Var debate 2019/20

[Pingu the Penguin]

Seem all that and stand by my statement.

That’s not the tech. That’s the user.

Well if 3 frames can show a ball on a kicking foot I’m not sure why you blame the user. They are left to guess which one to use. Line calls are supposed to be definitive and black and white. On off side calls this clearly isn’t the case and it is fundamentally dishonest of the football authorities to say so.

 

[caseball]

Firstly, the tech is and has been wrong (Sterling offside) and secondly VAR is the whole system, not just the machines

Not taking issue with the point you made but VAR means the referee. Video assisted referee. The media and the people who run football have succeeded in fostering a public perception that the machinery is VAR. It suits them to take the referee out of the debate.

I suppose it just proves that out of sight is out of mind.

 

[caseball]

Well if 3 frames can show a ball on a kicking foot I’m not sure why you blame the user. They are left to guess which one to use. Line calls are supposed to be definitive and black and white. On off side calls this clearly isn’t the case and it is fundamentally dishonest of the football authorities to say so.

I don't understand why people can't get this.
Technologically speaking, the whole system is a haphazard way of making decisions on what people keep insisting are matters of fact. In practice, offside has never been a matter of fact and, unfortunately, the technology simply isn't making it so. Better to admit it, stop using it or only use it when it can definitely back up the on field officials, and move on. Or just be happy being hoodwinked. There's too much manipulation and variation involved.

 

[SWP's back]

Well if 3 frames can show a ball on a kicking foot I’m not sure why you blame the user. They are left to guess which one to use. Line calls are supposed to be definitive and black and white. On off side calls this clearly isn’t the case and it is fundamentally dishonest of the football authorities to say so.

It’s the first frame showing contact with the ball (not when the ball leaves the foot) - or it’s meant to be according to the IFAB rules on VAR and I’m sure you’ll agree, that’s considerably more accurate than a 50 year old fat bloke trying to look at two things happening very fast in real time.

 

[caseball]

It’s the first frame showing contact with the ball (not when the ball leaves the foot) - or it’s meant to be according to the IFAB rules on VAR and I’m sure you’ll agree, that’s considerably more accurate than a 50 year old fat bloke trying to look at two things happening very fast in real time.

Because of the way video cameras work, it's a lottery whether or not they have a picture of the moment the ball comes into contact with the foot. They may have an image just before or just after but not the exact moment. The frame rate is only half the story. The 'shutter' speed comes into it too. If the camera speed is very fast, they might have a few images of ball on foot. Generally, for the moving picture to appear normal, I understand the speed has to be at least double the frame rate. So at 50fps the speed has to be 1/100th second, at 120fps, 1/250th sec. 1/100 th sec will give a blurred still image of an object in motion. 120 frames at 1/250th sec gives you a recording of about half a second's worth of action. So you've got a 50/50 chance of recording the actual moment the ball comes into contact with the foot. Sometimes they'll have the right image, sometimes they won't. So it's clearly not suitable for offside unless we all accept that you win some, you lose some. In that case what's the point of it? It just absolves referees of all responsibility and gives the final word to somebody far away playing with some software application to advance, reverse, sharpen, focus, zoom and so on.

 

[SWP's back]

Because of the way video cameras work, it's a lottery whether or not they have a picture of the moment the ball comes into contact with the foot. They may have an image just before or just after but not the exact moment. The frame rate is only half the story. The 'shutter' speed comes into it too. If the camera speed is very fast, they might have a few images of ball on foot. Generally, for the moving picture to appear normal, I understand the speed has to be at least double the frame rate. So at 50fps the speed has to be 1/100th second, at 120fps, 1/250th sec. 1/100 th sec will give a blurred still image of an object in motion. 120 frames at 1/250th sec gives you a recording of about half a second's worth of action. So you've got a 50/50 chance of recording the actual moment the ball comes into contact with the foot. Sometimes they'll have the right image, sometimes they won't. So it's clearly not suitable for offside unless we all accept that you win some, you lose some. In that case what's the point of it? It just absolves referees of all responsibility and gives the final word to somebody far away playing with some software application to advance, reverse, sharpen, focus, zoom and so on.

It’s ten thousand times more likely to produce the correct result than the fat middle aged guy who had the impossible take of viewing three things at one and in real time. That’s the point. More correct decisions than previously.

 

[SilverFox2]

It’s the first frame showing contact with the ball (not when the ball leaves the foot) - or it’s meant to be according to the IFAB rules on VAR and I’m sure you’ll agree, that’s considerably more accurate than a 50 year old fat bloke trying to look at two things happening very fast in real time.

I agree it narrows down the apparent to become closer to the actual, the problem for the very close decisions is some may feel that a frame has been chosen that suits their preferred decision.
To show immediate adjacent frames before and after chosen ones may demonstrate fairness.

I appreciate our suspicion re refs and FA / UEFA agendas may be unfounded but the limitations of 25fps technology would be addressed with the suggestion.

 

[SWP's back]

the problem for the very close decisions is some may feel that a frame has been chosen that suits their preferred decision.

Then that’s the user and not the tech which is what started the back and forth.

(It’s 50fps by the way, not 25)

I like your idea of show the frames before and after, for clarity.

 

[caseball]

I reckon good experienced officials acting honestly would get offside right more than half the time. Which is all the VAR can lay claim to given the operating parameters of video cameras (as I understand them).

 

[cibaman]

In crickets they use technology that is supposed to predict how the ball would have travelled if it had not hit the pads. Technology that is supposed to detect the faintest of contact between bat and ball and which occasionally comes up with some dubious results. And they have umpires call which is basically an acceptance that system isn’t 100% accurate. And everyone seems to be happy with it! Because it’s more accurate than human beings.

I suppose the main difference is that they use it purely to establish matters of fact. Whereas football is requiring judgement calls to be made by a bloke in a studio. So in cricket it’s accepted that the technology has significantly reduced the impact of biased umpires whereas in football it’s raised suspicions of impartiality