VAR thread 2022/23

[SCEtoAUX]

I'll keep it simple.

The technology doesn't exist to conclusively prove, one way or another, whether, at a single moment in time, that all of a ball was over all of a line.

For example, it may be the case that last night, that the ball crossed the line, by a micrometre, in one ten thousand of a second.

We will never know.

 

[Stephen230]

Fair enough, thanks. Would still like to know if they used the inertia sensors to determine when the ball was kicked though. If they didn't, I have been talking bollocks all day and I will have to get my conspiracy hat out again :)

Can’t remember where I saw it now but almost certain it’s been officially confirmed that the VAR relies solely on the standard cameras for decisions like this.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Can’t remember where I saw it now but almost certain it’s been officially confirmed that the VAR relies solely on the standard cameras for decisions like this.

Well that would bollocks from me then :)

And I would have to change sides, because I can. There is no way they can judge that accurately to 10 mm manually if they can't determine precisely when the ball was kicked. Should have stayed with the on-field decision if that is the case.

 

[SebastianBlue]

I'll keep it simple.

The technology doesn't exist to conclusively prove, one way or another, whether, at a single moment in time, that all of a ball was over all of a line.

For example, it may be the case that last night, that the ball crossed the line, by a micrometre, in one ten thousand of a second.

We will never know.

Correct.

The call may have been right, it may have been wrong.

But it is important, for the sake of maintaining reasonable scrutiny on the powers that be (who have proven to be corrupt many times over), that we do not foster delusions of the decision being an objective truth.

Doing that gives them power they shouldn't have.

 

[Stephen230]

Well that would bollocks from me then :)

And I would have to change sides, because I can. There is no way they can judge that accurately to 10 mm manually if they can't determine precisely when the ball was kicked. Should have stayed with the on-field decision if that is the case.

Fair enough. But I’d disagree. You can rarely be 100% sure about anything. But while it’s extremely close I think there’s enough evidence to say the ball just about stayed in play.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Fair enough. But I’d disagree. You can rarely be 100% sure about anything. But while it’s extremely close I think there’s enough evidence to say the ball just about stayed in play.

I hear what you are saying and I would like to trust what we are shown but it's the old offside argument again, isn't it?

A single frame either way will often change the outcome, and certainly in this case. When the choice of frame is automated by an inertia sensor people may not like the super-accuracy but at least it takes that manual element out of the process, which is why the SAOT is generally better accepted and has been a success, imo. But when it's down to some guy choosing a frame, the old suspicions of, at best, incompetence, and, at worst, manipulation, come straight back again.

The evidence given by FIFA shows the ball just in, but only on the basis of a frame chosen by eyesight. I hope these guys have better eyesight than I do. :)

 

[Stephen230]

I hear what you are saying and I would like to trust what we are shown but it's the old offside argument again, isn't it?

A single frame either way will often change the outcome, and certainly in this case. When the choice of frame is automated by an inertia sensor people may not like the super-accuracy but at least it takes that manual element out of the process, which is why the SAOT is generally better accepted and has been a success, imo. But when it's down to some guy choosing a frame, the old suspicions of, at best, incompetence, and, at worst, manipulation, come straight back again.

The evidence given by FIFA shows the ball just in, but only on the basis of a frame chosen by eyesight. I hope these guys have better eyesight than I do. :)

Yeah but unless you believe the whole thing is bent, In which case all discussion is pointless. Then you’ve got to trust they firstly pick what they believe is the most accurate frame and then go about deciding the decision. If you trust that’s what happened, then I think a goal was the right decision in this case.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Yeah but unless you believe the whole thing is bent, In which case all discussion is pointless. Then you’ve got to trust they firstly pick what they believe is the most accurate frame and then go about deciding the decision. If you trust that’s what happened, then I think a goal was the right decision in this case.

I prefer the trust but verify approach. And any system that cannot be verified--in this case VAR, which is in many respects a black box setup because of their refusal to disclose accuracy thresholds and margins of error across the various supporting systems, or mic officials so we can hear directly the decision making process--especially when it *could easily be verified*, but those that control it choose not to allow it to be, should not be blindly trusted.

 

[cleavers]

I've said this many times, VAR is anti football, where the whole point of the game is GOALS, and all VAR seems to do is get rid of them, why would a sport want to get rid of it's main point of playing ?

I for one applaud the goal being given and not chalked off yesterday, there is no conclusive proof it went out of play, therefore it should stand, same with the very marginal offsides (that law should now be "clearly" offside imho, ie a clear gap).

Stop cancelling goals, give them unless very obvious mistakes are made.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Best way to make Var more efficient is to fuck it off completely..
I can't stand Var and nobody around where I sit wants it either..
I doubt that many match going fans want it either.
All season ticket holders from every Premier League club should be asked to vote on whether they want Var or not..and if a majority want it then it stays and if the majority don't want it then it's gone.
I was in favour of Var before it came in but now I fucking hate it..it's ruining the game we love.

I've said this many times, VAR is anti football, where the whole point of the game is GOALS, and all VAR seems to do is get rid of them, why would a sport want to get rid of it's main point of playing ?

I for one applaud the goal being given and not chalked off yesterday, there is no conclusive proof it went out of play, therefore it should stand, same with the very marginal offsides (that law should now be "clearly" offside imho, ie a clear gap).

Stop cancelling goals, give them unless very obvious mistakes are made.

I'v thoughnt about that recently. I wonder if the goals scored across the PL has gone down since VAR's introduction?

 

[Corky]

The would be 3rd Morrocco goal chalked off, offside was the call but not clear why. An attacker was between the shooter and the 'keeper but only a very side-on angle was used and zero attempt to clarify.

Even if every decision was correct by VAR they haven't demonstrated it, and used a very anti-attacking team version of interfering with play on some occasions.

 

[Stephen230]

I'v thoughnt about that recently. I wonder if the goals scored across the PL has gone down since VAR's introduction?

The three full years with VAR have all seen above the average goals scored since the Premier League started. If this seasons average so far was maintained, it will be the highest ever.

 

[SWP's back]

I've said this many times, VAR is anti football, where the whole point of the game is GOALS, and all VAR seems to do is get rid of them, why would a sport want to get rid of it's main point of playing ?

I for one applaud the goal being given and not chalked off yesterday, there is no conclusive proof it went out of play, therefore it should stand, same with the very marginal offsides (that law should now be "clearly" offside imho, ie a clear gap).

Stop cancelling goals, give them unless very obvious mistakes are made.

But VAR also gives goals that would not have been given due to close offsides and leads to penalties that wouldn’t have been seen.

The amount of goals has slightly increased overall since its implementation, rather than gone down.

 

[Corky]

The three full years with VAR have all seen above the average goals scored since the Premier League started. If this seasons average so far was maintained, it will be the highest ever.

Less than 2018/19 though so far.

Of course VAR is one variable. If the added-on time is strict like this WC we will certainly see more goals.

With VAR you get more penalties given in addition than overturned, but the offsides/hand ball/foul goals ruled out outweigh the offsides given.

 

[The slaughtered lamb]

I've said this many times, VAR is anti football, where the whole point of the game is GOALS, and all VAR seems to do is get rid of them, why would a sport want to get rid of it's main point of playing ?

I for one applaud the goal being given and not chalked off yesterday, there is no conclusive proof it went out of play, therefore it should stand, same with the very marginal offsides (that law should now be "clearly" offside imho, ie a clear gap).

Stop cancelling goals, give them unless very obvious mistakes are made.

I tend to agree with that but what we’re being conditioned to think now is that the referee’s decision is correct in those situations and if it’s not, var improves the process.

Pre var, I don’t think the Japan goal would have been ruled out by the referee/linesman. In my opinion, the referee did that as a fail safe, so it would go to var because he knows it’s there… and we still haven’t proved anything. Var has modified referees’ behaviour.

 

[Bluearmy]

Surely the goal post would get in the way of the camera picking it up

Found this explanation…

 

[cleavers]

But VAR also gives goals that would not have been given due to close offsides and leads to penalties that wouldn’t have been seen.

The amount of goals has slightly increased overall since its implementation, rather than gone down.

Maybe, but it doesn't feel like that.

I'd like to see the "goals" be increased by more than the stats, but for me, for those added, as many marginal (or more) are taken away.

Like I said the whole point of football is scoring goals, so why find a (new) way to remove them so often ?

We have enough negative teams in football, that do that already.

 

[Bluearmy]

Is that subbuteo? Nothing like what actually happened, the white line is too thin to start with.

If more than half the ball is over the line it should be declared as out.

Its exactly like what happened….. shows quite well why different angles/perspective matter.

The law is the whole of the ball must be over the line. Like every other sport known to man. Do you want them to disregard the actul law as it stands?

 

[Bluearmy]

I've said this many times, VAR is anti football, where the whole point of the game is GOALS, and all VAR seems to do is get rid of them, why would a sport want to get rid of it's main point of playing ?

I for one applaud the goal being given and not chalked off yesterday, there is no conclusive proof it went out of play, therefore it should stand, same with the very marginal offsides (that law should now be "clearly" offside imho, ie a clear gap).

Stop cancelling goals, give them unless very obvious mistakes are made.

VAR literally gave Japan a goal which wouldnt have stood without it…??

Average goals are also up since VAR was introduced….

 

[SWP's back]

The video the VAR used makes it clear it hadn’t gone out



They should have shown that immediately whilst the match was ok going though