Your idea seems like a mix of Cricket and Rugby systems and ultimately I see it following along these lines. A big problem I would see with a Captains Appeal is how far back in play might the incident be. Perhaps a foul 90 seconds earlier before the goal?Here’s my take on VAR, clarified by today’s hoo ha.
1. Always accept the on field decision and do not allow VAR to interfere, subject to:
2. Exception to rule above: Captains have three appeals available. If an appeal is made VAR then advises the ref, who watches the screen. After discussion, ref gives his final decision. If successful, the appeal is preserved, if not it is lost.
3. If Ref is uncertain about something he can ask VAR for help, but he must give his on field decision first.
4.Result:
Fewer arguments on tiny margins.
Fewer long referrals.
VAR no longer second reffing.
No clear and obvious definition needed.
According to several reports, one of which is in the Daily Telegraph. The sensors in the ball could not indicate whether the ball had completely crossed the line.
It goes on to say it was the var official looking at still images that made the decision.
As others have said, which frame was used. Cynical Blues saying conspiracy can be laughed off, ITV asking why the image they saw was not used nor seen again can't be.
I go back to my point, before Var we sat here slagging decisions and we sit here with Var slagging decisions. It is a waste of time.
I therefore revert back to what I posted minutes ago from the Telegraph and other sources. According to FIFA the sensors could not detect whether the ball was in or out, it was the Var official who made the decision.There is an inertial sensor in the ball that should determine the moment the ball was kicked to 1/500th of a second. There are no emitters in the ball or on the players to determine location, this is done by 12 cameras around the ground. The exact location of the ball when it moves can be interpolated between frames to determine with greater accuracy than 50 FPS. 500 FPS as I said.
The choice of frame shouldn't be an issue as the inertial sensor is very precise. Much more precise than bloody ITV anyway. They are the ones guessing the frame. FIFA are not.
I don't think :)
I therefore revert back to what I posted minutes ago from the Telegraph and other sources. According to FIFA the sensors could not detect whether the ball was in or out, it was the Var official who made the decision.
I can't believe people are moaning by a correct decision that keeps a team that deserves to be in the knockouts actually in the knockouts. I've seen loads of pictures showing the ball stayed in by a few mm I' haven't seen any pictures showing the ball was at. Not a single one so for me that is enough evidence I need to say it was in
Re Japan. Maybe, but my point is, it hasn't stopped the controversial decisions. In fact there are more. In the past everyone would say the lino made an honest mistake/was correct, it is now 3 days of arguments about who called it, why and for what reason. @Bluearmy is now saying goal line technology called it but that is on the refs wrist so I think that's wrong. It simply highlights the confusion var causes.