VAR Discussion Thread

VOOMER said:
Difficult question for AI
Click to expand...
I don't think AI would be arguing for VAR to go. AI would be explaining how it works and trying to get you to accept it. AI can't actually watch football and see how the sport has been harmed by this. Humans are needed to put this right.
 
Nobody has had as many bad decisions as us, especially recently, but every team goes through periods like this. Look at wolves last season. Even Arsenal and dippers get some bad ones as a result of VAR being totally incompetent. But there’s one team in red I honestly can’t remember getting any bad decisions and defo not a run of decisions.
 
hertsblue said:
Its the officials not the software that's the issue.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about the "software"? The issue is the "interference" to the match by the system. The software doesn't do anything special, it processes video, and more recently turns players into video game models to decide offside decisions for example, because creating a fantasy world to make real-world decisions, what could go wrong. If they think this helps them make better decisions when they've broken the way it's supposed to work by not letting the linos do their jobs. Under VAR, Humans are tasked with watching the same thing over and over again and coming to different decisions than the referee did, and stoping the match trying to change decisions to correct errors. This idea, the control freak nitpicking element, the design of VAR, that is so problematic, has nothing to do with the "software" involved. It has to do with how VAR operates, how problematic it is and how it has negatively affected the sport. That's not to give the officials a pass for how bad they've been, but think about it this way. Would you be comfortable making the kind of decisions VAR does, and having the "responsibility" to decide crucial decisions? It has nothing to do with the software, it has to do with this incredibly annoying thing being brought in and hurting football the way that it has. There's a reason why the PL rejected VAR at first, voted to keep it out. They knew this would cause havoc, but then they were convinced by FIFA to bring it in. And since then they've been scrambling to try to make this work, and failing miserably.

hertsblue said:
Gillet on Var got so much wrong, simple decisions v Spurs and was also on Var for the cup final when he didn't do anything to tell the baffoon Attwell that Henderson should walk.
You cannot tell me he got all those decisions wrong by incompetance alone.
Click to expand...
Anytime VAR gets involved they are going to make one group of fans happy and one group of fans upset. But you're right, some of the decisions are baffling. The officials absolutely deserve criticism for their decision-making, but I would argue that this phenomena of officials getting such decisions wrong in such a baffling manner is more of a product of how these decisions are made, through VAR. We were not getting Decisions like this before VAR was implemented because they weren't making decisions like they have been (essentially) forced to under this system. I see it as these referees being incredibly nervous when making decisions, and it's become a whisper down the lane, broken telephone situation where the referee is often strung along by the VARs, being sent to the monitor and such.

To give an example, the recent example of the referee going to the monitor and to everyone's surprise he stuck with his original decision. Only to receive undue praise from the media pundits simply for sticking with his decision, regardless of that being the correct decision or not. We've gotten to the point where we're praising actions that have nothing to do with the correct decision, because they make the wrong decision so often that's all they can praise about it. The referee finally after hundreds of times in a row of referees being sent to the monitor and just going along with whatever the VAR says, this time flips the script and says no, he's sticking with his decision, and gets praised for doing that at the same time arguing that was still the wrong decision. It's as if it's no longer become about getting the right decision, but about following the new process.

I'll give you another example, if you watched the Mic'd up show a few weeks back, after discussing the Doku incident which to save time and aggravation I'll put aside for now. The 2nd incident they reviewed was the incident in the Forest West Ham match. Now this highlighted a separate problem which really isn't being discussed enough.

It was a situation in which the defender got his foot to the ball to clear it out and it was deflected towards an offside attacker. The touch would presumably have put this offside player back on, however VAR has redefined this and now under their new re-interpretation of what offside is, that action according to Webb would no longer play him back onside.

In order for it to negate an offsides decision, according to Webb, according to the LOTG (which were changed completely and rewritten in relation to VAR, which now Webb is trying to apply here), he has claimed that it has to be considered a "controlled play". A novel, completely subjective metric that has been made up by those that came up with VAR to change the LOTG to be about new ways to interpret this rather than the traditional way.

This is an example that under the traditional (pre-VAR) rule the deflection would negate the offsides, and it wouldn't need any convoluted cockamamie explanations like this coming out of Webb here. It wouldn't be controversial, there wouldn't be a stoppage. The touch played the offside man back on and that would be that.

Pre-VAR, this is a complete non-incident. Goal stands because the defender's touch cancelled any "offsides" continuity. Only under VAR has this been reinterpreted to now disallow a goal that never would have even been thought of being disallowed pre-VAR.

Webb : "Now people get a little confused about deliberate action or deliberate play."

Yeah because all that was put into the rule book due to VAR replacing the normal way decisions are supposed to be made and were made for generations before and now your job is to re-explain this new way of doing things to the world and trying to make it come out natural and sensible. It doesn't Howard because VAR has done up the rule book and you are struggling trying to explain it.

Meanwhile Law 11: Offside deliberate play is defined as "Clearing the Ball" which is precisely what he set out to do there, along with gaining possession of the ball, as part of Howard's reasoning, suggested this criteria wasn't met, when in fact it surely was even under their own reinterpretations. And then he goes into full waffle mode.

This now comes down to if they deem the defenders action as "deliberate play", an obscure concept created by VAR, in his application, vs the way it would be decided prior to VAR's introduction. (A clear offside cancelling touch, goal counts, get on with it) But now, instead we get a stopping of the match and the actual wrong decision being made, by both pre-VAR and even VAR standards. You can't make this stuff up, and it stinks.

Just understand here that we have a situation that pre-VAR was clear cut, easy to understand, not complicated at all, now it's become something controversial due to VAR's changes to the LOTG and the "process" and the decision itself has been turned on its head.
 
Last edited:
TheBeautifulGame said:
Who said anything about the "software"? The issue is the "interference" to the match by the system. The software doesn't do anything special, it processes video, and more recently turns players into video game models to decide offside decisions for example, because creating a fantasy world to make real-world decisions, what could go wrong. If they think this helps them make better decisions when they've broken the way it's supposed to work by not letting the linos do their jobs. Under VAR, Humans are tasked with watching the same thing over and over again and coming to different decisions than the referee did, and stoping the match trying to change decisions to correct errors. This idea, the control freak nitpicking element, the design of VAR, that is so problematic, has nothing to do with the "software" involved. It has to do with how VAR operates, how problematic it is and how it has negatively affected the sport. That's not to give the officials a pass for how bad they've been, but think about it this way. Would you be comfortable making the kind of decisions VAR does, and having the "responsibility" to decide crucial decisions? It has nothing to do with the software, it has to do with this incredibly annoying thing being brought in and hurting football the way that it has. There's a reason why the PL rejected VAR at first, voted to keep it out. They knew this would cause havoc, but then they were convinced by FIFA to bring it in. And since then they've been scrambling to try to make this work, and failing miserably.


Anytime VAR gets involved they are going to make one group of fans happy and one group of fans upset. But you're right, some of the decisions are baffling. The officials absolutely deserve criticism for their decision-making, but I would argue that this phenomena of officials getting such decisions wrong in such a baffling manner is more of a product of how these decisions are made, through VAR. We were not getting Decisions like this before VAR was implemented because they weren't making decisions like they have been (essentially) forced to under this system. I see it as these referees being incredibly nervous when making decisions, and it's become a whisper down the lane, broken telephone situation where the referee is often strung along by the VARs, being sent to the monitor and such.

To give an example, the recent example of the referee going to the monitor and to everyone's surprise he stuck with his original decision. Only to receive undue praise from the media pundits simply for sticking with his decision, regardless of that being the correct decision or not. We've gotten to the point where we're praising actions that have nothing to do with the correct decision, because they make the wrong decision so often that's all they can praise about it. The referee finally after hundreds of times in a row of referees being sent to the monitor and just going along with whatever the VAR says, this time flips the script and says no, he's sticking with his decision, and gets praised for doing that at the same time arguing that was still the wrong decision. It's as if it's no longer become about getting the right decision, but about following the new process.

I'll give you another example, if you watched the Mic'd up show a few weeks back, after discussing the Doku incident which to save time and aggravation I'll put aside for now. The 2nd incident they reviewed was the incident in the Forest West Ham match. Now this highlighted a separate problem which really isn't being discussed enough.

It was a situation in which the defender got his foot to the ball to clear it out and it was deflected towards an offside attacker. The touch would presumably have put this offside player back on, however VAR has redefined this and now under their new re-interpretation of what offside is, that action according to Webb would no longer play him back onside.

In order for it to negate an offsides decision, according to Webb, according to the LOTG (which were changed completely and rewritten in relation to VAR, which now Webb is trying to apply here), he has claimed that it has to be considered a "controlled play". A novel, completely subjective metric that has been made up by those that came up with VAR to change the LOTG to be about new ways to interpret this rather than the traditional way.

This is an example that under the traditional (pre-VAR) rule the deflection would negate the offsides, and it wouldn't need any convoluted cockamamie explanations like this coming out of Webb here. It wouldn't be controversial, there wouldn't be a stoppage. The touch played the offside man back on and that would be that.

Pre-VAR, this is a complete non-incident. Goal stands because the defender's touch cancelled any "offsides" continuity. Only under VAR has this been reinterpreted to now disallow a goal that never would have even been thought of being disallowed pre-VAR.

Webb : "Now people get a little confused about deliberate action or deliberate play."

Yeah because all that was put into the rule book due to VAR replacing the normal way decisions are supposed to be made and were made for generations before and now your job is to re-explain this new way of doing things to the world and trying to make it come out natural and sensible. It doesn't Howard because VAR has done up the rule book and you are struggling trying to explain it.

Meanwhile Law 11: Offside deliberate play is defined as "Clearing the Ball" which is precisely what he set out to do there, along with gaining possession of the ball, as part of Howard's reasoning, suggested this criteria wasn't met, when in fact it surely was even under their own reinterpretations. And then he goes into full waffle mode.

This now comes down to if they deem the defenders action as "deliberate play", an obscure concept created by VAR, in his application, vs the way it would be decided prior to VAR's introduction. (A clear offside cancelling touch, goal counts, get on with it) But now, instead we get a stopping of the match and the actual wrong decision being made, by both pre-VAR and even VAR standards. You can't make this stuff up, and it stinks.

Just understand here that we have a situation that pre-VAR was clear cut, easy to understand, not complicated at all, now it's become something controversial due to VAR's changes to the LOTG and the "process" and the decision itself has been turned on its head.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
Watching MOTD and that offside against Jesus was a new one on me.
His feet were inside his own half but his upper body was leaning into the other half
 
lol that’s not a pen for Newcastle they just clipped legs. So sick of this bollocks

Game is almost dead
 
Jacob Murphy’s arms were in a natural position today. Penalty and yellow card

They got it right they’re saying on MOTD

Now let’s compare to ours v Wolves two weeks ago
 
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