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
- 89,064
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
- 89,064
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
- 89,064
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.