VAR (PL introduction 2019)

[BlueHammer85]

VAR finally used correctly:

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.

 

[SebastianBlue]

And the linesman flagged for a goal kick even though the ball didn’t go out!

I still maintain there should be a documentary made of that match entitled ‘Something Stinks in the State of Primark’.

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.

Yep, proper use of the system and a horrific tackle from Mbappe. Not sure if Sarr had been roughing him up prior to that in the match but that screams priors, doesn’t it?

 

[caseball]

I actually think the best way to keep everybody happy with this is to use it only when a challenge is made. Use it for anything but restrict the inevitable abuse by a certain type of manager by only giving the buggers one challenge. That way they won't appeal for a free kick or a throw on halfway and risk losing the challenge that might overturn a penalty they concede for a dive. It takes the decision to use it out of the hands of the officials so no suspicions of bias and it keeps the t***s on the touchline on the straight and narrow. It would also mean that the VAR intervenes mostly when play is stopped anyway. For other cases we could wait for the next stoppage and go back. The only real problem in this case would be the non-award of a penalty.

 

[Bluearmy]

Offside has factors they can't see, such as the exact fraction of a second the ball is kicked & I like the fact that most non fat cheating Mason **** refs give the advantage to the atracker, so more goals are given than chalked off. That will go. Some real beautys of ours would have been disallowed due to 3 inches.

Line calls are fine.

Cricket var is a fucking joke. Half the decisions are clearly wrong but allowed to stand & most perfectly good catches the camera can't see are given as drops.

Rugby does it right, but it takes too long & they still make errors anyhow.

Don't agree with the first part at all. They can tell in 99.9% of offside decisions very clearly. The ones that are that close, where they can't tell definitively, which will only be a tiny fraction anyway, still give the benefit to the attacker. Why will it have to go?

VAR in cricket has vastly improved the percentage of correct decisions... Not sure what your talking about there. Same in rugby.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Don't agree with the first part at all. They can tell in 99.9% of offside decisions very clearly. The ones that are that close, where they can't tell definitively, which will only be a tiny fraction anyway, still give the benefit to the attacker. Why will it have to go?

VAR in cricket has vastly improved the percentage of correct decisions... Not sure what your talking about there. Same in rugby.

I can only think that it is this that frightens the shit out of some opponents of VAR. Correct decisions are what most fans want, win lose or draw, we want the result of a game to reflect what has actually gone on during a game.

 

[Bluearmy]

I can only think that it is this that frightens the shit out of some opponents of VAR. Correct decisions are what most fans want, win lose or draw, we want the result of a game to reflect what has actually gone on during a game.

What doesn't make sense to me is why blues, who can see what's going on in the none VAR world, would not want to see if VAR improves the current dire refreeing levels were experiencing.

If City were to have a goal disallowed, due to a VAR decision, I'd be fine with it. Becuase it would be the correct decision!

 

[Neville Kneville]

Don't agree with the first part at all. They can tell in 99.9% of offside decisions very clearly. The ones that are that close, where they can't tell definitively, which will only be a tiny fraction anyway, still give the benefit to the attacker. Why will it have to go?

VAR in cricket has vastly improved the percentage of correct decisions... Not sure what your talking about there. Same in rugby.

Var in cricket, allows the umpire to be wrong & shows you on the screen that he was wrong, then sticks with his wrong decision. It only changes, if he is particularly wrong.

Before var, if a player caught the ball very close to the ground & claimed the catch, it was assumed (rightly) that in 999999 cases, the player was being honest, & normal tv replays would show no reason to doubt it.

Now, if it goes to var, unless the camera can clearly see the players fingers between the ball & the grass, the catch is not given, irrespective of the fact tha reveryone knows, it's almost certainly a fair catch. So now, we have players appealing for catches, saying they're 'not sure' if they caught it, just in case the var makes it look as if they did, when actually they didn't.

A guy can throw the stumps down with the batsman halfway down the pitch, but the umpire calls for var, to 'check' he's out, when the batsman himself, has already walked off the pitch & is nearly on his way up the steps, because he's obviously out.

It's a fucking joke.

Rugby reviews every aspect, so Spurs' goal last night would have been disallowed as Kane encroached at kickoff. It would have taken ages to do it.

Poll last night saw a clear pen on replay, & decided it was a 'good challenge'.

By half time, he had changed his mind.

 

[Bluearmy]

Var in cricket, allows the umpire to be wrong & shows you on the screen that he was wrong, then sticks with his wrong decision. It only changes, if he is particularly wrong.

Before var, if a player caught the ball very close to the ground & claimed the catch, it was assumed (rightly) that in 999999 cases, the player was being honest, & normal tv replays would show no reason to doubt it.

Now, if it goes to var, unless the camera can clearly see the players fingers between the ball & the grass, the catch is not given, irrespective of the fact tha reveryone knows, it's almost certainly a fair catch. So now, we have players appealing for catches, saying they're 'not sure' if they caught it, just in case the var makes it look as if they did, when actually they didn't.

A guy can throw the stumps down with the batsman halfway down the pitch, but the umpire calls for var, to 'check' he's out, when the batsman himself, has already walked off the pitch & is nearly on his way up the steps, because he's obviously out.

It's a fucking joke.

Rugby reviews every aspect, so Spurs' goal last night would have been disallowed as Kane encroached at kickoff. It would have taken ages to do it.

Poll last night saw a clear pen on replay, & decided it was a 'good challenge'.

By half time, he had changed his mind.

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.

There were multiple instances of players seen to be cheating claiming catches, hence why it was introduced in the first place.

Kane's goal shouldn't of stood.... it took 1 second of the first replay to see he was in the wrong half, not sure why you thought it would take ages to resolve. It clearly wouldn't.

What penalty incident are you talking about with Poll?

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

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.

There were multiple instances of players seen to be cheating claiming catches, hence why it was introduced in the first place.

Kane's goal shouldn't of stood.... it took 1 second of the first replay to see he was in the wrong half, not sure why you thought it would take ages to resolve. It clearly wouldn't.

What penalty incident are you talking about with Poll?

yes, Neville being over-dramatic over cricket. "Umpire's call" is there for instances where the technology says the ball may have clipped the stumps, but given the margin for error in the technology it's not 100% conclusive it would definitely hit the stumps so the umpire's decision stands. If more than half the ball is shown to be hitting the stumps then that is seen as sufficient to overrule it. Works perfectly fine, it has a defined set of parameters which are consistently upheld.

 

[Bluearmy]

yes, Neville being over-dramatic over cricket. "Umpire's call" is there for instances where the technology says the ball may have clipped the stumps, but given the margin for error in the technology it's not 100% conclusive it would definitely hit the stumps so the umpire's decision stands. If more than half the ball is shown to be hitting the stumps then that is seen as sufficient to overrule it. Works perfectly fine, it has a defined set of parameters which are consistently upheld.

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..

 

[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.