Quote
...too microscopic
Impossible

The future!

The future .... well there needs to be a serious look at the philosophy of VAR. The penalty was one that would, I think, rarely be given by an on-field referee, it's too hard to judge. However, VAR shows a touch which, even if it didn't cause the tumble that followed, most probably caused White to miss her kick. So it should be a foul as it is contact, clearly initiated by the defender, which has impeded the attacker. Yellow card if the the referee thinks it was "careless" rather than "accidental", red card if the referee thinks it was deliberate and not an attempt to play the ball.

The question is whether this is the kind of "obvious" error or not? If we say yes then we have, in effect different interpretations of the law for VAR decisions than for those in non VAR situations. I can see pro's and con's. At the top level of professional players the game is becoming quite different from the game as played by part-time and amateur players - do we want to widen that gap further? On the other hand should we encourage the sly, almost imperceptible nudges that prevent players from playing the ball cleanly. bruntyboy mentions the slight push by a defender as an attacker jumps to head for goal - happens all the time, just slightly tilting the body so the header is misdirected - rarely in my view accidental on the part of the defender; but is it just part of the game?

I remember in days of yore when Kevin Keegan was manager of Fulham, City played at Craven Cottage. Mid way through the first half City's big Georgian central defender, Kakhaber Tskhadadze was nudged by Chris Coleman as he was making a defensive header - that nudge caused him to land off balance and rupture several knee ligamnents and effectively end his playing career (although he had some success as a manger). Probably would never have been given as a foul then or now - was it deliberate? - who knows. But it simply illustrates that slight (one might even say microscopic) nudges can have profound effects.

Moving on to offside (and goalkeeper moving at penalties) decisions I have said repeatedly that VAR in these cases has errors, both inherent in the laws themselves and caused by the rather sparse equipment (although I understand that 3D VAR will be used in the Premiership). If we are to overturn onfield decisions we need to appreciate and have an estimate of these errors and only overturn the onfield decision if there is, say a 90%, 95% or whatever, chance that it is wrong. It shouldn't be that difficult to estimate the average error on an offside decision and draw a line of sufficient thickness where only decisions which fall outhwith that line would cause the on-field decision to be reversed. I'd guess that England's goal last night would probably have stood. As an aside and with a slight Scottish bias, I wonder, if the same VAR scutiny as seen in the Scotland v Argentina game had applied to last night's game, whether the penalty would have needed to be retaken.

Ashington46 · « **Reply #351 on:** Wed 03 Jul 2019 17:02 »

Quote from: Microscopist on Wed 03 Jul 2019 16:29

Quote from: Ashington46 on Wed 03 Jul 2019 11:03
Quote from: Microscopist on Wed 03 Jul 2019 10:36
Quote
...too microscopic
Impossible

The future!

The future .... well there needs to be a serious look at the philosophy of VAR. The penalty was one that would, I think, rarely be given by an on-field referee, it's too hard to judge. However, VAR shows a touch which, even if it didn't cause the tumble that followed, most probably caused White to miss her kick. So it should be a foul as it is contact, clearly initiated by the defender, which has impeded the attacker. Yellow card if the the referee thinks it was "careless" rather than "accidental", red card if the referee thinks it was deliberate and not an attempt to play the ball.

The question is whether this is the kind of "obvious" error or not? If we say yes then we have, in effect different interpretations of the law for VAR decisions than for those in non VAR situations. I can see pro's and con's. At the top level of professional players the game is becoming quite different from the game as played by part-time and amateur players - do we want to widen that gap further? On the other hand should we encourage the sly, almost imperceptible nudges that prevent players from playing the ball cleanly. bruntyboy mentions the slight push by a defender as an attacker jumps to head for goal - happens all the time, just slightly tilting the body so the header is misdirected - rarely in my view accidental on the part of the defender; but is it just part of the game?

I remember in days of yore when Kevin Keegan was manager of Fulham, City played at Craven Cottage. Mid way through the first half City's big Georgian central defender, Kakhaber Tskhadadze was nudged by Chris Coleman as he was making a defensive header - that nudge caused him to land off balance and rupture several knee ligamnents and effectively end his playing career (although he had some success as a manger). Probably would never have been given as a foul then or now - was it deliberate? - who knows. But it simply illustrates that slight (one might even say microscopic) nudges can have profound effects.

Moving on to offside (and goalkeeper moving at penalties) decisions I have said repeatedly that VAR in these cases has errors, both inherent in the laws themselves and caused by the rather sparse equipment (although I understand that 3D VAR will be used in the Premiership). If we are to overturn onfield decisions we need to appreciate and have an estimate of these errors and only overturn the onfield decision if there is, say a 90%, 95% or whatever, chance that it is wrong. It shouldn't be that difficult to estimate the average error on an offside decision and draw a line of sufficient thickness where only decisions which fall outhwith that line would cause the on-field decision to be reversed. I'd guess that England's goal last night would probably have stood. As an aside and with a slight Scottish bias, I wonder, if the same VAR scutiny as seen in the Scotland v Argentina game had applied to last night's game, whether the penalty would have needed to be retaken.

Totally agree about the VAR observations which, in my opinion, are in grave danger of diminishing the respect for the onfield officials which is a shame.
Yes, we know that some officials do let themselves down on occasion, however, they are making decisions at full speed and are always having to contend with players trying to bend the Laws!

Regarding your observations on the slightest push having an effect, yes, you are correct. I played semi-pro for quite a number of years when I was in the RAF and my first manager was Jim Langley who was player manager at Hillingdon Borough and played in my position, therefore, I didn't manage to get in the team. However, as a 19 year old, I learned so much from him in my year there. One of the things he taught me was that, as a defender, if you jumped up for a ball with an opponent, just a slight push in the back with your thumb could project your opponent a foot or more.
It always worked and was almost impossible to spot by the officials.

Needless to say, when I was refereeing I was aware of this little dodge, however, I rarely spotted it either1

Readingfan · « **Reply #352 on:** Wed 03 Jul 2019 17:56 »

We should again remember that clear and obvious does not apply to offside - you are always either onside or offside.

The question then becomes the extent to which the technology can accurately determine that. I don't know the precise figure for that but I believe the World Cup, like the Premier League next season, uses a 3D system which has a high level of accuracy, even if not at 100%. I believe the judgement is probably more accurate than anything we've had previously so I'm happy to accept it - it's worth remembering that it will also allow some goals that would previously have been disallowed.

Ashington46 · « **Reply #353 on:** Wed 03 Jul 2019 18:03 »

Quote from: Readingfan on Wed 03 Jul 2019 17:56

We should again remember that clear and obvious does not apply to offside - you are always either onside or offside.

The question then becomes the extent to which the technology can accurately determine that. I don't know the precise figure for that but I believe the World Cup, like the Premier League next season, uses a 3D system which has a high level of accuracy, even if not at 100%. I believe the judgement is probably more accurate than anything we've had previously so I'm happy to accept it - it's worth remembering that it will also allow some goals that would previously have been disallowed.

Not on the 72 EFL grounds and the countless grounds of clubs in the Pyramid system, however, I suppose that they do not matter in the grand scale of things.

Readingfan · « **Reply #354 on:** Wed 03 Jul 2019 18:06 »

Quote from: Ashington46 on Wed 03 Jul 2019 18:03

Quote from: Readingfan on Wed 03 Jul 2019 17:56
We should again remember that clear and obvious does not apply to offside - you are always either onside or offside.

The question then becomes the extent to which the technology can accurately determine that. I don't know the precise figure for that but I believe the World Cup, like the Premier League next season, uses a 3D system which has a high level of accuracy, even if not at 100%. I believe the judgement is probably more accurate than anything we've had previously so I'm happy to accept it - it's worth remembering that it will also allow some goals that would previously have been disallowed.

Not on the 72 EFL grounds and the countless grounds of clubs in the Pyramid system, however, I suppose that they do not matter in the grand scale of things.

I'm not sure what the relevance of that really is - most probably the use of VAR in England beyond the Premier League will increase at least slightly at some point in the future but I don't think you can criticise VAR for being too accurate in comparison to games played without VAR.

Readingfan · « **Reply #355 on:** Wed 03 Jul 2019 18:10 »

Quote from: Microscopist on Wed 03 Jul 2019 16:29

Quote from: Ashington46 on Wed 03 Jul 2019 11:03
Quote from: Microscopist on Wed 03 Jul 2019 10:36
Quote
...too microscopic
Impossible

The future!

The future .... well there needs to be a serious look at the philosophy of VAR. The penalty was one that would, I think, rarely be given by an on-field referee, it's too hard to judge. However, VAR shows a touch which, even if it didn't cause the tumble that followed, most probably caused White to miss her kick. So it should be a foul as it is contact, clearly initiated by the defender, which has impeded the attacker. Yellow card if the the referee thinks it was "careless" rather than "accidental",.

A minor point but I am not sure that this has any basis in law?

In general terms, 'careless' is not a card at all but with DOGSO in the penalty area then I think any foul has to be at least a yellow, even if accidental?

ajb95 · « **Reply #356 on:** Wed 03 Jul 2019 19:05 »

Quote from: Readingfan on Wed 03 Jul 2019 18:06

Quote from: Ashington46 on Wed 03 Jul 2019 18:03
Quote from: Readingfan on Wed 03 Jul 2019 17:56
We should again remember that clear and obvious does not apply to offside - you are always either onside or offside.

The question then becomes the extent to which the technology can accurately determine that. I don't know the precise figure for that but I believe the World Cup, like the Premier League next season, uses a 3D system which has a high level of accuracy, even if not at 100%. I believe the judgement is probably more accurate than anything we've had previously so I'm happy to accept it - it's worth remembering that it will also allow some goals that would previously have been disallowed.

Not on the 72 EFL grounds and the countless grounds of clubs in the Pyramid system, however, I suppose that they do not matter in the grand scale of things.

I'm not sure what the relevance of that really is - most probably the use of VAR in England beyond the Premier League will increase at least slightly at some point in the future but I don't think you can criticise VAR for being too accurate in comparison to games played without VAR.

But i don't think the technology is correct. Last night reminded me of the Tottenham v Chelsea league cup semi-final 1st leg at Wembley when Tottenham were awarded a penalty after Kane was adjudged to be onside after being initially flagged offside. The camera angle from on top of the play is deceiving. Surely the camera angle(s) being used need to be at pitch side level and across. That would give a true reflection of whether its offside or not. Its like in cricket - many countries used hotspot when DRS was first introduced but in some countries, particularly hot ones, it wasn't always picking up the edge even though there was one, so snicko was used more often.

The interpretation or the laws need to change so that some tolerance or threshold can be allowed for a goal (similar to cricket with DRS and umpires call) so that instances like this can be awarded as a goal - which is the objective of the game, and something we should be encouraging!

Ashington46 · « **Reply #357 on:** Wed 03 Jul 2019 19:17 »

Quote from: Readingfan on Wed 03 Jul 2019 18:06

Quote from: Ashington46 on Wed 03 Jul 2019 18:03
Quote from: Readingfan on Wed 03 Jul 2019 17:56
We should again remember that clear and obvious does not apply to offside - you are always either onside or offside.

The question then becomes the extent to which the technology can accurately determine that. I don't know the precise figure for that but I believe the World Cup, like the Premier League next season, uses a 3D system which has a high level of accuracy, even if not at 100%. I believe the judgement is probably more accurate than anything we've had previously so I'm happy to accept it - it's worth remembering that it will also allow some goals that would previously have been disallowed.

Not on the 72 EFL grounds and the countless grounds of clubs in the Pyramid system, however, I suppose that they do not matter in the grand scale of things.

I'm not sure what the relevance of that really is - most probably the use of VAR in England beyond the Premier League will increase at least slightly at some point in the future but I don't think you can criticise VAR for being too accurate in comparison to games played without VAR.

The relevance is that we have a system in England which means clubs can gain promotion through the pyramid system all the way through the leagues until they reach the Premier League.

We also have a system through which officials can also progress until they reach the required standard to officiate in the Premier League. In order t odo this that have to work their way up from the lower level and rely on their own judgement whilst being watched by observers and then aided or abetted by people watching videos of their performance.

Having reached what, without International recognition, would be the pinnacle of their career they are then placed in a situation where they are not considered good enough to actually officiate in a PL match without someone else's opinion being brought to bear whilst the game is in progress.
When VAR is called into action, these officials are left standing around like a spare part whilst other people, who could be miles away, deliver a verdict on something which may or may not be seen by the fans who have paid good money to watch the match.

In effect, we are close to having one set of Laws in order to accommodate VAR and another set for the rest of football, particularly if the PL decide not to adopt the ruling about goalkeepers having to have one foot on the line.
Who is the governing body of football? Should we not play to the Laws which they set down or is it OK just to pick and choose. I only ask so that I can advise young referees which set of Laws they need to know.

bmb · « **Reply #358 on:** Wed 03 Jul 2019 19:39 »

Quote from: Readingfan on Wed 03 Jul 2019 17:56

We should again remember that clear and obvious does not apply to offside - you are always either onside or offside.

The question then becomes the extent to which the technology can accurately determine that. I don't know the precise figure for that but I believe the World Cup, like the Premier League next season, uses a 3D system which has a high level of accuracy, even if not at 100%. I believe the judgement is probably more accurate than anything we've had previously so I'm happy to accept it - it's worth remembering that it will also allow some goals that would previously have been disallowed.

That's fair enough & if I had £1 for every time I have screamed at a TV pundit who mutters well it was only an inch or so offside that it still means it's offside you eejit then I'd be a very rich young lady! However at the same time, I also firmly believe that if it is not detectable by the naked human eye then it should not be overruled by VAR. I'm talking about the decisions that are literally mm. It's ok to have the technology that uses the 3D imagery etc to get as near to 100% accuracy as possible but what happens when a goal is struck off as offside or given as onside in the CL for/against a PL team that would have resulted in a different decision in the PL because of the different technology used & the PL then start whining one of their teams has been eliminated by inferior technology? That just sets up a whole new dispute over it all. Ok you can get the difference due to the human factor anyway but if it's technology that is basically billed as stopping these incidents from being missed one way or the other then do you not think those really fine margins need to be the same across every competition they will be used in as opposed to CL game game in x country only have 12 camera angles & 2D technology and in y country having 36 cameras & 3D technology. No point, imo, in taking away the human error factor just to replace it with a technology error factor.

Quote from: ajb95 on Wed 03 Jul 2019 19:05

The interpretation or the laws need to change so that some tolerance or threshold can be allowed for a goal (similar to cricket with DRS and umpires call) so that instances like this can be awarded as a goal - which is the objective of the game, and something we should be encouraging!

This to me makes more sense. Even with an it's either on or off call, have some degree of tolerance & basically common sense for those tiniest of margins. My yardstick being if it is not detectable by the human eye then it should stand as per the AR's call even if the player was a mm on or off in the other direction to the call. I'm open to my personal yardstick maybe not being the best solution & hearing different solutions but I do feel it's a step too far when an offside call literally comes down to just a mm or so & an AR gets overruled on something they have zero chance of ever being able to see.

Readingfan · « **Reply #359 on:** Wed 03 Jul 2019 20:57 »

Quote from: bmb on Wed 03 Jul 2019 19:39

Quote from: Readingfan on Wed 03 Jul 2019 17:56
We should again remember that clear and obvious does not apply to offside - you are always either onside or offside.

The question then becomes the extent to which the technology can accurately determine that. I don't know the precise figure for that but I believe the World Cup, like the Premier League next season, uses a 3D system which has a high level of accuracy, even if not at 100%. I believe the judgement is probably more accurate than anything we've had previously so I'm happy to accept it - it's worth remembering that it will also allow some goals that would previously have been disallowed.

That's fair enough & if I had £1 for every time I have screamed at a TV pundit who mutters well it was only an inch or so offside that it still means it's offside you eejit then I'd be a very rich young lady! However at the same time, I also firmly believe that if it is not detectable by the naked human eye then it should not be overruled by VAR. I'm talking about the decisions that are literally mm. It's ok to have the technology that uses the 3D imagery etc to get as near to 100% accuracy as possible but what happens when a goal is struck off as offside or given as onside in the CL for/against a PL team that would have resulted in a different decision in the PL because of the different technology used & the PL then start whining one of their teams has been eliminated by inferior technology? That just sets up a whole new dispute over it all. Ok you can get the difference due to the human factor anyway but if it's technology that is basically billed as stopping these incidents from being missed one way or the other then do you not think those really fine margins need to be the same across every competition they will be used in as opposed to CL game game in x country only have 12 camera angles & 2D technology and in y country having 36 cameras & 3D technology. No point, imo, in taking away the human error factor just to replace it with a technology error factor.

Quote from: ajb95 on Wed 03 Jul 2019 19:05
The interpretation or the laws need to change so that some tolerance or threshold can be allowed for a goal (similar to cricket with DRS and umpires call) so that instances like this can be awarded as a goal - which is the objective of the game, and something we should be encouraging!

This to me makes more sense. Even with an it's either on or off call, have some degree of tolerance & basically common sense for those tiniest of margins. My yardstick being if it is not detectable by the human eye then it should stand as per the AR's call even if the player was a mm on or off in the other direction to the call. I'm open to my personal yardstick maybe not being the best solution & hearing different solutions but I do feel it's a step too far when an offside call literally comes down to just a mm or so & an AR gets overruled on something they have zero chance of ever being able to see.

I don't think we should view VAR as necessarily reflecting upon whether the initial decision that an official made was good or bad. If I was an official at that level I think I would accept that technology could offer a higher percentage of accuracy than I was able to myself.

What would you do if there two very tight decisions that were difficult to detect by a human in real time? One is given onside at one end and the other is given offside at the other end but the technology indicates that the margin of offside/onside was exactly the same in both scenarios.

Ideally all technology would be of the maximum standard but I'm not sure that reducing it for the best technology because some providers aren't as good is an effective answer. I don't believe that goal-line technology is quite 100% accurate but it is close as we are realistically going to get so everyone accepts whatever judgement is made, no matter how difficult it would be to make in real time.

There seem to be a couple of relevant questions here - one is whether the technology is accurate enough to judge a player being half a toe offside and the second is the more philosophical/empathy question as to whether a player being half a toe offside should be penalised.

RateTheRef

News:

User

Stats ezBlock

Author Topic: The VAR thread (Read 111768 times)

QuoCob

Re: The VAR thread

QuoCob

Re: The VAR thread

Microscopist

Re: The VAR thread

Ashington46

Re: The VAR thread

bmb

Re: The VAR thread

Microscopist

Re: The VAR thread

Ashington46

Re: The VAR thread

Readingfan

Re: The VAR thread

Ashington46

Re: The VAR thread

Readingfan

Re: The VAR thread

Readingfan

Re: The VAR thread

ajb95

Re: The VAR thread

Ashington46

Re: The VAR thread

bmb

Re: The VAR thread

Readingfan

Re: The VAR thread