Var debate 2019/20

[citizen_maine]

I don't trust anything that doesn't show us the offside from the down the line angle,showing me dots from above or at a side angle doesn't convince me,show it from the linesmans point of view,that is the angle we are used to seeing then swing into the other angles to show it close up

What? you mean the half way line, cos he's too slow to keep up with play? :-)

 

[1.618034]

IMO Where an offside decision is concerned, there are 3 moving objects, which have to be frozen in exact space and time, there has to be a minimum distance to allow for the obvious errors in measuring it accurately. For instance, Goal line tech/ Hawkeye etc. have only one moving object to locate in space and time so it is always going to give more accurate and slam-dunk decisions. Offside decisions are far from easy to freeze exactly.

On Saturday, both decisions had the virtual lines touching each other. For me there is nothing "clear and obvious" about the linesman's decision in either case, so if it's that close and you can't decide it within, say 20 seconds, then fuck it off and get on with the game.

The FA/Refs have to realise that VAR cannot give a perfect decision down to millimetres, so they have to allow a margin for the obvious errors within the system, and it would be pretty easy to incorporate that allowance in the technology.

They also have to realise that there must be a time limit on making decisions because we can't be having 5 minutes added to every game and disallowing goals which the human eye could never see.

 

[kaz7]

What? you mean the half way line, cos he's too slow to keep up with play? :-)

That's true ha,i do think showing us the angle we are used to first would comfort us somewhat then zoom in on that angle,if it's then not clear get their fancy dots out,i don't think i'm stupid but what we got shown on the screen i couldn't be sure they were right

 

[cleavers]

Yes ive just checked i thought it had been implemented but obvisly not.

No problem, it was discussed, and I remember a couple of articles saying it would be implemented. My opinion at the time was that it would be a good change, as it prevents any encroachment at all, but they'd need to link it to the keeper definitely being on the line, a penalty is supposed to be an advantage.

 

[Fiftyyearsandcounting]

When the experts"= (ex - as in has-been, spurt - as in drip under pressure) claim it's offside because the picture proves it, reminds me of my R.I teacher at school "god exists because the bible says so". Ipso facto and chuck in a QED to boot.

 

[SilverFox2]

The trouble with using it for offside is that the system is not fit for purpose except to show a failure to flag a clear and obvious offside. So use it for that and only that. Tell the liners not to be twitchy and that they'll be fired if they stick the flag too soon. That gives a slight advantage to the attacker. If they don't flag a clear offside, no problem just stick up the picture on the screen after the goal and disallow it. Nobody will complain. If they have to start fiddling about with the VCR, forget it, goal stands. Again nobody will complain because we can't see that well. Which brings me to the point that they seem to have overlooked or decided not to mention. To guarantee a picture of the foot in contact with the ball, you'd need to use something that doesn't exist afaik. A hi-speed camera 1000fps with an automatic zoom lens. There's presumably never been a market for them since if you want to do crash-testing or check out your latest armour-piercing shell, you just set the camera up and retire to the control booth.

Banging on about 50fps is irrelevant because the HD moving picture may well be lovely (I don't know I haven't got that TV) but your brain is joining up the digital dots just as it does with old-fashioned film. So, although I see David Silva passing the ball in one flowing seamless (brilliant) motion, the image that shows David actually first touching the ball simply may not exist. In fact, if we have a series of still images taken every 20 ms (50 fps), and the scientifically proven time of contact lasts for 8 ms (the middle of the range), there may not exist a picture of Merlin's foot in contact with the ball at any stage. God help us at 25 fps. That's why it goes blurry in my opinion. Our mind knows he kicked the ball but there's no picture of him doing it. There's a picture just before he kicked it and a picture just after, so, when the frames are not in motion, your mind just goes fuck it and smokes a joint. So whither our noble VAR operators? They obviously have to pick a still image that either shows just before or just after and, as we've seen, the time interval is more than enough for a player to be onside in one and offside in the other. And also, what applies to pictures of the ball and foot also applies to the pictures of 'offside' players. In the end, what we see is a series of photographs that our mind connects together by filling in the missing information based on learned experience. The VAR operators are just picking photographs out of a lineup. IMHO. It would be nice if they showed two separate images with timestamps but that's just unrealistic because I doubt the equipment exists.
Using it for offside and claiming it's incontrovertible is bullshit. That's the problem I have with it. I don't like being bullshitted. Trust me I'm a(n) (ex-)referee/footballer. Yeah right. They are engaged in a futile endeavour but lack the wisdom to recognize the fact. Somebody has decided that's what they're going to do and they're all onboard like good little boys because their jobs depend on it. They should backtrack, stop what they're doing because they are making fools of themselves and use VAR for clear and obvious offside fuckups that nobody will argue about. They're getting carried away and self-interest comes into it no doubt. Organizations spend fortunes on tech when something cheaper would do and don't know how to use it. How often do they stop and say hang on we/I fucked up? Let's scale it back on offside.

If they use camaras that match their 1080I transmission then only 25fps.
To ensure they are not selecting a frame that suits a close decision they ought to show consecutive frames as you say time stamped that show immediately before foot impact to just after ball leaves foot (eg). Dont know how many progressive frames that means but at least close decisions would be accurate and not potentially just one selected frame that justifies a decision either way.

 

[paulchapo]

Watched the disallowed goal again in real time and I am convinced Sterling was onside when the ball was played, just his pace caught them out. They can freeze that shot as much as they like I believe he was on.

Ironic after his cheating last year Boly's accidental handball cost Wolves the win, though on this occasion he really didn't mean it.

 

[ancoats]

looking at the results and the media debate of the weekend games in the EPL with VAR they will be slapping themselves on the backs and say well done

but has the game for the fans changed for the better NO if your a match going fan your still clueless whats going on at the game ??? yes the tv arm chair fans will love VAR and they get the results there and then so why don't the match going fans get the replay on the big screens and not wait till after they worked it out

 

[Woody135]

This is one of those arguments that's sounds emotionally good. But logically irrational.

1. Why should read get help but not Assistant Refs? No reason for it.

2. The argument you've proffered for the linesman " train him up" is equally valid for a Ref "train him up" and take away all technology. It's a silly argument. Goaline technology works exactly like VAR, in that it reduces drastically the chances of major errors.

The fact that your brain doesn't catch some errors and misidentifies other non-errors as errors is besides the point. And the Spectacle isnt ruined. It's slightly delayed.

You'd get used to it. And if you don't, the generation after you will. Many forget there was a generation who watched football without offsides. Then the rule was added.

Changed the enjoyment, but they got used to it and then we showed up and thought it was great. If you can't get around to loving it as is. Not to worry, the generation after you will love it as is.

The Spectacle just got better. Believe it!!!

Anyone that thinks the spectacle is better for having var is deluded. More accurate, for sure, but the game does not flow as well at all. Thats clear.

A change in rules is completely different to a change in structure to the officiating.
As long as people are making decisions live, there is no delay, irrespective of the decision or the rule. Offside rule or no offside rule.
A ruling that is made 1 minute or 2 minutes later is a fundamental change and disrupts the game.
Not for the good

 

[dadnlad]

someone already said cant keep adding 5 minutes to end of each half for VAR checks so what happens to injury time is that forgotten about or still added on it could end up being 10 minutes