VAR (PL introduction 2019)

[chedinho]

F*cking good. He would of got away with a yellow normally. How would that have been fair ?!

Refs seen the footage. Off you go. No complaints.

they should be watching for stuff like this as the game is playing,ref is going about his business as usual,but instead of pulling out a yellow,he is told it's red.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Thanks for the explanation. Makes sense in that regard then... my impression is (not the biggest cricket fan) that the technology has been good for the sport, as it has in tennis/rugby etc.... not 100% perfect, but a significant improvement over where it was in terms of making correct decisions, more often..

well yes, you only have to look back to the 2005 Ashes series to see just how many wickets were due to god-awful umpiring, the standard now is infinitely better. A properly implemented and objectively used (ha-bloody-ha) VAR would have a similar effect here I believe.

 

[Bluearmy]

well yes, you only have to look back to the 2005 Ashes series to see just how many wickets were due to god-awful umpiring, the standard now is infinitely better. A properly implemented and objectively used (ha-bloody-ha) VAR would have a similar effect here I believe.

I don't see how it can't help... the current levels of refereeing are truly atrocious, at best. Or corrupt very possibly. VAR will help level that playing field drastically...

 

[caseball]

The single challenge is the best way to go with this. The other day City could have challenged the disallowed goal if the players felt strongly enough at the time. The game had stopped anyway. Result.. goal 2-0 and we still have a challenge. Different game thereafter and possibly no mad tackle on Sane. Away at Palace we could have challenged the penalty. It would make sense because the game was nearly over. Whatever the outcome we feel like we've had a fair go because we've been able to call for it. The offside goal at the swamp by Mata from Rooney's dumb pass. We appeal it, it's canceled out and still game on. The penalty against Sterling with Spurs, ruled out. Different result. I would actually make an exception in cases of possible violent conduct and let the VAR intervene without challenge. But that's it. Teams challenge decisions but only have one challenge. VAR can intervene only if violent conduct has gone unnoticed. Diving doesn't matter, teams can challenge if a dive wins a penalty. No pen + mandatory yellow (red) card. This is football not cricket or tennis or Rugby which have loads of points to score. Football's a low-scoring game and the use of VAR in football should reflect that fact.
And only the incident challenged can be taken into consideration. If the other team feel there was an unpunished foul against them before the challenge, they can challenge that. So you could have two challenges for the same passage of play. Only one will win and the other will lose the right to challenge again in the match. That would concentrate minds on the job at hand I think.

 

[kaz7]

the last 2games there was about 4 red card tackles on us,VARS would have helped us,it would cut out these violent tackles on us if players know the risk a red card,the current situation does not help us one bit

 

[Henkeman]

Your missing the point. That's not a VAR issue. The VAR clearly shows if the ball would go on to hit the stumps or not in a lbw decision... it's the governing body that decides to stick with the onfield umpires decision in some instances, for reasons I'm not sure of to be honest.

It doesn't actually show that at all - which is why cricket isn't a great example to compare with. What you see on screen is the representation of an algorithm that shows with varying degrees of certainty the probability of the path of the ball. It is NEVER showing the ball "clipping the leg stump" as the commentators would have it, it is showing a low probability of impact, and it would be far more honest to instead have concentric circles around the representation of the ball to show the degree of confidence in the probability of the path taken.

That's why you have the "umpire's call" rule - because the predictive element is not certain, not least because for any given ball you don't know how many of the data points were captured. In one instance it might be a high probability the tracking and prediction is correct, in another, it might not be.

However, this is far too complex for TV display, which is why they go with what is shown, and why the commentators fundamentally misunderstand the operation of the system. The problem then is that because of the nature of it, the DRS is deemed to be correct, and because it is deemed to be correct it is followed even when it isn't correct. It's likely more accurate than the human eye, but it does make some odd predictions, and as it is the final arbiter, those odd predictions are still followed even if it doesn't look right.

Carry on with the discussion though - but cricket really isn't a good example for a whole host of reasons.

 

[Bluearmy]

It doesn't actually show that at all - which is why cricket isn't a great example to compare with. What you see on screen is the representation of an algorithm that shows with varying degrees of certainty the probability of the path of the ball. It is NEVER showing the ball "clipping the leg stump" as the commentators would have it, it is showing a low probability of impact, and it would be far more honest to instead have concentric circles around the representation of the ball to show the degree of confidence in the probability of the path taken.

That's why you have the "umpire's call" rule - because the predictive element is not certain, not least because for any given ball you don't know how many of the data points were captured. In one instance it might be a high probability the tracking and prediction is correct, in another, it might not be.

However, this is far too complex for TV display, which is why they go with what is shown, and why the commentators fundamentally misunderstand the operation of the system. The problem then is that because of the nature of it, the DRS is deemed to be correct, and because it is deemed to be correct it is followed even when it isn't correct. It's likely more accurate than the human eye, but it does make some odd predictions, and as it is the final arbiter, those odd predictions are still followed even if it doesn't look right.

Carry on with the discussion though - but cricket really isn't a good example for a whole host of reasons.

Thanks, I've learnt a lot from that.... while I take your point, the reason cricket is referenced is because it's an example of technology improving the number of correct decisions... football is simpler, at least in terms of "over the line" and "offside" decisions as there line decisions... doesn't need an algorithm that cricket seems to need from your description.

 

[citymantop]

With the amount of obvious red card challenges against us we have given the VAR web page their homepage

https://football-technology.fifa.com/en/media-tiles/video-assistant-referees-var/

Looks like Laporte getting hacked by Danny Rose, hope its not an omen.

 

[crazyg]

the last 2games there was about 4 red card tackles on us,VARS would have helped us,it would cut out these violent tackles on us if players know the risk a red card,the current situation does not help us one bit

Not if Blobby Madley had been in charge of the VAR it wouldn't. It would have been a yellow at best.

 

[Hart of the Matter]

Wtf. They cant even draw a straight line across the pitch and still get the decisions wrong and spoil the flow of the game. What a disaster. Fkn useless and not even close to effective.