Var debate 2019/20

[Heisenberg's Blue Sky]

Regards the disallowed Jesus goal (and apologies if already mentioned) I actually think it was disallowed so the FA could say "look how good our VAR is"

Ha ha that thought crossed my mind too.

 

[SamBlue]

I was all for VAR and this weekend has just strengthened my feeling about it. Unless offside rule is changed there will always be decisions you get and those you do not when shoulder against shoulder is matched. It would be travesty that Wolves goal was allowed after their player dropped a perfect sitter with his arm (inadvertently or not) for a teammate to strike. Go VAR!!!!!

 

[meeesh]

Apologies if it's already been mentioned, but did anyone else think Mike Dean looked like he was not going to give the penalty and then appeared to change his mind and point to the spot? The cynic in me was thinking at the time that he suddenly realised VAR was in use, that VAR would say it was a definite pen, and he'd look a bit of a twat if he hadn't given it!

Just to add that I've never had any major issue with Dean when he's reffed us in the past but that little episode looked a bit dodgy to me.

I thought exactly the same,although as you say it was a stone wall pen,and doesn't need to make himself look a bigger twat than he already is

 

[TheRemainsOfTheDave]

Said it'd be shite. Been saying all along that the controversies and difference of opinion is what makes the game. Same with all these rule changes, I'm very worried the direction the game is going tbh.

 

[trevorriley]

badly organised shit

 

[hgblue]

Apologies if it's already been mentioned, but did anyone else think Mike Dean looked like he was not going to give the penalty and then appeared to change his mind and point to the spot? The cynic in me was thinking at the time that he suddenly realised VAR was in use, that VAR would say it was a definite pen, and he'd look a bit of a twat if he hadn't given it!

Just to add that I've never had any major issue with Dean when he's reffed us in the past but that little episode looked a bit dodgy to me.

It does make me chuckle reading this thread when we've had post match thread after post match thread for years with City fans bemoaning how biased referees are against us, something gets done to make officiating much less open to abuse and now we're moaning about that too. Like you say, Dean could easily have waved play on and claimed to have not seen the contact, not so easy for him to do that now is it? Then there's the dodgy offside decisions we've had given against us time after time, these will now be checked and any mistakes rectified so any linesman with an anti City bias is fucked. Not sure I ever subscribed to the conspiracy theories myself, but I reckon VAR is a major step forward for the game and I'm all for it.

 

[City Man]

If that's the case with regard to which frame is used, surely its open to abuse. Can see far more reviews going rags and dippers way than ours this season

I'm confused about which frame is used. In the case of a player who may or may not be marginally offside receiving a long pass and scoring does VAR have a panoramic view that will show both the player making the pass and the player receiving it? Wouldn't that have to be the case if there was an offside call based on the scorer's position at the moment the pass is made which is my understanding of the offside rule? Or are there two frames of the passer and receiver both taken at the exact split second that can be compared?

 

[Ric]

Apologies if it's already been mentioned, but did anyone else think Mike Dean looked like he was not going to give the penalty and then appeared to change his mind and point to the spot? The cynic in me was thinking at the time that he suddenly realised VAR was in use, that VAR would say it was a definite pen, and he'd look a bit of a twat if he hadn't given it!

Just to add that I've never had any major issue with Dean when he's reffed us in the past but that little episode looked a bit dodgy to me.

Yeah, I thought that at the time too. He had such a clear view of it that I couldn't understand why he seemed hesitant to give it.

 

[SWP's back]

You are correct if UHDTV is being used - it has 50 frames a second but it takes 4 times the bandwidth of HDTV. I had totally forgotten about that.
You are probably right that UHDTV is used but as the VAR technical specs have not been published so we dont know. It will take a hell of a good internet connection to pass 8 camera images to VAR TV central which I know is the long term goal to provide manipulable 3D images.
The main point is that Offside is still a subjective decision for armpit decisions as it is totally dependent on the frame that the VAR operator decides the ball has been touched by the passer. They got it wrong for Sterlings offside decision.

Edinburgh’s link suggests 120 FPS for VAR purposes.

 

[Dax777]

It does make me chuckle reading this thread when we've had post match thread after post match thread for years with City fans bemoaning how biased referees are against us, something gets done to make officiating much less open to abuse and now we're moaning about that too. Like you say, Dean could easily have waved play on and claimed to have not seen the contact, not so easy for him to do that now is it? Then there's the dodgy offside decisions we've had given against us time after time, these will now be checked and any mistakes rectified so any linesman with an anti City bias is fucked. Not sure I ever subscribed to the conspiracy theories myself, but I reckon VAR is a major step forward for the game and I'm all for it.

VAR is an affront to the free reign of Conspiracy Theorists here and everywhere. They shan't take this lightly :)

 

[Lupo]

Neville pontificating about our players surrounding the 'referee' - "rules are rules, deal with it".

Yeah, coz you and your United cronies never behaved in that way did you? Idiot.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Apologies if it's already been mentioned, but did anyone else think Mike Dean looked like he was not going to give the penalty and then appeared to change his mind and point to the spot? The cynic in me was thinking at the time that he suddenly realised VAR was in use, that VAR would say it was a definite pen, and he'd look a bit of a twat if he hadn't given it!

Just to add that I've never had any major issue with Dean when he's reffed us in the past but that little episode looked a bit dodgy to me.

Dean looked dodgy all game. Seemed that he kept 'deliberately' getting in the way of the obvious outlet ball. The players just took to kicking the ball at him in the end.

 

[SWP's back]

If you look at prev post mine opinion was based on the idea of 'clear and obvious error' which as I explained Raz's goal didnt seem to fit that criteria so Im going to wait until I see consitency from our other games and other PL games

Well that’s where you’re going wrong for a start. Every goal is checked for offside and offside doesn’t fall into the clear and obvious error category. This has been covered at length.

 

[GOULDYBOBS]

I have been pro VAR but would gladly take wrong decisions every now and then if it meant we could celebrate without fear of embarrassment. I dont mind looking like a dick but the games sanitised enough as it is and it's another step backwards for atmosphere.

After looking at ours and then Stretfords match yesterday Its still up to the interpretation of whatever "Altrincham" fan they have watching the Tele. Good example was Walton in the bt studio last year on the Schalke game.

Bring back the wrong decisions

 

[Dribble]

According to FIFA, in your example it should be when Silva makes contact with the ball as it should have been on Saturday.

I agree with Andy Gray about which frame they use being a major issue, just not about how many FPS Sky/BT etc use.

The FPS is really crucial, but to be honest 25 & 50 fps are too close in reality to make that much of a real world difference.

We will all shift our positions as incidences like this occur. I think being definitive about what constitutes the 'touch' needs to be clearly defined.

Usain Bolt has been clocked at 27mph, which is faster than most land animals, which translates into 12.07m per second. Sterling is rapid, so let's say he can run at 22mph, that still means he can cover 9.83m per second.

They reckon it takes between 0.4 - 0.7 seconds to kick a ball. During that period, Sterling could have covered 5 metres & would be called offside.

Gary Linekar was pretty confident when he said there isn't a system yet invented that can give an absolutely definitive answer, so human reckoning must come into it. As he said, with such fine margins, to claim you're either on or offside is too black & white.

As both Linaker & Ian Wright said, VAR can't determine where a shoulder starts & an arm ends. So determining this requires human intervention, essentially guessing.

I think we're all beginning to see these anomalies play themselves out. It'll be interesting to see how VAR is refined in the future. These issues need ironing out soon, because I can see a proper shit storm coming if one of these decisions leads a club to be relegated, or knocked out of a major cup.

 

[Dribble]

I’m all good with it as long as every 1mm offside goal is chalked off for every team and every handball that results in a goal gets called.

I want it consistently applied so it’s fair .

I just saw a handball in the Watford v Brighton game. It was a free kick just outside the box & the ball hit the defender's arm inside the box..... Purely accidental though. NO PENALTY!

Mmmmmm....

 

[Dribble]

The FIFA guidance @SWP's back just posted said the video is taken from standard TV feeds, not specialist cameras. FIFA said shots from aerial cameras & player tracking cameras are not used either.

 

[Bill]

not sure if posted but this is spot on.

 

[Neville Kneville]

The FPS is really crucial, but to be honest 25 & 50 fps are too close in reality to make that much of a real world difference.

We will all shift our positions as incidences like this occur. I think being definitive about what constitutes the 'touch' needs to be clearly defined.

Usain Bolt has been clocked at 27mph, which is faster than most land animals, which translates into 12.07m per second. Sterling is rapid, so let's say he can run at 22mph, that still means he can cover 9.83m per second.

They reckon it takes between 0.4 - 0.7 seconds to kick a ball. During that period, Sterling could have covered 5 metres & would be called offside.

Gary Linekar was pretty confident when he said there isn't a system yet invented that can give an absolutely definitive answer, so human reckoning must come into it. As he said, with such fine margins, to claim you're either on or offside is too black & white.

As both Linaker & Ian Wright said, VAR can't determine where a shoulder starts & an arm ends. So determining this requires human intervention, essentially guessing.

I think we're all beginning to see these anomalies play themselves out. It'll be interesting to see how VAR is refined in the future. These issues need ironing out soon, because I can see a proper shit storm coming if one of these decisions leads a club to be relegated, or knocked out of a major cup.

Like a bloke scoring with his arm in the quarter finals of the Champions League.

We need Real Madrid knocking out similarly, then we might see some action.

 

[KS55]

I thought exactly the same,although as you say it was a stone wall pen,and doesn't need to make himself look a bigger twat than he already is

The hesitation was about waiting to see if City got an advantage.