VAR Discussion Thread - 2023/24 | PL clubs to vote on whether to scrap VAR (pg413)

[Blue Mist]

The Pgmol involvement in that decision consisted entirely of the VAR telling the referee that the computer says offside.

The decision, given the guidelines and the tools they were working with, wasn’t in the least bit controversial.

I presume you haven't read both, I repeat both managers comments about Var and the officials.

 

[Stephen230]

I presume you haven't read both, I repeat both managers comments about Var and the officials.

You’re right, I haven’t.

 

[Blue Mist]

I have just read an article re Var.
In 2016, on its introduction FIFA stated Var would only overturn clear errors, would not undermine the match official and give decisions within 10 seconds.
That worked out well.

 

[kippaxking79]

lets reverse the process ha? this can be used. maybe that system may have advantages....
but still,
I don't trust humans who pause the video and select the frame. It doesn't matter if they are pausing the frame at the moment the goal scorer was last onside and checking whether the ball is touching the assister's foot or not touching at that instant.

but as, @Stephen230 mentioned, if the process is full automatic, then i am ok with that....

I thought they were putting intelligent chips in the ball so it can 'sense' when the ball has left the foot.

Like what they have been doing for handball in the euro. A little noise graph comes up like a heart rate monitor??

 

[kerem gokmen]

I thought they were putting intelligent chips in the ball so it can 'sense' when the ball has left the foot.

Like what they have been doing for handball in the euro. A little noise graph comes up like a heart rate monitor??

yes... i discussed the same thing with a friend today. just like you said.
if frame selection is according to thechip inside the ball... if they are taking the frame according to the instant when the offender touched the ball (a chip in it)
i am ok with that..
cheers.

 

[Bigga]

Keep VAR, but change the rules around it. Tennis rules. Each team has an option to use it 3 times per game (and the ref can still use it as well, ofc). I wouldn't go as far as to say that if you are right (like in tennis) you don't waste the check, but 3 checks per game should be allowed.

No, I thought about when I first had the idea, years ago.

3 would mean a chance to be frivolous with stopping the game.

Two split between the cap and manager would have meant more a free-flowing game and allows to challenge a ref's critical decision. I thought, back then, it would be a quick lesson on when to use a 'challenge'. Proved wrong, the ref would be allowed to ref at their own standards which, in theory, should raise the skill of what to do on the pitch.

Believe me, I had HEAVY discussions over this. This version of VAR is all wrong and is getting fans upset. But if their team would be involved in the process, how can anyone be upset? That's the beauty of it.

 

[halfcenturyup]

FIFA/ IFAB claim that the automated systems they now use to determine the exact moment of contact is a matter of fact.

So whether you believe them or not, they’re not going to change and in doing so admit it’s actually subjective.

Has IFAB ever said anything about SAOT?

 

[halfcenturyup]

yes... i discussed the same thing with a friend today. just like you said.
if frame selection is according to thechip inside the ball... if they are taking the frame according to the instant when the offender touched the ball (a chip in it)
i am ok with that..
cheers.

That's all well and good, but the cameras that track the player data points are still only 50 fps. They say they can interpolate exactly between two frames based on the higher frequency of the inertia sensor but that's not accurately possible in most circumstances and I am not at all convinced it's as accurate as the sexy graphics want you to believe.

Certainly not for the toenail decisions.

 

[kerem gokmen]

That's all well and good, but the cameras that track the player data points are still only 50 fps. They say they can interpolate exactly between two frames based on the higher frequency of the inertia sensor but that's not accurately possible in most circumstances and I am not at all convinced it's as accurate as the sexy graphics want you to believe.

Certainly not for the toenail decisions.

yes... i told kind a the same thing at my first post in this thread. they can never convice me about the accuracy... i dont trust them :)))
i suggested : ''taking an inverval of 2 seconds - if the goal scored at 15th minute and 46th second for instance - let the computer randomly (true randomness which can be provided if the ref enters the sytem that the goal is scored at 15.46); then let computer select a random frame in this interval; between 14.46 to 16.46.
:))) it may seem too complicated, utopic maybe. but i am involved a little about those stuff... so when i contemplate about this offside thing; that is the best solution i came up with.
let the computer select a random frame in an interval. yes, luck factor will be there.. but it will be fair.
ps: sure, aslo they can manupulate the computer code again.. maybe a fair solution is impossible :)))
and thats why, i dont like VAR in offiside decisions. it was better before VAR maybe.
since,before VAR, when there was an obivous mistake by linesman in an offside decison, we were swearing him, cursing him etc. but then we were justifying the decision ''ok, he made a mistake, it happens in football; today it happened against us, but some day it will be in favor us'' and we were going on. and that mistake staying as nice memory in our lives maybe.
but after VAR; we are questioning the justice, the sincerity of the officials, UEFA, FA, TFF each single time. that is killimg the spirit of the game. at least for me.
cheers

 

[halfcenturyup]

yes... i told kind a the same thing at my first post in this thread. they can never convice me about the accuracy... i dont trust them :)))
i suggested : ''taking an inverval of 2 seconds - if the goal scored at 15th minute and 46th second for instance - let the computer randomly (true randomness which can be provided if the ref enters the sytem that the goal is scored at 15.46); then let computer select a random frame in this interval; between 14.46 to 16.46.
:))) it may seem too complicated, utopic maybe. but i am involved a little about those stuff... so when i contemplate about this offside thing; that is the best solution i came up with.
let the computer select a random frame in an interval. yes, luck factor will be there.. but it will be fair.
ps: sure, aslo they can manupulate the computer code again.. maybe a fair solution is impossible :)))
and thats why, i dont like VAR in offiside decisions. it was better before VAR maybe.
since,before VAR, when there was an obivous mistake by linesman in an offside decison, we were swearing him, cursing him etc. but then we were justifying the decision ''ok, he made a mistake, it happens in football; today it happened against us, but some day it will be in favor us'' and we were going on. and that mistake staying as nice memory in our lives maybe.
but after VAR; we are questioning the justice, the sincerity of the officials, UEFA, FA, TFF each single time. that is killimg the spirit of the game. at least for me.
cheers

Fair enough. Apologies for weighing in without reading your previous posts. I agree with much of what you say about offsides, particularly about letting the officials get on with it and VAR only correct it if there is a "clear and obvious" error with micro-analysing mms. This is what IFAB still say, by the way. It is FIFA with Collina who introduced this precise offside nonsense so UEFA had to follow I suppose. It all makes a complete bollocks of the fundamental reason for offsides in my view, especially as nothing can ever be precisely accurate.