VAR thread 2022/23

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Absolutely impossible to prove.

A bit like every argument in VAR then?

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

A bit like every argument in VAR then?

Presumably 2 of the City +3 are the Rodri handball at Goodson? This then suggests that Everton score the resultant penalty and, with 10+ minutes left, nothing else happens, which isn’t at all obvious.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Comparing the Newcastle offside with Rashford's offside, and looking specifically at the camera frame used to "lock in" the point the ball was played. With a blurred shot of the ball (Newcastle and virtually every other VAR offside decision I have ever seen) we all know the ball has been played. So the first camera shot showing a blurred ball is hard to argue against.

The VAR for Rashford goal though, shows a relatively still ball, which is a strong indication to me that the ball hasn't been passed at the time of the camera shot. They should have rolled the camera forward until we saw a definite blurring of the ball, in the direction of the pass.

I'm convinced Rashford was offside, and this would have been clearer had they moved the camera forward until we saw a blurred ball. I can't recall ever seeing a non-blurred shot of a ball before in a VAR offside call.

For what it's worth, I think Newcastle were offside too, and I'm also in the school of thought that measuring against the boots on the floor would eliminate 90% of any remaining controversy.

Can’t understand why they don’t just either do as you suggest and make it ‘feet only’ or say if any part of the forward is onside, it’s onside. Either would eliminate almost every controversial decision.

Whilst I’m at it though, a couple of other things they could do.
When the ref goes to the monitor, show him it in real time. When Dias was done for handball in the CS, the first image the ref saw was a still photograph of the ball on his hand, which must influence his decision.
Secondly, anything that’s ’obvious’ in real time, or within 10 seconds, just allow the VAR to change. I’m thinking specifically of the corner that’s given as a goal kick, just because nobody’s seen it hit someone.

 

[deano ou812]

Which players are VAR's biggest winners and losers?

We're into the third season of VAR in the Premier League, and ESPN can now reveal the players to have suffered most at the hands of the video ref.

www.espn.co.uk

But they most likely were right calls possibly the one the other night was a disgrace what happened to giving the attacker the benefit of the doubt it’s all to microscopic determined to go right down to a billionth of a millimetre ffs ..

 

[deano ou812]

Can’t understand why they don’t just either do as you suggest and make it ‘feet only’ or say if any part of the forward is onside, it’s onside. Either would eliminate almost every controversial decision.

Whilst I’m at it though, a couple of other things they could do.
When the ref goes to the monitor, show him it in real time. When Dias was done for handball in the CS, the first image the ref saw was a still photograph of the ball on his hand, which must influence his decision.
Secondly, anything that’s ’obvious’ in real time, or within 10 seconds, just allow the VAR to change. I’m thinking specifically of the corner that’s given as a goal kick, just because nobody’s seen it hit someone.

Also don’t forget what carragher said when talking about VAR and how they are privy to the conversation between ref and VAR,he mentioned that when ref is asked to go to screen the VAR official is constantly telling him about the incident so planting a seed of doubt in his mind before he gets to look at it ..

 

[halfcenturyup]

Presumably 2 of the City +3 are the Rodri handball at Goodson? This then suggests that Everton score the resultant penalty and, with 10+ minutes left, nothing else happens, which isn’t at all obvious.

Well yes, I think we can all agree that analyses like that are simplistic bollocks.

The appeal of football is that it is a fluid game, not really suited to stop/start decision reviews. Even time-wasting at goal kicks, throw-ins and injuries has a certain fan-involved fluidity to it, which is why I am against a stop-clock for when the ball is out of play. Delays will be much longer if there is absolutely no incentive to get the ball back in play, and how long would it be until the tv companies want ad breaks at each stop? Not for me, just apply the laws and interpretations properly and consistently and job done.

For other VAR issues, excluding handball and offside, I think it works pretty well. What doesn't work is the secrecy. Almost all commentators, pundits and fans have insufficient knowledge of the laws and guidelines and so feel confused/aggrieved when something they don't understand happens. Communication between officials needs to be heard in the stadium and on the tv, then we will probably all find that the referees actually do know what they are doing.

For handball, the L&Is need to be simpler not more complicated, so that normal people can understand them. They also need to make everyday sense, so that people can judge for themselves.

For offside, this search for absolute certainty needs to stop. There is no certainty in anything and, no matter how advanced the technology, if you try to show people a certainty that goes against their own eyes, you will have accusations of incompetence, bias or corruption. I like the idea of tolerance for the positions of the attacker and defender, and I think there should also be a tolerance for the frame where the ball is released as well. Show the offside result for the frame where it appears the ball has left the foot, then show it for the two or three frames before. Any onside decision on those three frames, then it is onside.

Just a few thoughts. Fire away if you are interested.

 

[SebastianBlue]

This begs the question as to why nobody has done a detailed analysis of the system then; especially given data analysts deem it to be corrupt. They could be deemed the saviours of football should their evidence stack up in that favour.

What you are suggesting us that you could do it, but won’t as you prefer to be angry at the system.

That’s cool, but you would need to accept that this is what your view means in reality.

No, I am not suggesting that nor have I ever suggested that I could. In fact, I have said many times no one outside of the PL and the companies that developed the systems can fully analyse them. That’s part of the frustration and why corruption is very likely: this is not a transparent system, even though it could be. Again, the PL *chooses* to make it opaque (ever more so with each passing “improvement”).

Not sure where you got that from.

I am, however, offering my professional assessment of analyses done by other groups, as I have regarding that ESPN VAR impact story. That is because I have access to that end-user info and the basic methodology they use (it’s included with their analysis).

I am doing what I can do, on here, and elsewhere, to expose the ways this system can be used to manipulate match outcomes And advocate for a more transparent system.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Alan the bit in bold - no that's not the case I have not commented on my views or his views, I commented on the fact that he will not accept anyone else's view on this. I am not sure what you are trying to get across to me here. For your information, I have posted before, VAR is a great tool, being run by great tools. But that is not my issue here, my issue is the confrontational approach he takes and to be honest the same tone you have taken here?

I ask genuine non confrontational questions and get told I'm being a WUM or shouted down

I've had to state so many times that VAR is not perfect, I'm not a massive fan of it, I totally understand for many it takes away the celebration side of the game and that it needs to be more transparent - many of the negatives I have taken onboard and totally accepted from views on this forum.

 

[BlueHammer85]

But they most likely were right calls possibly the one the other night was a disgrace what happened to giving the attacker the benefit of the doubt it’s all to microscopic determined to go right down to a billionth of a millimetre ffs ..

If they were the right calls against Salah then where is the corruption ?

Salah, meanwhile, has also been ruled offside three times, plus Roberto Firmino was penalised for handball in the build-up for Salah's goal against Tottenham.
Mane, meanwhile, has had two goals ruled out for his own offside offence, and two for handball.

without VAR those goals could easily just have stood

 

[SebastianBlue]

If they were the right calls against Salah then where is the corruption ?

Salah, meanwhile, has also been ruled offside three times, plus Roberto Firmino was penalised for handball in the build-up for Salah's goal against Tottenham.
Mane, meanwhile, has had two goals ruled out for his own offside offence, and two for handball.

without VAR those goals could easily just have stood

Again, I think most reasonable posters in this thread are discussing marginal decisions—that is the decisions that can be manipulated one way or another and then be explained away with no reasonable expectation of further scrutiny.

And I have personally said many times that they do not always attempt to manipulate, nor are they always successful when they do.

The issue is the opportunity to manipulate and examples of where they could have easily being doing so, all the while continually making VAR (and officiating in general) less transparent, not more.

That last point is the greatest indication of likely manipulation, because it is unnecessary. The PL could choose to make officiating and VAR more transparent but they do not. In fact, since the adoption of VAR specifically, they have taken steps to make the system and decision-making more opaque, not less.