Var debate 2019/20

Will teams resemble this crew in the future?
historical-fact-pirates-dress-very-differently-than-you-might-think-photo-u1
 
Easily done if you had a unique kit supplier that manufactured every kit to the same specs and a league partnership with a tech firm. Don't count feet and legs for offside because the stride pattern could be decisive not the body position, impossible for a player to judge, so not a question of skill and therefore fairer just to count the CGI of the torso.
 
Last edited:
Blue Anorak mentioned split screens for offside to show the ball and the offside player. Good idea if they show the frame number or time stamp for each image. Not hard to do at all. Then we could see and compare different matched pairs of images that we know are simultaneous. The onfield ref could take signals from his linesmen as normal, hit a remote start button and then blow his whistle for KO and do the same to start the 2nd half or just leave it all running through half time.
 
caseball said:
Blue Anorak mentioned split screens for offside to show the ball and the offside player. Good idea if they show the frame number or time stamp for each image. Not hard to do at all. Then we could see and compare different matched pairs of images that we know are simultaneous. The onfield ref could take signals from his linesmen as normal, hit a remote start button and then blow his whistle for KO and do the same to start the 2nd half or just leave it all running through half time.
Click to expand...
God help us
 
Don’t understand why the crowds can’t go “ooooooh” for two minutes like we used to do with keepers then either “you shit bastard” or “*incoherent cheering*” depending o. The outcome
 
greasedupdeafguy said:
Click to expand...

This is absolutely spot on, but raises the question of frames per second recording. 30 frames per second is standard, but it has its limitations as Gray showed.

However if VAR is recorded at 960 frames per second, there can be no doubt, but this would require additional cameras just to achieve this.

If VAR is to stop all controversies, this has to be considered, because in my mind Jesus' 2nd goal was a goal, & Sterling's 2nd was a goal. The difference being VAR was applied when it left Silva's boot for the goal ruled out, & being applied when reaching the boot of Mahrez for Sterling's second.

This needs refining & sorting ASAP, because the goal scored by Jesus, was as legitimate as Sterling's second.
 
Absolutely dreadful and kills the best part of being at a football match that means so much to people as fans. The spontaneity of celebrating a goal with your mates or family feels diluted as you stop and think oh actually they'll check this as someone's nose might have been offside 20 seconds earlier.
 
Last edited:
If they're going to do it properly, then they need to have a 1000fps camera recording at all times specifically to work out VAR. Otherwise the rules should be written to say that if it's so close that there could be doubts about whether the technology could tell, then the advantage goes with the attacking team. But now we've got it, they won't admit the fallibility of the technology.
 
Dribble said:
This is absolutely spot on, but raises the question of frames per second recording. 30 frames per second is standard, but it has its limitations as Gray showed.

However if VAR is recorded at 960 frames per second, there can be no doubt, but this would require additional cameras just to achieve this.

If VAR is to stop all controversies, this has to be considered, because in my mind Jesus' 2nd goal was a goal, & Sterling's 2nd was a goal. The difference being VAR was applied when it left Silva's boot for the goal ruled out, & being applied when reaching the boot of Mahrez for Sterling's second.

This needs refining & sorting ASAP, because the goal scored by Jesus, was as legitimate as Sterling's second.
Click to expand...

The clear as day VAR ruling was Fabianski being a foot off his line when the ball hadn't been kicked. Clear infringement but the DT this morning and one of their know-fuck-all hacks still thinks it should go down as a good save from Fabbers!
 
I'm With Stupid said:
If they're going to do it properly, then they need to have a 1000fps camera recording at all times specifically to work out VAR. Otherwise the rules should be written to say that if it's so close that there could be doubts about whether the technology could tell, then the advantage goes with the attacking team. But now we've got it, they won't admit the fallibility of the technology.
Click to expand...

Dead right. It's the same philosophy that existed when I took my Class III refs' badge in the 70's - the ref is always right even when he's patently fucking clueless.
 
Pathetic and unnecessary.
Train the officials to a higher and fitter elite standard and give us the spontaneous, flowing game we love back, not the sterility of var.
Still dependent on the integrity of a decision maker - that's Salah against us you can bet your life the armpit is onside.
 
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader said:
The clear as day VAR ruling was Fabianski being a foot off his line when the ball hadn't been kicked. Clear infringement but the DT this morning and one of their know-fuck-all hacks still thinks it should go down as a good save from Fabbers!
Click to expand...
It did go down as a good save. The penalty was retaken because Declan Rice cleared the rebound after encroaching in the area, not because the keeper was off the line.
 
Dribble said:
This is absolutely spot on, but raises the question of frames per second recording. 30 frames per second is standard, but it has its limitations as Gray showed.

However if VAR is recorded at 960 frames per second, there can be no doubt, but this would require additional cameras just to achieve this.

If VAR is to stop all controversies, this has to be considered, because in my mind Jesus' 2nd goal was a goal, & Sterling's 2nd was a goal. The difference being VAR was applied when it left Silva's boot for the goal ruled out, & being applied when reaching the boot of Mahrez for Sterling's second.

This needs refining & sorting ASAP, because the goal scored by Jesus, was as legitimate as Sterling's second.
Click to expand...

Love the way Bein are slagging this shit off.
 
Just feel a bit sad about it really.

Didn’t celebrate the last three goals. Was just expecting them to be reviewed.

Kills the emotion of goals which will ruin the game.

It’s not even the fine details of what went on for our disallowed goal, or the penalty and our third goal that stood. It’s the fact that the very best thing about this sport - going mental when the ball hits the net - completely disappeared for me with our third, fourth and fifth goals yesterday.

Just sat there, emotionless.

Gutted!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm With Stupid said:
It did go down as a good save. The penalty was retaken because Declan Rice cleared the rebound after encroaching in the area, not because the keeper was off the line.
Click to expand...

So had Ricicle not cleared it it would not have been retaken. But the law is quite clear that a goalkeeper should have one foot on the goal line when the ball is kicked. What is the sanction for not conforming with that? If there is a law that is broken there must be a sanction. No clearance from Rice so Dean and his fellow gangsters in the VAR urinal shaft us by not having it referred?
 
Psychedelic Casual said:
Just feel a bit sad about it really.

Didn’t celebrate the last three goals. Was just expecting them to be reviewed.

Kills the emotion of goals which will ruin the game.
Click to expand...

If VAR delivers a verdict that coincides with what actually happened, whichever VAR end we happen to be on, then I will think that justice has been served. The trouble with its application so far is that it lends itself to manipulation!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top