You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Var debate 2019/20
- Thread starter Chi-town blues
- Start date
cleavers
Moderator
Yeah I think most of us thought that, we wouldn't have got that last year, and we certainly wouldn't have got the retake, until VAR nobody was getting those ever.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.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,446
1) but they were guesses last year anyway1: Close decisions absolutely not, they are going to disallow goals incorrectly because the technology is flawed. Obvious bad offside mistakes will be improved yes.
2: Pep tends to trust people. Imo he is already starting to realise it's spoiling the game.
2) so Pep is simply naive?
Wherever you draw the metaphoric line, there would be a line and anything over by an inch of that line would then be too fine a margin for you.
So don't draw a line? Use the point of the rule which is "does this person gain an unfair advantage"? We can have common sense laws if we want, there's no need for this sort of precision when the whole point is to determine an advantage.
I mean if we want to get REALLY technical, what does "played the ball" even mean? The moment the ball starts travelling in a different direction? When it has left the foot entirely? There's no such thing as "touching" on an atomic level. You don't touch the chair when you sit on it, the atoms from your body meet a point of equilibrium of forces with the atoms in the chair. "Clear air" between the ball and the foot? So they have to judge clear air anyway so judge clear air on the offside rather than the ball played
The problem with the precision argument is that if you're going to use it then you need to be as precise as possible. You can't be "a bit precise" because then logically the whole thing falls apart. Like many thing, you can either be as precise as possible or accept that precision isn't the goal and instead enabling the game to be fairer is.
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,446
But there will always be a case where it’s 7 or 13 inches so the same issue would apply. There will always be a fine margin outside whatever cut off there is.Should be at least 6 inches or maybe even 1ft leeway.
That's close enough
SWP's back
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 29 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 90,446
Then you need a new law.So don't draw a line? Use the point of the rule which is "does this person gain an unfair advantage"? We can have common sense laws if we want, there's no need for this sort of precision when the whole point is to determine an advantage.
I mean if we want to get REALLY technical, what does "played the ball" even mean? The moment the ball starts travelling in a different direction? When it has left the foot entirely? There's no such thing as "touching" on an atomic level. You don't touch the chair when you sit on it, the atoms from your body meet a point of equilibrium of forces with the atoms in the chair. "Clear air" between the ball and the foot? So they have to judge clear air anyway so judge clear air on the offside rather than the ball played
The problem with the precision argument is that if you're going to use it then you need to be as precise as possible. You can't be "a bit precise" because then logically the whole thing falls apart. Like many thing, you can either be as precise as possible or accept that precision isn't the goal and instead enabling the game to be fairer is.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
The FIFA link you posted said it's the same cameras as the TV broadcast. That being the case, it must be 50 fps???Edinburgh’s link suggests 120 FPS for VAR purposes.
Also, the freeze frame of Sterling's second goal was shit quality. 50 fps & 4k is great when watching standard telly. However fast moving sport is a different matter altogether...
Then you need a new law.
But the spirit of the law is correct, it's how it is been interpreted that's wrong. We shouldn't be changing laws to suit the technology, we should cater the technology to suit the laws.
So don't draw a line? Use the point of the rule which is "does this person gain an unfair advantage"? We can have common sense laws if we want, there's no need for this sort of precision when the whole point is to determine an advantage.
I mean if we want to get REALLY technical, what does "played the ball" even mean? The moment the ball starts travelling in a different direction? When it has left the foot entirely? There's no such thing as "touching" on an atomic level. You don't touch the chair when you sit on it, the atoms from your body meet a point of equilibrium of forces with the atoms in the chair. "Clear air" between the ball and the foot? So they have to judge clear air anyway so judge clear air on the offside rather than the ball played
The problem with the precision argument is that if you're going to use it then you need to be as precise as possible. You can't be "a bit precise" because then logically the whole thing falls apart. Like many thing, you can either be as precise as possible or accept that precision isn't the goal and instead enabling the game to be fairer is.
It's really rather simple, the moment the ball is played is the moment the ball is touched, so the first frame where there's contact from the passer is when the line should be drawn.
Neville Kneville
Well-Known Member
1) but they were guesses last year anyway
2) so Pep is simply naive?
Pep is very naive with stuff like this, yes. He believes in UEFA.
He is also a professional & may have been advised that we stand to gain more than we lose.
I don't actually care if we do or not, if it means that brilliant goals like Sterling's will be disallowed & that I can't celebrate a goal, without the dreaded pause. Previously a lino's flag was already waving & you cut short the celebration immediately. This is fucking horrible & comes almost after you have finished celebrating is policed by inconsistent & often incompetetent/ biased/ bent people, so could happen at almost any time.
It's really rather simple, the moment the ball is played is the moment the ball is touched, so the first frame where there's contact from the passer is when the line should be drawn.
There's no contact between the ball and the player on a physical level. That's the point. "Contact" is a totally arbitrary distinction used by us that doesn't exist in nature in the same fashion. You can't say "clear contact" on the ball side but "according to our pixel perfect measurement system" on the other. Either use total precision on both or accept you can't and look for clear air on both
cleavers
Moderator
@cleavers I can't watch the BT coverage as my dodgy box's playback isn't working.
I watched this video that pingu posted:
If it doesn't play, go on youtube and it's the first video after searching: Video Assistant Referee (VAR): The Virtual Offside Line
It's very good for explaining what I mean about locating the correct pixel in 3D space etc (rather than the blue parallel lines that were used in the last year's world cup etc), but it would seem that at present, it is still a technician that is clicking the pixel to determine the first body part that can be offside (as opposed to AI as AI can't seemingly decide where the arms ends and shoulder begins as an example).
In terms of what I was talking re: the lines being drawn, watch on the video from 3:57 to 4:01 ish and that is exactly what I saw happening on screen during the Sterling review. I was then as shocked as anyone that the defender's arse was playing him onside but that's the reason that the system exists (i.e. to show where in space every body actually is rather than trying to determine it using one's eye and a camera angle not quite in line.)
Thanks, its an interesting video, and well worth watching to gain some understanding of it all, and it would appear to be very accurate.
We don't know if the same system is being used in the PL, what Walton described was a unique (to the PL) system, so maybe its been enhanced since the WC, that said the later video with Neville and Carragher doesn't suggest that, but I don't know how old that is, is it this season or last ? Again maybe its been enhanced for this season.
The other thing, no matter how accurate it is, the offside law needs a change because football is about scoring goals, not preventing them, and some advantage should therefore go to the attacking side.
There's no contact between the ball and the player on a physical level. That's the point. "Contact" is a totally arbitrary distinction used by us that doesn't exist in nature in the same fashion. You can't say "clear contact" on the ball side but "according to our pixel perfect measurement system" on the other. Either use total precision on both or accept you can't and look for clear air on both
Has to be total precision on both, VAR is giving the law makers the opportunity to take all subjectivity away but it needs to be clearly defined and press releases from stills in the VAR room would help instead of us relying on broadcasters to put their own interpretation on it.
Dribble
Well-Known Member
not sure if posted but this is spot on.
It's been posted & has made me think about VAR differently. I'm all for it, but as you'll have seen, this brings the highly technical Video Frames Per Second into play.
@SWP's back posted a link to FIFA which claimed offside is decided at "The moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team mates". Apply this to the disallowed goal & Sterling is on.
Roll it on a frame or two & he's off. Sterling could me moving full pelt at 10m per second, so you can see where the problem arises depending on which frame the offside is being adjudicated on.
This needs sorting before a team gets relegated or knocked out of a major cup because of it.
Neville Kneville
Well-Known Member
But there will always be a case where it’s 7 or 13 inches so the same issue would apply. There will always be a fine margin outside whatever cut off there is.
No it wouldn't at all.
If you are more than a foot offside, you have been given leeway & overstepped it. You are DEFINITELY offside.
It will still mean the horrors of waiting, but at least the end result will be correct & not for a toe of because the striker has a large penis.
onceabluealways
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2009
- Messages
- 2,093
Doesnt help the day before VAR ref said we wont be disallowing goals over CMs. If fans stop celebrating because of var it will kill the game
Dribble
Well-Known Member
Exactly!!ref watch Dermot we can check off side to finest lines but we cant check keepers feet at a penalty, it either does one or the other
This unbelievable statement seemingly blows the whole black & white VAR argument apart....
cleavers
Moderator
I kind of agree, but this is why there is a pitch side monitor, so he can go look, I don't think the PL want to that very often, because it wastes a lot of time as we saw in the summer, and I suspect it will only be used for debatable disciplinary decisions.If it's inconclusive they should revert to the on field decision like in cricket.
cleavers
Moderator
On the PL video there were at least 23 camera's in use, not all will be on the action all the time obviously, but they will have a lot of angles, and therefore frames.They use more than one camera.
Has to be total precision on both, VAR is giving the law makers the opportunity to take all subjectivity away but it needs to be clearly defined and press releases from stills in the VAR room would help instead of us relying on broadcasters to put their own interpretation on it.
I'm not sure if I'm blowing your mind here mate but total precision/objectivity on position cannot possibly exist. It's a fiction. You may as well invent a dragon monitoring machine. It cannot do the job you're asking of it.
So you do what ever other person who deals with precision does, and accept objective total precision can't exist and introduce tolerances. Those tolerances should be "clear air" rather than "millimetres" because the latter provides no clear advantage to the player, which is the point of the offside rule, and the former does.