VAR Discussion Thread

BlueNomad said:
From BBC Football

Wirtz looked offside. And he was - just. So why was his goal allowed to stand after a VAR review?

In the first two seasons of VAR there were some very confusing offside decisions. The lines drawn to the defender and the attacker would be on top of each other.

There were many complaints that this was against the spirit of the offside law.

So from the start of the 2021-22 season all leagues added a tolerance level, or benefit of the doubt, of about 5cm to the old offside technology. It meant that if the two lines touched, the player would be given onside regardless of the on-field decision.

This was because of inaccuracies in the technology, like the correct moment the ball has been passed.

In effect a player could now be marginally offside on the technology, but onside when the tolerance level was applied.

At the time, referees' body Professional Game Match Officials Limited (PGMOL) estimated it could lead to an additional 20 goals a season.

The advent of semi-automated offside technology (SAOT) changed all that. Other leagues, including the top flights in Germany, Spain and Italy, have gone back to offside by the millimetre.

But when the Premier League introduced SAOT it wanted to continue with the tolerance level, to give some leeway to the attacker. That is because there are still questions about treating this new technology as flawless.

It is also why you will get situations like Wirtz, who appears to be just offside, but SAOT will give him the benefit of the doubt.


THIS PROVES THAT THE SAOT IS A LIE!!!
Click to expand...
It seems to work well in European and in international football but over here they have made up this tolerance level thing which has just made the whole semi automatic offsides system seems compromised and worse than the previous lines system they used.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Was that from Dale fucking Johnson? It sounds like him. No questioning of why a tolerance is needed, no questioning of why 5 cm, no questioning of how Wirtz was at least a foot (a literal foot) offside, no questioning of what the need for a tolerance says about the technology, no questioning of what it all means for every single close offside decision given in every UEFA or FIFA tournament, World Cup finals even.

The Dermot Gallagher of our national broadcaster. Hopeless.
Click to expand...
it is from Dale fucking Johnson, but thats irrelevant. It's an absolute shitshow of a decision, the lines would have had to have been 30cm wide to come even close to touching so it's just smokescreen. Cheating in plain sight and weasel words to deflect from it.

Has there been a single other decision in 4 years that has been explained away by this? There have certainly been many more closer decisions given offside
 
eastmanc said:
It seems to work well in European and in international football but over here they have made up this tolerance level thing which has just made the whole semi automatic offsides system seems compromised and worse than the previous lines system they used.
Click to expand...

The fa Premier are that arrogant that they told uefa we don’t want your auto ofside system we setting up our own! They don’t want a chip in the ball which gets a more accurate offside they want cameras to do it and AI cartoon pictures!
 
Vester said:
Not sure why you quoted my post from another thread who had nothing to do with VAR and in which I didn't ask any questions.
Click to expand...
Sorry Looks like my clipboard messed up strange things on my phone at the moment opening another unrelated app every time I click on bluemoon bookmark
 
IrishBlueSince92 said:
Read an article on BBC there about there now being a tolerance level with some offside calls
So if your off marginally off, like centimeters they sometimes let it stand

Such as Guimares being offside against us and the goal stood

First I’ve ever heard of this.
What’s the tolerance level and how do they decide?

Why wasn’t Silva’s goal v Sunderland allowed to stand it was marginal
Click to expand...
The "tolerance level " was brought in purely to explain that goal by Guimares.
 
eastmanc said:
It seems to work well in European and in international football but over here they have made up this tolerance level thing which has just made the whole semi automatic offsides system seems compromised and worse than the previous lines system they used.
Click to expand...

"Seems" to work well. That is the problem. It looks nice and is relatively quick, but how do we know it's accurate? Who knows how it actually works? And I don't mean FPS, the number of data points, the frequency of data and other PR guff. I mean how do they actually determine an off-side? A nice picture doesn't mean anything to me unless I know how it's created.
 
Liverpool goal using this tolerance level is the same as Bernie against Sunderland. Both look identical so why wasn't the tolerance level used to allow Bernie's goal ?
If anything Bernie was more onside then the dippers, so Bernie was more within the tolerance range.

We all know why because football is BENT.
Can't see me every attending another match to be honest, this rigging of results has done me.
I dont enjoy modern football, players faking head injuries, time-wasting etc.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
Right in front of our eyes they are using VAR to justify incorrect decisions.

That's exactly why they want it. They have that control now.

Tolerance levels LOL. That's their excuse to justify whatever decision they want.
Click to expand...

and what's the tolerance of the 5cm measurement? There's no way you can accurately measure 5cm from a blurry zoom in on a photograph.
 
We were having a pre-match pint and it took us all about 10 secs to agree that Wirtz was offside. The cut-line of the grass showed it beyond doubt. It then took God knows how many minutes for VAR to decide that he was onside. Once again, the VAR-drawn line bore no resemblance to what we'd just seen with our own eyes. They make it up as they go along and it whiffs of corruption.
 
Gazza said:
and what's the tolerance of the 5cm measurement? There's no way you can accurately measure 5cm from a blurry zoom in on a photograph.
Click to expand...
It was used against City a few games ago.

I think this is just the start. They think VAR rubber stamping decisions will assuage football fans, and they are right. There's a sizeable contingent that will happy clap everything VAR does.
 
It's a mess . Predicted in 2019. Here's the reasoning behind tolerance .... apparently in the real world ultra precision is unobtainable if there are too many variables . So the truth is an illusion ....or at least can never be fully pinned down completely. Pity that , as most of us love football for the illusion of truth it gives us for ninety minutes in a chaotic world .

The point about ultra-precision is that it is all well and good when there is a single thing to measure. Hawk-Eye works well in tennis, for instance, but then, it is only the ball that is moving.
www.theguardian.com

Aleksander Ceferin’s ‘long nose’ issue highlights the VAR offside conundrum | Greg Wood

Proposal to give attackers 10-20cm leeway on offsides shows the dangers of being too precise in tight situations
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
halfcenturyup said:
"Seems" to work well. That is the problem. It looks nice and is relatively quick, but how do we know it's accurate? Who knows how it actually works? And I don't mean FPS, the number of data points, the frequency of data and other PR guff. I mean how do they actually determine an off-side? A nice picture doesn't mean anything to me unless I know how it's created.
Click to expand...
It's a good point. The fact that the Premier League wouldn't let micro chips be put into the ball is shady as because that lets the powers that be know when the ball has been kicked, which is pretty important in deeming if a player is offside or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top