VAR (PL introduction 2019)

[Machiavelli]

No point closing the stable door now. VAR is a reality, so all those things you're saying aren't going to matter. But I agree totally that so much of it is subjective that we're going to be exchanging one set of arguments for another - the best we can hope for is an improvement in some areas, with the understanding that things like long delays are going to be the price paid for it.

But we have long delays now. Players pretending to be injured, deliberate time wasting, linesmen getting injured like at our last match.

 

[Henkeman]

But we have long delays now. Players pretending to be injured, deliberate time wasting, linesmen getting injured like at our last match.

That's true, but crowd dissatisfaction with standing watching a referee pressing a finger to his ear is pretty clear. It's not insurmountable of course - letting the crowd see what is going on would be a step towards that, and I suspect something that will have to happen.

 

[SWP's back]

From Telegraph article :
"Despite the assistant referee initially flagging for offside, that decision was overturned by video technology and a penalty awarded based on the image below:"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal..._source=LI&li_medium=li-recommendation-widget

Now another report is claiming VAR officials did not have access to the angle that Sarri pointed to which just shows how badly this is being implemented.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/footbal...-harry-kane-goal-did-not-have-access-chelsea/

And yet I’ve watched it a dozen times and he doesn’t flag.

Not like a write up to be wrong though as we all know.

 

[Machiavelli]

That's true, but crowd dissatisfaction with standing watching a referee pressing a finger to his ear is pretty clear. It's not insurmountable of course - letting the crowd see what is going on would be a step towards that, and I suspect something that will have to happen.

I would welcome that and hearing the comms whilst they’re deciding the outcome as well. Those in the ground would then have a detailed view of what’s going on and how the outcome was arrived at. It does raise suspicion when they wrap everything up in cloak and dagger - remember how long they resisted GLT, now non goals like the 1.12cm from Liverpool aren’t even in doubt. Imagine paying good money and attending a match and not being valued enough to be informed of what’s happening with match decisions that go to VAR.

 

[Henkeman]

I would welcome that and hearing the comms whilst they’re deciding the outcome as well. Those in the ground would then have a detailed view of what’s going on and how the outcome was arrived at. It does raise suspicion when they wrap everything up in cloak and dagger - remember how long they resisted GLT, now non goals like the 1.12cm from Liverpool aren’t even in doubt. Imagine paying good money and attending a match and not being valued enough to be informed of what’s happening with match decisions that go to VAR.

Now, that's the interesting one. They've always refused that point blank - possibly because of the abuse and swearing that might go on. Like so much to do with football, they're never prepared to put up with the two weeks of chaos before players learn to keep their mouths shut. I guess there's no reason it couldn't be turned on for the VAR and off again afterwards, but it's a slight surprise football has never cottoned on to the potential ref link sales that are possible in the stadium.

 

[burning blue soul]

That's a Star Trek answer I'm afraid.

not really, its easily done. think of the "bullet time" cameras of the Matrix film, mounted high up on the stands, the tech was there for this 20 years ago.

 

[aguero93:20]

That's a Star Trek answer I'm afraid.

It's not, the tech has been around since the early 90s.
https://www.aerialcamerasystems.com/rails-wire

Mass produced up to 170m in length, tracking up to 75km/h with instantaneous reaction to changes, incredible frame rates and programming them to stick to the furthest right or left sensor would be child's play.
That's off the shelf stuff, not even custom made.

 

[ultimateharold]

Now, that's the interesting one. They've always refused that point blank - possibly because of the abuse and swearing that might go on. Like so much to do with football, they're never prepared to put up with the two weeks of chaos before players learn to keep their mouths shut. I guess there's no reason it couldn't be turned on for the VAR and off again afterwards, but it's a slight surprise football has never cottoned on to the potential ref link sales that are possible in the stadium.

Could just have var refs on mic like in cricket

 

[Henkeman]

It's not, the tech has been around since the early 90s.
https://www.aerialcamerasystems.com/rails-wire

Mass produced up to 170m in length, tracking up to 75km/h with instantaneous reaction to changes, incredible frame rates and programming them to stick to the furthest right or left sensor would be child's play.
That's off the shelf stuff, not even custom made.

Individual components saying tracking is possible is simply not the same as being able to do multiple targets and positioning over a football field including all elements required for a fully three dimensional picture. You have 14 cameras needed just for goal line technology, the scale required for an entire football field, 22 players and a ball is off the scale.

 

[aguero93:20]

Individual components saying tracking is possible is simply not the same as being able to do multiple targets and positioning over a football field including all elements required for a fully three dimensional picture. You have 14 cameras needed just for goal line technology, the scale required for an entire football field, 22 players and a ball is off the scale.

You don't need 22 players, you're over-complicating it. You need the deepest outfield player on each side, a wide field lens and as high a frame rate as possible. The tracking part is easy.

 

[Henkeman]

You don't need 22 players, you're over-complicating it. You need the deepest outfield player on each side, a wide field lens and as high a frame rate as possible. The tracking part is easy.

No, you're over-simplifying it. You need to be able to track in three dimensions otherwise it's impossible to judge whether it is entirely in line or not. That's precisely the reason you need so many cameras for goal line technology which in principle is just about one fixed line, and they then need calibrating.

Just the ball tracking for cricket or tennis too needs multiple cameras calibrated to follow that, which don't always pick up properly, and which cannot operate outside their narrow field. This is why you can't use Hawkeye to work out low catches after taking the edge, even though it nominally should be tracking the ball path.

If you want to advocate a camera following the line of the last defender, that's fine. But it doesn't help because it can't possibly do anything other than follow.

 

[burning blue soul]

You don't need 22 players, you're over-complicating it. You need the deepest outfield player on each side, a wide field lens and as high a frame rate as possible. The tracking part is easy.

you cant have a tracking camera, at least at low level. there are other variables to consider, the players warming up, managers, 4th official, physios and injured players getting in the way of the camera. it has to be high up and linked to the ball being kicked and the sensor on the forward players body.

 

[aguero93:20]

No, you're over-simplifying it. You need to be able to track in three dimensions otherwise it's impossible to judge whether it is entirely in line or not. That's precisely the reason you need so many cameras for goal line technology which in principle is just about one fixed line, and they then need calibrating.

Just the ball tracking for cricket or tennis too needs multiple cameras calibrated to follow that, which don't always pick up properly, and which cannot operate outside their narrow field. This is why you can't use Hawkeye to work out low catches after taking the edge, even though it nominally should be tracking the ball path.

If you want to advocate a camera following the line of the last defender, that's fine. But it doesn't help because it can't possibly do anything other than follow.

Why do you need to track in 3 dimensions to make a decision based on one axis? If the camera is dead in line on width, it doesn't need to worry about height or depth.
If you have a still, dead in line with the last defender, on a high enough frame rate to capture the exact moment the pass is played, then you have the perfect picture for the VAR or on field referee to make a call. Problem solved. Goal line technology needs to automatically inform the referee as soon as the ball crosses the line, this just needs to track the offside line to result in a simpler and more accurate decision for the human official.

 

[aguero93:20]

you cant have a tracking camera, at least at low level. there are other variables to consider, the players warming up, managers, 4th official, physios and injured players getting in the way of the camera. it has to be high up and linked to the ball being kicked and the sensor on the forward players body.

I'm aware of that mate, it should be on a high rail. It doesn't need to be linked to the ball being kicked though, it needs to be recording video constantly at as high a frame rate as possible on a wide lens and linked to a sensor on the last defender to keep it on the correct point of the rail.

 

[Henkeman]

Why do you need to track in 3 dimensions to make a decision based on one axis? If the camera is dead in line on width, it doesn't need to worry about height or depth.
If you have a still, dead in line with the last defender, on a high enough frame rate to capture the exact moment the pass is played, then you have the perfect picture for the VAR or on field referee to make a call. Problem solved. Goal line technology needs to automatically inform the referee as soon as the ball crosses the line, this just needs to track the offside line to result in a simpler and more accurate decision for the human official.

Because it is impossible for technology to remain level in all instances. It can only respond to movement and is necessarily behind it. By definition, it will not be in that axis, it will be slightly to one side or the other. These things are far more complex than they might initially appear, which is why you don't just have two cameras on the inside of a goal post looking across - which is the equivalent concept.

 

[aguero93:20]

Because it is impossible for technology to remain level in all instances. It can only respond to movement and is necessarily behind it. By definition, it will not be in that axis, it will be slightly to one side or the other. These things are far more complex than they might initially appear, which is why you don't just have two cameras on the inside of a goal post looking across - which is the equivalent concept.

These rail cameras can track bullets over a kilometre when custom made mate, they won't have any problem keeping level with a backtracking centre half. As already said, they're there to grab a still picture, not to make a decision and would need nothing on the scale of GLT which needs to make an instantaneous decision across every millimetre of a 3D shape. Bringing these in would result in far, far more accuracy than the current camera system.

 

[Henkeman]

These rail cameras can track bullets over a kilometre when custom made mate, they won't have any problem keeping level with a backtracking centre half. As already said, they're there to grab a still picture, not to make a decision and would need nothing on the scale of GLT which needs to make an instantaneous decision across every millimetre of a 3D shape. Bringing these in would result in far, far more accuracy than the current camera system.

It's not about tracking. It's about the need to be side on all the time which is a logical and scientific impossibility. The only way you could do that would be multiple tracking cameras a la Hawkeye, but over an enormous area and trying to track all players plus the ball.

This is why it's vastly more complex than you are claiming, and exactly why I'm saying that you need all those cameras just for goal line technology. They don't refuse to just have those two cameras in the goalposts for a giggle, but because proper tracking needs multiple points of origin.

Same reason you have anything between 8 and 16 cameras for cricket ball tracking. The fewer you have, the less accurate it is.

 

[aguero93:20]

It's not about tracking. It's about the need to be side on all the time which is a logical and scientific impossibility. The only way you could do that would be multiple tracking cameras a la Hawkeye, but over an enormous area and trying to track all players plus the ball.

This is why it's vastly more complex than you are claiming, and exactly why I'm saying that you need all those cameras just for goal line technology. They don't refuse to just have those two cameras in the goalposts for a giggle, but because proper tracking needs multiple points of origin.

Same reason you have anything between 8 and 16 cameras for cricket ball tracking. The fewer you have, the less accurate it is.

You're tracking across 360° in cricket, not from left to right. We're literally working across one axis with offside. One.

 

[Henkeman]

You're tracking across 360° in cricket, not from left to right. We're literally working across one axis with offside. One.

No, you aren't. Because the time the ball is passed is essential to that for one thing, so focusing on one line is only half the story. And secondly, it is a scientific impossibility for technology to be perfectly side on all the time - that immediately means it has to be tracked in three dimensions to account for the inevitable offset.

If you have a device that can anticipate the movements of sentient beings perfectly and not react to what they do (and thus be behind) then NASA would love to hear from you.

 

[aguero93:20]

No, you aren't. Because the time the ball is passed is essential to that for one thing, so focusing on one line is only half the story. And secondly, it is a scientific impossibility for technology to be perfectly side on all the time - that immediately means it has to be tracked in three dimensions to account for the inevitable offset.

If you have a device that can anticipate the movements of sentient beings perfectly and not react to what they do (and thus be behind) then NASA would love to hear from you.

As I've already said mate, you don't need to track the ball if you have as wide angle a lens as possible and as high a frame rate as possible. Neither do you need to anticipate when you're tracking across one axis at multiple times the speed.