Var debate 2019/20

blueparrot said:
Not too bothered but don’t know why using it in American football or Rugby make it a bad idea.
Click to expand...
American football, that fast-flowing, endless action of a game, where only 99 out of a hundred "plays" get referred to the video judge. Yes, more of that please.
 
johnnytapia said:
American football, that fast-flowing, endless action of a game, where only 99 out of a hundred "plays" get referred to the video judge. Yes, more of that please.
Click to expand...
Whereas football, with an average time in play of 55-60 minutes per 90 can’t take a 90 second goal check to ensure a fair result (especially when the time is added back on anyway)?
 
SWP's back said:
Whereas football, with an average time in play of 55-60 minutes per 90 can’t take a 90 second goal check to ensure a fair result (especially when the time is added back on anyway)?
Click to expand...
Er, yes it can. And does, as we've seen this season. Haven't you been watching? There were a couple of instances in the City match. Surprised you didn't know.
 
I've now taken the time to think about it. I am wholeheartedly in support of VAR. It is a bit of a damper on immediate celebrations. But I'm okay with it's level of accuracy.

An accuracy superior to any ref. And the bit of annoyance of thinking we'd scored when we hadn't is worth erasing most of the past errors and claims of why so and so won or lost.

We now all get what's due us. May the best team win
 
Last edited:
SWP's back said:
It people don’t think anything’s been manipulated, do they think the current system is going to get more decision right or wrong than pre-VAR where offside is concerned?
Click to expand...
To answer this question I'd have to say I don't know. Looking at the way it was used purely in our game I'd have to say that it could go either way, we got one offside call go for us and one against which is probably what we would have got without VAR watching them in real time so I don't think anythings changed there except we would probably have been given the first goal and the second disallowed instead.
The penalty retake went in our favour but encroachment should be something a referee working with his linesman should be able to deal with without VAR but it's just been ignored for God knows how long.
The biggest issue I have with it so far is that I don't know how it works for offside, the grainy stills we've been shown in our game don't look like anyone could use them to definitively say if the play was offside or not, Walton has told us that they're not using the footage we see to work out offside but something much better and more accurate. That sounds great to me but what is it? Why does nobody know how they're working these things out with the precision that's being claimed?
It's like on BT after our game the 'pundits' went over the VAR decisions and told us that they were all perfect, not an ounce of doubt about any of them as the technology had been used and its infallible. They showed the first offside with the slightly overlapping armpit and explained that 'leave means leav.....', sorry, that 'you're either offside or not' and that the technology proves it beyond any doubt. They then move on to the next offside and said 'this one was even harder to tell in real time' but then didn't show the still that was used to show this 11mm offside. I think they didn't show it again because it's difficult to claim something is measured accurately when one of the moving objects being tracked is so fast it's a blur!
Pundits are making our that this is completely black and white with no leeway for error and that's starting to bug me because what we're being shown doesn't represent this foolproof system.
They need to explain what this technology is that they're using and then people may be able to get on board a bit. We'll probably still have issues with it, i.e where does Sterling's arm end and shoulder begin, if he was wearing a skin tight shirt would that have been a goal, is that frame taken at the point of contact with the ball or whatever. Then again this technology that's being used that nobody knows about may have all that covered, who knows. It just feels like if they tell everyone enough times that it's perfect then people will believe them and that they don't need to explain the technology because football fans are too thick to indestand it anyway.
Personally I think they need to add a little common sense to the game and ask if someone is looking to gain an advantage by having their armpit 11mm ahead of a defenders arse and try taking it from there. I also think it's a bit of a waste of technology of they're only going to use it to find incredibly marginal offsides, I'd like to see it used to eradicate things like diving, defenders holding at set plays and things that are an actual blight of the game. When they start using it for things like that then I may start to believe that it will work in our favour more times than not.
Having said all that I'd also feel a lot more comfortable about the transparency and lack of manipulation of VAR if Sky had shown the now famous blue and red lines on a still in the build up to the rags second goal today because that looked bloody close to me ;)
 
All this talk about fps and VAR technology you would have thought it would be possible to have a timer on the stadium score board that dosnt pack up after 90 mins as you have no idea where you are with the extra time
 
SWP's back said:
Does anyone think that a PL var decision so far has been manipulated?

Sterling’s goal would have been the easiest, I thought he was off from first replay with no lines.
Click to expand...
Regarding the offsides, the problem is "the lines" and how they appear.

I think most watching yesterday thought the Jesus goal should have stood, and the Raheem goal was probably offside, both in real time, and after replays, yet VAR said it was the opposite, which I don't have an issue with, if City were being f**ked over then neither would have counted, but one did. So for me if the "technology" is that good, show us, and prove it, the images we are seeing prove nothing, I could put lines on a screen and show them both right or both wrong, let us see how those lines are proof, that's the bollocks bit for me.

For VAR in its entirety, I wanted it work when it was first mooted/brought in, because I felt things were too easily manipulated by officials and governing bodies. Since then we've had a tournament where it appeared quite good (WC2018), City then suffered (twice imho) in the CL, and I became suspicious. This summer we had it in numerous competitions and it appeared almost random dependant on the tournament, and was taking stupid amounts of time, and now we're being told we (PL) have some technology based offside logarithm thing.

All of that last paragraph introduces doubt/scepticism/myth, and its not very helpful, add in pundits who think they know, pundits that say the know, ex referee's who say its totally accurate (offside), and its a bit of a mess, which isn't helping the fan.
 
mrtwiceaseason said:
Wouldn't the point still stand tho it's whatever still they pick to use out of the 25 or 60 so it's still operater choice?
Click to expand...
No. Absolutely not. It’s only ever 50/60.

They aren’t watching it on vhs. They receive the direct full 4K 50/60 frames per second feed.

Why would you think they have a choice? I really don’t follow.
 
SWP's back said:
No. Absolutely not. It’s only ever 50/60.

They aren’t watching it on vhs. They receive the direct full 4K 50/60 frames per second feed.

Why would you think they have a choice? I really don’t follow.
Click to expand...
Sorry cross wires meant there must be a process in place to select which still to use from that 60 fps.?
 
karen7 said:
The way we play we will get a lot of goals ruled out,we are always close to the line
Click to expand...
We might, we don't know, yesterday one went against us, one with us, we also got a penalty we almost certainly wouldn't have got (he gave it after about 5 seconds, because he suddenly remembered it would be reviewed, and he might look a twat/cheat),we then got a retake we certainly wouldn't have got, until VAR decided that would be looked at virtually nobody got those.

So far I'd argue its in our favour after 1 game, I might change my mind after 2,5, 10 games etc, but I'm happy to give it a chance, however I want more clarity on this offside accuracy, it isn't difficult (if its true), just show us, they have 2 perfectly good examples from yesterday, I watched both live, and thought both were wrong in real time.
 
Maybe I have missed something but I read there are 33 cameras and each camera is capable of 120 frames per second. Sounds like a lot but looking at Sterling yesterday - even if the defender was static whilst Sterling was running at full pelt he can run roughly 9m in a second. Therefore in 1/120 of a second he will have moved 7.5 centimetres. And we were seeing an absolute photograph and not a composite or computer imagery yesterday of him being offside. The prev frame therefore he was upto 7.5 cm further from the goal and possibly comfortably onside....Even if the ball only moves at the same pace (it clearly moves faster) there would in this simplistic case have to be a margin of error of 3.75cm on the basis of the assumption that in the previous frame the ball wasn’t connected and this one it was (because the connection with the ball was sometime in between the 2 freeze frames during which time Sterling advances 7.5cm). Ultimately what I am saying is because we are seeing a freeze frame photograph it is clearly not valid. We should be seeing a computer simulation which the 33 cameras could calculate not a real life picture which has such a large margin of error.
 
cleavers said:
just show us, they have 2 perfectly good examples from yesterday, I watched both live, and thought both were wrong in real time.
Click to expand...
They showed us though. The entire pitch is mapped out in 3D to the cameras and on to a computer. Then any pixel located within the picture corresponds to a 3 dimensional location within the stadium. Wherever is clicked then has a vertical line drawn to the floor where the lines can be compared.
 
edinburgh123 said:
Ultimately what I am saying is because we are seeing a freeze frame photograph it is clearly not valid. We should be seeing a computer simulation which the 33 cameras could calculate not a real life picture which has such a large margin of error.
Click to expand...
We might not be seeing it, but the technology is supposed to be working it out, so demonstrate how both of yesterdays were correct using the technology.
 
ctid1894 said:
Absolute bollocks, the sheer amount of offside goals allowed to stand for Liverpool and United last season is proof that option is fucking shite and open to questioning of officials integrity.
Click to expand...

And this is why VAR has come in.

Those moaning need to remember how much abuse and cry’s of corruptions were aimed at the officials when they get decisions wrong. If we are to give up on VAR as everyone was so happy with the ‘way it was’ then we would need to stop the abuse and corruption calling at officials. Unfortunately that wouldn’t happen.
 
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