Var debate 2019/20

[GaudinoMotors]

Since the imposition of VAR, has any referee been stepped down the following week or made to referee down the leagues?

 

[Marvin]

This is why i am saying it should be torso only, forget about feet, legs, arms or head and there should be clear daylight between the players when the ball is still in contact with the foot of the player making the pass,

What if the player who strikes the ball does so in a plane that is not 9O degrees the to the camera?

That exacerbates the problem about identifying in a 2D frame the moment when the ball is struck, and what is the relevant moment for the offside comparison? When the boot strikes the ball, or when the ball leaves the foot? What is to stop the operator using different criteria in every game?

Then once you have the frame, how do you compare the position of players who are not inline with the camera. Drawing the line across the pitch is straightforward. Anyone can do that in microsoft Paint. I've done it loads of times, but then you have the problem of body parts which are are at different heights and this distorts the view when you are not inline.

To illustrate this effect:

We know that Stones cleared the ball on the goal-line as per inline camera footage, but look how it appears when it is viewed from a different perspective.

As far as I know, VAR are not correcting marginal offsides calls for the viewing angle and relative heights of bodypart and reference line when the ball 'is struck'. It matters not when the camera is inline, but it does matter when it isn't, and frequently it isn't.


There are 2 sources of error with VAR offside calls:

1) Establishing the moment when the ball is played because there is no single moment, and in practise it's not so easy to capture anyway

2) Distortion of the like we see above when player's goal-side body-parts are at different heights, and the view is at an angle

I maybe wrong about the 2nd point, but if this effect exists for goal-line assesments at an angle, then I think it should also be applicable for offside calls. Isn't the goalline clearance we have in the image above directly analagous to a line across a pitch and two player's body parts which are at different heights to that reference line?

The only mitigation is that typically the angle is small. They try and select an image that's relatively inline, but they are never directly inline. Look at the size of the error that this angle introduces.

 

[Bandofblues]

By the letter of the law bernie handballed it so it should have been a freekick but that moment passed so it went onto their handball,he raised his arm,he made himself bigger so by the rules it was a pen,the moment passed and they scored ,by the rules it should have been disallowed and the game brought back for a freekick to them,as has been said by national broadcasters it would have taken a brave ref to do it,in short they ignored their own rues and oliver shat himself,var were never going to let him get lynched

Sorry Karen, that's plain wrong and everyone is getting sucked along with this as the narrative.

IFAB rules: Law12:

It is usually an offence if a player:

• touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
  • the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger

The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close.

Except for the above offences, it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:

• directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)
• directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close

So Bernie's was not handball because it was a ricochet from the Liverpool defender who was close.
Trent's was handball because he made his body unnaturally bigger and Bernie was not close.

The rules are there in black and white and yet the refs, VAR and pundits continually make up their own narrative to explain things away. Their interpretation becomes the accepted facts when it's complete bollocks.

(Not having a pop at you by the way).

 

[mcfcphil]

The second Salah goal wasn’t checked by VAR.

The Hawkeye operator takes a set amount of time to set up the review for the Video Assistant Referee to look at - its an absolute fact that this couldn’t have happened within the timeframe it did.

Forget the penalty - this is the scandal.

The goal wasn’t reviewed, the only question is why it wasn’t.

 

[Tommy_Catons_Perm]

Micah Richards on five live radio now talking about VAR in the game yesterday..

 

[kaz7]

Sorry Karen, that's plain wrong and everyone is getting sucked along with this as the narrative.

IFAB rules: Law12:

It is usually an offence if a player:

• 
  
  
  • touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
    • the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger

The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close.

Except for the above offences, it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:

• 
  
  
  • directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)
  • directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close

So Bernie's was not handball because it was a ricochet from the Liverpool defender who was close.
Trent's was handball because he made his body unnaturally bigger and Bernie was not close.

The rules are there in black and white and yet the refs, VAR and pundits continually make up their own narrative to explain things away. Their interpretation becomes the accepted facts when it's complete bollocks.

(Not having a pop at you by the way).

The rules under var have changed,ANY touch by an attacker is handball but for defender they have to have their arms in an unatural position,the rules have been put up and explained when the eric hanball was given,the prem are NOT using the rules set by the governing body,they are actively looking to disallow goals,they cited it is because of bolly's handball and a couple of others from last season,they have brought in different rules for either end of the pitch hence the confusion,it doesn't help they are constantly breaking their own rules by giving the same things different as per game,sorry

 

[jimmygrimblesboots]

Absolute total and utter waste time , good technology but still the final decision is made by a faceless human being in an office miles away who can and does invariably get it wrong , VAR should only alert the officials to a possible mistake and allow them to watch a replay at the side of the pitch , the faceless guy at Stockley should have zero input into the decision , the final decision should be 100% with the referee on the pitch and the reason for his decision shown on the big screen in the ground. But it will not happen the Premier league have got a tool to use to dicatate the fate of the title and the Dippers winning the league is far better for the brand then Likkle City

 

[meltonblue]

Sorry Karen, that's plain wrong and everyone is getting sucked along with this as the narrative.

IFAB rules: Law12:

It is usually an offence if a player:

• 
  
  
  • touches the ball with their hand/arm when:
    • the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger

The above offences apply even if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close.

Except for the above offences, it is not usually an offence if the ball touches a player’s hand/arm:

• 
  
  
  • directly from the player’s own head or body (including the foot)
  • directly from the head or body (including the foot) of another player who is close

So Bernie's was not handball because it was a ricochet from the Liverpool defender who was close.
Trent's was handball because he made his body unnaturally bigger and Bernie was not close.

The rules are there in black and white and yet the refs, VAR and pundits continually make up their own narrative to explain things away. Their interpretation becomes the accepted facts when it's complete bollocks.

(Not having a pop at you by the way).

That isn't why Bernardo's wasn't a handball though. With attackers, they can still be penalised for accidental handball (which your scenario classes as) if it leads to the attacker either scoring or creating a goal scoring chance.

The reason Bernardo's wasn't given was because it didn't do that, the next action was TAA handling it. If TAA hadn't touched it and the ball had gone straight to Sterling and he'd scored, it would be pulled back and a free kick given for Bernardo's handball.

I hate the rule as it means someone can be penalised for something completely out of their control, but that's what it is.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

PiGMOL should be managed by an independent body and not PiGMOB

In which case most of the corrupt twats would be out of work after a weekend of their fuck-ups .

 

[Tommy_Catons_Perm]

The second Salah goal wasn’t checked by VAR.

The Hawkeye operator takes a set amount of time to set up the review for the Video Assistant Referee to look at - its an absolute fact that this couldn’t have happened within the timeframe it did.

Forget the penalty - this is the scandal.

The goal wasn’t reviewed, the only question is why it wasn’t.

Micah Richards mentioned it in radio five now and said he was at the game and had the picture on his phone and said that looks offside. He passed it to Arteta and that caused mayhem on the bench.