VAR Thread - 2021/22

[Elbow beards]

This isn't accurate because of the perspective, but shows how our eyes can deceive us.

When you draw a line from the back of the Watford player's foot, then go up from the edge of the green line, it looks like a borderline decision on his sleeve, with the head well onside.

Unless you've got the image with the straight on angle at ground level, and both lines showing being drawn down, there's no way we can know if a call as close as this is correct or not.

View attachment 40635

You talk about perspective, then you just draw a line on it straight up to highlight your argument. That line you drew should also be at angle that is perpendicular to the floor, which would be hard to work out without taking correct measurements.

 

[Jam Tomorrow]

Watford goal today

Complete bollocks, it’s blatant manipulation. The drawing of the infamous lines is done manually by some faceless official miles from the action. Until it’s completely automated it’s at best guesswork at worst cheating.

 

[bluenova]

You talk about perspective, then you just draw a line on it straight up to highlight your argument. That line you drew should also be at angle that is perpendicular to the floor, which would be hard to work out without taking correct measurements.

The image was posted to show an apparently obvious offside that was given onside. All I'm doing is pointing out that even though it looks clear, it's not obvious at all.

I said you can't tell from that image whether it's on or off, so where the poster can look at it and say it's off, I can draw some lines which show it's on. I have no idea if it's off or on, but it does show that you can't make a judgement from that image.

 

[mat]

VAR being used to manipulate results!

Who knew...?

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

Why do you assume that's offside? It's pretty much impossible to tell on this shot due to the perspective.

Sure, his head is ahead of that green line, but at a point that is yards further away. If you look where his boot is, and then go back a little for his body, and draw up from the green line, then it's right on the outer edge of his shirt.

Add in that we're looking down on the play at a wonky angle, so even drawing straight up is guess work. I'd say it's another close one, but you'd need to see the actual VAR picture with both lines and the points they're drawing down from to make any kind of judgement.

...and what do the shadows of the players on the pitch tell you?

 

[bluenova]

...and what do the shadows of the players on the pitch tell you?

That this image proves nothing.

Do you know the relative height of the players? Is the guy at the back standing up straight? He could be a 6-12 inches higher than a smaller, stooping player. Is the sun at an angle that exaggerates that difference?

All I know is that with this image you can't prove the guy is offisde.

 

[salfordbluetrue]

Any one seen the repay? was that Stones jumping out of the way just in case the ball came near him, for liverpools first?

 

[bluetonium]

So we had confirmation today from our game, when the link between referee, 4th official and var match official broke on awarding Jesus'penalty, that the media can hear the audio from the var official. I didn't know that was the case.

One question, why do they need this? Interesting also that they choose not to broadcast the audio, there'd be no foul language from the var room you'd think.

 

[Millwallawayveteran1988]

Not sure how VAR deemed that Fernandes challenge to not be a red card.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Not sure how VAR deemed that Fernandes challenge to not be a red card.

I thought that would a be red card for Ferny! But the Rags missed one pen and VAR 'missed' another three they should have had. Seems that 'holding' is no longer a penal offence, and an Arse hand scooping the ball back isn't a handball after all!