VAR thread 2022/23

[SCEtoAUX]

I'll keep it simple.

The technology doesn't exist to conclusively prove, one way or another, whether, at a single moment in time, that all of a ball was over all of a line.

For example, it may be the case that last night, that the ball crossed the line, by a micrometre, in one ten thousand of a second.

We will never know.

 

[Stephen230]

Fair enough, thanks. Would still like to know if they used the inertia sensors to determine when the ball was kicked though. If they didn't, I have been talking bollocks all day and I will have to get my conspiracy hat out again :)

Can’t remember where I saw it now but almost certain it’s been officially confirmed that the VAR relies solely on the standard cameras for decisions like this.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Can’t remember where I saw it now but almost certain it’s been officially confirmed that the VAR relies solely on the standard cameras for decisions like this.

Well that would bollocks from me then :)

And I would have to change sides, because I can. There is no way they can judge that accurately to 10 mm manually if they can't determine precisely when the ball was kicked. Should have stayed with the on-field decision if that is the case.

 

[SebastianBlue]

I'll keep it simple.

The technology doesn't exist to conclusively prove, one way or another, whether, at a single moment in time, that all of a ball was over all of a line.

For example, it may be the case that last night, that the ball crossed the line, by a micrometre, in one ten thousand of a second.

We will never know.

Correct.

The call may have been right, it may have been wrong.

But it is important, for the sake of maintaining reasonable scrutiny on the powers that be (who have proven to be corrupt many times over), that we do not foster delusions of the decision being an objective truth.

Doing that gives them power they shouldn't have.

 

[Stephen230]

Well that would bollocks from me then :)

And I would have to change sides, because I can. There is no way they can judge that accurately to 10 mm manually if they can't determine precisely when the ball was kicked. Should have stayed with the on-field decision if that is the case.

Fair enough. But I’d disagree. You can rarely be 100% sure about anything. But while it’s extremely close I think there’s enough evidence to say the ball just about stayed in play.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Fair enough. But I’d disagree. You can rarely be 100% sure about anything. But while it’s extremely close I think there’s enough evidence to say the ball just about stayed in play.

I hear what you are saying and I would like to trust what we are shown but it's the old offside argument again, isn't it?

A single frame either way will often change the outcome, and certainly in this case. When the choice of frame is automated by an inertia sensor people may not like the super-accuracy but at least it takes that manual element out of the process, which is why the SAOT is generally better accepted and has been a success, imo. But when it's down to some guy choosing a frame, the old suspicions of, at best, incompetence, and, at worst, manipulation, come straight back again.

The evidence given by FIFA shows the ball just in, but only on the basis of a frame chosen by eyesight. I hope these guys have better eyesight than I do. :)

 

[Stephen230]

I hear what you are saying and I would like to trust what we are shown but it's the old offside argument again, isn't it?

A single frame either way will often change the outcome, and certainly in this case. When the choice of frame is automated by an inertia sensor people may not like the super-accuracy but at least it takes that manual element out of the process, which is why the SAOT is generally better accepted and has been a success, imo. But when it's down to some guy choosing a frame, the old suspicions of, at best, incompetence, and, at worst, manipulation, come straight back again.

The evidence given by FIFA shows the ball just in, but only on the basis of a frame chosen by eyesight. I hope these guys have better eyesight than I do. :)

Yeah but unless you believe the whole thing is bent, In which case all discussion is pointless. Then you’ve got to trust they firstly pick what they believe is the most accurate frame and then go about deciding the decision. If you trust that’s what happened, then I think a goal was the right decision in this case.

 

[SebastianBlue]

Yeah but unless you believe the whole thing is bent, In which case all discussion is pointless. Then you’ve got to trust they firstly pick what they believe is the most accurate frame and then go about deciding the decision. If you trust that’s what happened, then I think a goal was the right decision in this case.

I prefer the trust but verify approach. And any system that cannot be verified--in this case VAR, which is in many respects a black box setup because of their refusal to disclose accuracy thresholds and margins of error across the various supporting systems, or mic officials so we can hear directly the decision making process--especially when it *could easily be verified*, but those that control it choose not to allow it to be, should not be blindly trusted.

 

[cleavers]

I've said this many times, VAR is anti football, where the whole point of the game is GOALS, and all VAR seems to do is get rid of them, why would a sport want to get rid of it's main point of playing ?

I for one applaud the goal being given and not chalked off yesterday, there is no conclusive proof it went out of play, therefore it should stand, same with the very marginal offsides (that law should now be "clearly" offside imho, ie a clear gap).

Stop cancelling goals, give them unless very obvious mistakes are made.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

Best way to make Var more efficient is to fuck it off completely..
I can't stand Var and nobody around where I sit wants it either..
I doubt that many match going fans want it either.
All season ticket holders from every Premier League club should be asked to vote on whether they want Var or not..and if a majority want it then it stays and if the majority don't want it then it's gone.
I was in favour of Var before it came in but now I fucking hate it..it's ruining the game we love.

I've said this many times, VAR is anti football, where the whole point of the game is GOALS, and all VAR seems to do is get rid of them, why would a sport want to get rid of it's main point of playing ?

I for one applaud the goal being given and not chalked off yesterday, there is no conclusive proof it went out of play, therefore it should stand, same with the very marginal offsides (that law should now be "clearly" offside imho, ie a clear gap).

Stop cancelling goals, give them unless very obvious mistakes are made.

I'v thoughnt about that recently. I wonder if the goals scored across the PL has gone down since VAR's introduction?