Var debate 2019/20

[caseball]

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.

We might have a picture of no contact yet, contact as the ball leaves the foot and the ball having left the foot. All three are wrong.

 

[SilverFox2]

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.

Are you sure? Have camaras and transmissions changed to Progressive rather than Interlaced?
As I remember frequency is 50 Hz but they send as 1080interlaced ie odd then even numbered frames. The box or TV then combines them to give half the frequency ie 25fps.

 

[caseball]

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

suspicions of partiality... but I like the mistake more.

 

[SWP's back]

We might have a picture of no contact yet, contact as the ball leaves the foot and the ball having left the foot. All three are wrong.

Is it better than the human eye trying to track three things at once?

 

[caseball]

Perhaps but perhaps not. At least we accept the limitations of human beings. The talk of VAR's infallibility was misleading and dishonest. But I haven't heard a proper explanation of the system's real limitations. Hell will freeze over I suppose.

 

[Colin Bell (genuine name)]

I think the fairest way to implement the offside rule would be to establish where the attacking player is in all of the frames from immediately prior to contact by the passing player all the way to the frame where the ball leaves the passing player's body.

If the attacking player is found to be onside during any of those frames then he remains onside. That would rule out frame choice for making offside decisions.

 

[SWP's back]

Perhaps but perhaps not. At least we accept the limitations of human beings. The talk of VAR's infallibility was misleading and dishonest. But I haven't heard a proper explanation of the system's real limitations. Hell will freeze over I suppose.

Var never said it was infallible. They always said they’d get more decisions right.

I’d agree with that if they’d actually implemented it properly rather than the shit show they’ve introduced.

 

[SWP's back]

Well, we were told Liverpool would have them overturned in their favour.

Good to see var is equally useless for them as well.

 

[Blue Mist]

Well, we were told Liverpool would have them overturned in their favour.

Good to see var is equally useless for them as well.

I missed it what happened ? (I will have a look at the matchday thread as well) :-)

 

[Bobby Taylor's Pub Team]

Are you sure? Have camaras and transmissions changed to Progressive rather than Interlaced?
As I remember frequency is 50 Hz but they send as 1080interlaced ie odd then even numbered frames. The box or TV then combines them to give half the frequency ie 25fps.

Two frames where one follows the other can be merged to create an entirely new frame that sits in between to fill any gaps in the action. The resulting 3 frames together would likely provide a more accurate all round indicator. Most TV’s have this tech currently to smooth transitions though many people turn it off, soap opera effect I think it’s called.